Dachel Media Update: Measles as Reason to Attack Healthcare Choice
PLAGUE vs. THE PANIC VIRUS

Puliyel Further Challenges Study Authors, Baldo et al, Over GSK Vaccine Deaths

InfanrixBy John Stone

Dr Jacob Puliyel who last week published evidence that GSK and the European Medicines Agency had covered up or overlooked 69 deaths from the vaccine Infanrix Hexa  has published a further challenge  to the authors of a study exonerating the vaccine.  He points out that the rate of death is up to 5 times worse than the GSK document suggests because the denominator is not the number of vaccines distributed but the number of administrations, bearing in mind that in most instances the infants died on first administration (and there are up to 5 doses). He also points out that European agency had delicensed an earlier hexavalent vaccine of similar profile manufactured by Sanofi and Merck after 13 deaths. This, of course, poses huge questions not only about the product but the culture of the manufacturing company and the licensing agency.

Puliyel writes:

Apropos the earlier posting there are a couple of other facts that we must consider when looking at the incidence of sudden unexplained deaths immediately following vaccination with Infanrix.

a) The safety assessment document has used the number of doses of vaccine distributed as the denominator. The report acknowledges that all the doses of the vaccine distributed, need not have been utilized.

There can be another argument against using this denominator. As each child is given up to 5 doses (https://www.gsksource.com/gskprm/htdocs/documents/INFANRIX.PDF) and they could die after any one of the doses (and you can die only once), perhaps it would be more appropriate to look at the number of deaths against the number of babies vaccinated (rather than the number of units of vaccine distributed). The appropriate denominator would be about one fifth the denominator used in the report.

b) Appendix 5A in the document sent to the regulator gives the International Event Report in 13 fatal cases. It can be seen in this sample that there were more deaths after the first dose than after the second and more after the second than after the third dose. This is a pattern seen with adverse events following immunization (AEFI) that are causatively related.

c) In May 2005, Zinka and colleagues have reported six cases of sudden infant deaths caused by another hexavalent vaccine (similar to Infanrix), called Hexavac Zinka B, 2006. Marketing authorization in the European Union was withdrawn in August 2005 (Doc.Ref.EMEA/207369/2005).

d) The CIOMS /WHO’s have revised the widely used Brighton Protocol for assessment of AEFI. The new scheme facilitates misclassification of vaccine related deaths as [Not an AEFI] and this has been discussed on PubMed Commons earlier. (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19061929 ) (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23452584 ) (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24021304 ).

e) In some ways the deaths with Infanrix is similar to deaths seen with the use in Asia of Pentavalent vaccine against 5 disease ( DPT, hepatitis B, Hib vaccines) Puliyel J, 2013. Some of these deaths have been investigated by the WHO using this revised method and the vaccine had been declared safe.

f) The deaths are completely unnecessary as the vaccines could have been given separately, and separately they have a long track record of safety. One hopes that the findings will result in an honest assessment of the harms being done by these new combined vaccines.

Conclusion

As mentioned earlier there is nothing sacrosanct about the original Brighton Classification (https://www.who.int/vaccine_safety/publications/AEFI_aide_memoire.pdf) but one has to evaluate the two schemes (Brighton vs CIOMS) from the point of view of patient safety to see which scheme would react to rare vaccine related adverse reaction signals early. “The causality scheme that insists on calling all reactions as ‘indeterminate’ or ‘inconsistent/coincidental’ just because they were not noticed in the original small clinical trials, undermines the very raison d'être of post marketing surveillance. Patient safety (meaning  protecting patients) rather than vaccine safety (protecting vaccines) should be more important.”

 

Comments

Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.

michael

One of the early investigations done on the DPT and the horrific reactions which accompanied its use, was actually aired on TV. Don't remember the station, but around 1996(?) It was revealed that the FDA through VAERS could "give you" the numerator, but "could not", "would not" give you the denominator. The reason being that the size of the lot (denominator) was proprietary information owned by the drug companies.

A numerator without the denominator and just WHO is anti-science? And they wonder why we are so skeptical.

Jeannette Bishop

"...perhaps it would be more appropriate to look at the number of deaths against the number of babies vaccinated (rather than the number of units of vaccine distributed). The appropriate denominator would be about one fifth the denominator used in the report."

Honestly?!?

And the report mentions reporting bias, so does that mean physicians were not reporting every adverse event, just events they thought "might be" related to the vaccine?

david m burd

John, Another fine expose we can pass on to many others, THANKS.

Barry

The "unsafe" label for vaccines has been affirmed by the Supreme Court. Vaccines are a priori unsafe. That the lack of safety is unavoidable is never really addressed. Why are they categorically unavoidably unsafe, and why is there no attempt to make vaccines safer?

***********

Heck they're not even required to prove that they work.

Birgit Calhoun

The "unsafe" label for vaccines has been affirmed by the Supreme Court. Vaccines are a priori unsafe. That the lack of safety is unavoidable is never really addressed. Why are they categorically unavoidably unsafe, and why is there no attempt to make vaccines safer?

Bob Moffitt

As I have often said .. most of the "SCIENCE" defending vaccines is not really SCIENCE .. it is "SOPHISTRY" masquerading as science.

The manipulation of critical data is just one tool of the practicing sophists .. by which they have enormous opportunity to spew false and fraudulent statistics .. such as .. using the numbers of vaccines "distributed" rather than the actual number of vaccine "administered".

It has gone on since the beginning of vaccinations .. and .. it is very unlikely to stop because the SOPHISTS are now securely entrenched within GLOBAL health organizations .. such as .. WHO.

AND THE BAND PLAYS ON ....

Jenny Allan

GSK and the WHO collectively dismiss all unexplained infant deaths following Infanrix as 'coincidences'. After all, some babies die anyway, don't they? A base line of '20 infant deaths a day' is used for comparison purposes, although where these figures came from God only knows!!

The baseline 'population', also used for statistical comparisons, as Dr Puliyel points out, was nothing to do with REAL numbers of administrations of vaccines to infants, but instead was based on marketing data, i.e. the number of vaccines sold, whether used or not!!

It is said that 'Comparisons are Odious' and there are 'Lies, Damned Lies, and Statistics.'

The 'bottom line' here is a large number of infants died a few days after receiving this vaccine. Parents want ANSWERS, not glib regurgitations of false 'epidemiological safety studies'.

Verify your Comment

Previewing your Comment

This is only a preview. Your comment has not yet been posted.

Working...
Your comment could not be posted. Error type:
Your comment has been saved. Comments are moderated and will not appear until approved by the author. Post another comment

The letters and numbers you entered did not match the image. Please try again.

As a final step before posting your comment, enter the letters and numbers you see in the image below. This prevents automated programs from posting comments.

Having trouble reading this image? View an alternate.

Working...

Post a comment

Comments are moderated, and will not appear until the author has approved them.

Your Information

(Name and email address are required. Email address will not be displayed with the comment.)