2016 Election: Hillary Clinton and the Third Rail of Vaccination
Dachel Media Update: WaPo Should Ask Hard Questions of Clinton

Bexsero: More Questions for the British and Scottish Governments Over Vaccine Committee Chair

Pollardandrew2.previewBy John Stone

Further evidence has come to light relating to the UK government vaccine committee chair, Prof Andrew Pollard, and the controversial Meningitis B vaccine, Bexsero, which the committee recommended for use in February 2014 . A document from the Higher Education Funding Council (HEFC) assessing the impact of scientific research projects stresses the key role of Prof Pollard in the development of meningitis vaccines and Bexsero in particular - and the product was founded on Prof Pollard's patents.The document states:

Underpinning research:

Meningococcal disease is the leading infectious cause of death in children in the UK, and its prevention is a major objective of the Oxford Vaccine Group, directed by Professor Andrew Pollard. During the period from 2001-2013 more than 10,000 volunteers were enrolled in clinical studies in Oxford, mainly children, and the research provided new insight into the design, development and evaluation of novel vaccines for meningitis and specifically meningococcal disease.

Clinical Trials of New Meningitis Vaccines

The University of Oxford has been at the forefront of the evaluation of novel meningitis candidates in infants and young children. The first global clinical trials in infants of a quadrivalent meningococcal vaccine (MenACYW, Menveo, Novartis vaccines)…, a combination Haemophilus influenza type -serogroup C meningococcal vaccine (Menitorix, GSK vaccines)…and the first trials of the leading serogroup B meningococcal candidate vaccine (MenB, Bexsero, Novartis vaccines)…were undertaken in Oxford and Professor Pollard was the chief investigator for the pan-European phase 3 study of theMenB vaccine (1,885 infants enrolled)... These studies showed that the vaccines were safe and highly immunogenic in infants and toddlers. Oxford researchers have alsoled the development of novel vaccine candidates for the prevention of serogroup B meningococcal disease.

Regarding the meningitis B research the document records:

Studies on serogroup B meningococcal vaccines have led to major media interest following conference presentations of trials conducted in Oxford including numerous newspaper reports, front page coverage by the Independent (2008), Daily Mail and extensive BBC News reporting. The first infant studies of a new serogroup B vaccine (Bexsero) were conducted in Oxford and have been extensively cited. Professor Pollard was asked to give evidence to the World Health Organization in April 2011 on serogroup B meningococcal vaccine... In addition, the first phase 3 infant study in Europe, led by Oxford University investigators, assembled with data from other global studies, led to licensure of the vaccine by the European Medicines Agency in early 2013. A recommendation in the UK for use of the vaccine among high risk groups and laboratory workers has been made.., and its routine use for children is being considered by the Department of Health…The design and development of new vaccines for serogroup B meningococcus by Oxford University have led to a number of patents on the candidate vaccines (based on various surface proteins including Opa, PorAm and FetA), which provide a licensing position for the University as these vaccines progress through early phase clinical trials.

Conduct of Trials:

Studies on plain polysaccharide meningococcal and pneumococcal vaccines provided the first direct demonstration that these vaccines do not induce memory B cells, explaining the phenomenon of hyporesponsiveness (where “booster” doses of vaccines do not induce an immune response). This led to a change in policy for vaccine trials, which had previously used plain polysaccharides to test immunological memory. This outcome was cited in a commentary from Novartis Vaccines in 2009.

A web-search brings up four relevant patents in which Prof Pollard is named with co-inventors Martin Maiden and Ian Feavers . In two cases the patents also mention Isis Innovations Ltd, in one case as applicant and in the other as assignee – Isis Innovations is a subsidiary of the University of Oxford  .

Prof Pollard was appointed to the chairmanship of the Joint Committee on Vaccination and Immunisation (JCVI) in October 2013. The JCVI is the body that recommends vaccines inclusion in the schedule, and is equivalent to the US Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP).

The Oxford Vaccine Group, of which Pollard is Director is sub-division of the Jenner Institute, another Oxford body and charitable trust founded in 2005. In the minutes of the very same meeting in which the JCVI under Prof Pollard’s chairmanship agreed to recommend Bexsero we can also read:

The Committee agreed that: • The code of practice should be revised to indicate that members should avoid both specific and non-specific personal pecuniary interests involving vaccine manufacturers. since such interests might be perceived as conflicts, even if the interest is related to a non-vaccine product or a vaccine not under consideration by the Committee; • all other non-pecuniary non-specific and non-pecuniary specific interests should be declared as per the code of practice • those with specific interests will not be allowed to vote • involvement with charities was considered as a potential conflict and should be declared; personal pecuniary interests with charities should be avoided • any conflict of interest should continue to remain for one year after it ceased; • that where questions arose regarding potential conflicts of interest these should be raised with the secretariat and discussed with the Chair on a case by case basis, with the Committee notified of any decision; • members of JCVI Sub-committees should follow the same rules, however invited experts would be permitted to have pecuniary interests, although these should be declared and noted

But there can be no doubt that whatever financial arrangements Prof Pollard has come to with his complex of professional associations that he has a huge professional investment in the reputation and success of the product Bexsero.

These are the links to earlier articles in the Bexsero series:

Bexsero: Offit Article Still the Theoretical Basis of the Ever Expanding Vaccine Schedule

Angus Files and John Stone Speak at Public Petitions Committee - Scottish Parliament

GSK Document Appears to Show Vaccine Committee Chair Used Position to Favour Own Product

John Stone is UK Editor for Age of Autism.

 

 

 

 

.

Comments

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

Barry

in the dozen years or so since the Meningitis C vaccine was introduced in the UK there's been 10,000 fewer cases, probably prevented 700 deaths and saved about 1500 people having long term neurological damage https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/meningococcal-disease-laboratory-confirmed-cases-in-england-and-wales & https://www.meningitisnow.org/meningitis-explained/what-meningitis/types-and-causes/meningoccocal-disease/?gclid=CNjZ9MvFicsCFQrpwgodj1ECTg

Probably on a pro rata basis you could multiply those figures by 2.5 for the US That enough proof for you Barry?

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

Are scientific proofs usually so riddled with the word 'probably'?

You haven't proven anything to me. From where I'm sitting, all you've done is draw grandiose conclusions, based on statistical inferences that are weak at best.

Linda1

Eindecker,
Correct me if I'm wrong. You are proposing that it is "mind boggling stupid" not to inject every child in the UK with a drug that has a high rate of known and unknown serious side effects, including death, to prevent an infection that is rarer than those serious side effects. You propose injecting every child in the UK with a drug that has not been studied for carcinogenicity or effect on fertility and ability to reproduce, because of the rare death of one unfortunate child. You propose endangering every child in the UK by injecting every child with a drug that has the real potential to do great harm to them to prevent an infection that is not only rare, but whose incidence has been decreasing, without any vaccine.

Meningitis C is not Meningitis B. Furthermore, our CDC has stated that the incidence of decreasing cases of all meningitis groups serotypes were decreasing BEFORE any vaccine was given for any of them in any age group. Your chart shows correlation, not causation. Remember that? Perhaps the decrease in cases just happened to occur at the same time as the vaccine was introduced, especially taking into consideration the similar decrease in Men B cases for which there was no vaccine.

You are correct that there are times when medical treatment does not save a person and that is terrible. But to medicate entire populations with drugs that are not safe, poorly tested, and not known to even be effective - that is stupid and reckless. We do know, at least the CDC tells us, that children eventually develop natural antibodies to meningitis strains as they come into contact with them. By adulthood, the CDC says that 65-85% have immunity. We do not know what effect vaccination, which we are told by the CDC produces "short-term" immunity, has on the historic natural process of developing immunity to invasion by these organisms. We don't know if with like measles, people will then become more vulnerable to meningitis in middle age, where it is now even more rare than in early childhood and adolescence. (The Disney measles outbreak had a high percentage of vaccinated cases in their 20's and older - in my generation with few exceptions we were ALL immune to measles by age 15 - an outbreak like that would not have been possible until the vaccine shifted the age of vulnerability out of childhood, when the disease was most well tolerated - because my generation had and still has real herd immunity).

Authorities do not know why very few people get sick from these organisms that most of us come in contact with and some harbor with no problem. There are risk factors. That question should be solved first. As I mentioned earlier, all should be educated from an early age about the importance of long-term breastfeeding. By the time children graduate high school, they should have learned the important differences between human milk and artificial feeding and not on a superficial level. They should be able to cite and understand the scientific research. That in depth scientific knowledge should be a priority in school curriculums. The young should then be fully supported by our culture, government and in the workplace to breastfeed long-term. While nothing is 100%, breastfeeding does provide significant protection that is safe and free.

Scientists are just beginning to explore our relationship with other microscopic organisms and are finding out how important our microbes are to our health and survival. It is now known that microbes once considered to have only a pathogenic role, can also be beneficial. It would be wise not to wipe any out, or shift prevalence, or cause an increase in virulence, as vaccination is known to do, without understanding what the hell we're doing. Germ theory is becoming obsolete and with it, the archaic practice of vaccination. Remember when doctors were removing tonsils right and left? Then they decided that wasn't such a good idea. Remember hormone replacement in menopause? Did that for decades. KILLED a lot of women.

You are arguing along with hysterical people who signed a petition because they have been frightened by Pharma owned media into demanding a drug for a risk and benefit that they do not understand.

Re Barry - His child tragically has a lifelong injury resulting from the kind of program that you are proposing. He has a right to his attitude and you would be wise to be respectful and to listen to him.

John Stone

Eindeker

If the scientific case was so overwhelming don't you think it would have been much better and more convincing if Prof Pollard had left it to others to make a decision about a vaccine for which he was lead developer? Instead it looks like the JCVI have ridden a coach and horses through any rules that were invented to prevent conflict of interest. Why would they take the risk if it was such an irreproachably excellent product?

Eindeker

It's all written up Jenny, guidelines for dealing with suspected meningitis in primary & secondary care: https://www.nice.org.uk/guidance/cg102/chapter/1-guidance published in 2010, due for review at the end of this year. Unfortunately sometimes however quickly antibiotics are given it's impossible to deal with the rapid deterioration of the patient. That's why it is so mind boggling stupid that people should argue "Oh we haven't done genotoxicity studies, wait for long term outcomes etc etc to the utter banality of comments such as "I realize that you didn't ask me, but FWIW, I think that statement is complete and utter fantasy.How about you produce something that proves me wrong. If you can".

In the dozen years or so since the Meningitis C vaccine was introduced in the UK there's been 10,000 fewer cases, probably prevented 700 deaths and saved about 1500 people having long term neurological damage https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/meningococcal-disease-laboratory-confirmed-cases-in-england-and-wales & https://www.meningitisnow.org/meningitis-explained/what-meningitis/types-and-causes/meningoccocal-disease/?gclid=CNjZ9MvFicsCFQrpwgodj1ECTg

Probably on a pro rata basis you could multiply those figures by 2.5 for the US That enough proof for you Barry? If not there's a graph here which makes the benefit very clear http://www.ovg.ox.ac.uk/menc-vaccine
And John, please tell me using the same arguments just how long you would have recommended delaying granting market authorization for this meningitis vaccine for your "genotoxicity long term studies", (whatever that means & however you do it), 5, 10 20 ,just how many years? and for what justification?

Linda1

Jenny,

"Thanks to the publicity, the present Men B situation is chaotic in the UK, with thousands of parents clamouring for the jabs, mostly in private clinics. There is now a shortage of available Men B vaccine."

A win-win for the manufacturer and the UK government. Goods sold out and the government didn't have to pay for it.

John Stone

Hi Ronald

Exactly so. Even the results of superficial testing are highly discouraging, but of course what you point to is that if they did test for things you were talking about the vaccine could never reach the market. So much, for "first do no harm".

Jenny Allan

@Eindeker "look at this poor girl:Faye Burdett was taken to A&E with a rash on her forehead but died days later totally correct action by her parents but she still passed away, she may have been saved if the vaccine had been available to her"

Of course Faye's parents are not to blame. From what we have been told it would seem Faye was let down by the NHS systems, and new protocols are urgently needed with suspected infant meningitis cases. Surely it is better to err on the safe side and administer antibiotics, to suspected cases, even if the eventual diagnosis turns out not to be bacterial meningitis?

In addition to their terrible grief, Faye's parents will inevitably be blaming themselves, perhaps for not being assertive enough with medical professionals, who can sometimes be dismissive and patronising with worried parents. You seem to have had a similar experience. I hope it ended well. Our prayers and sympathy are with Faye's parents, but that won't bring back their beloved daughter. The European Medicines Agency, which passed Bexsero for paediatric and adult administration stated 8% of European Men B patients die. This is far too high for a treatable disease.

The Men B vaccine was simply not available to Faye. Her parents are campaigning for child 'blanket' Men B vaccinations, but this is neither practical nor desirable. The EMA states the vaccine should be targeted at the groups deemed most vulnerable. Thanks to the publicity, the present Men B situation is chaotic in the UK, with thousands of parents clamouring for the jabs, mostly in private clinics. There is now a shortage of available Men B vaccine.

http://www.ema.europa.eu/ema/index.jsp?curl=pages/news_and_events/news/2012/11/news_detail_001656.jsp&mid=WC0b01ac058004d5c1
Extract
"The impact of invasive disease in different age groups as well as the variability of antigen epidemiology for group-B strains in different geographical areas should be considered when vaccinating. Vaccination with Bexsero should be in accordance with official recommendations applicable in the Member States."

Benedetta

One little protein and hook an aluminium on it, or in the case of the Rubella just barely alive virus.

One little protein - think prion, and Parkinson's, Alzheimer, Kuru, Mad Cow disease - that is one little protein that causes a cascade of all the cells to start misfolding other proteins.

Kind of puts a spin on things, don't it!

Ronald Kostoff

John Stone,

This is my first comment on the Boxsero vaccine. I searched the Web for clinical trials of Boxsero, and found a short list on the Meningitis Research Foundation site (http://www.meningitis.org/menb-vaccine). I checked these references in Medline. Most of the trials take the same approach. They will vary timing parameters, and check antibody levels after short periods of time. They may also check for side effects for relatively short periods, perhaps up to six-twelve months in length.

The EMA has a Web site listing reports of clinical trials (http://www.ema.europa.eu/ema/index.jsp?curl=pages/medicines/human/medicines/002333/human_med_001614.jsp&mid=WC0b01ac058001d124)

The earliest document, essentially the pre-approval report, can be found at:
http://www.ema.europa.eu/docs/en_GB/document_library/EPAR_-_Public_assessment_report/human/002333/WC500137883.pdf

From that report:
"There were no studies on genotoxicity and carcinogenicity, which is in line with applicable guidelines" (p.22).
"The primary endpoint of studies contained within this dossier is to determine the proportion of subjects with hSBA titers equal to or above the threshold of 1:4 against each of three reference meningococcal serogroup B strains."
"Although the immune responses measured by SBA are expected to be protective, no efficacy data are available. This does not preclude the granting of the marketing authorisation based on immunogenicity data."

There are no long-term safety studies reported in any of the references I examined. In my eBook, I identified some papers showing medium- moderately long-term impacts from vaccines. Since that time, when I have posted some comments on AoA, I have found studies that address the protective nature of childhood infectious diseases from more serious chronic diseases later in life, and that raise the concern that vaccines could remove this protection.

The latency period for lung cancer from smoking is on the order of two-three decades. The latency period for certain cancers from EMF radiation is from one to two decades. I have seen reports of other cancer latencies up to five decades. There are chronic diseases that tend to strike in the 60s and 70s, like Alzheimer's and dementia. To what extent have vaccines contributed to these diseases? Insufficient time has passed to identify 1) serious diseases resulting from most vaccines (assuming serious tracking is being done for these vaccine-disease relationships) and 2) the latency periods associated with these vaccine-disease combinations. This is truly Russian Roulette in its highest form!

Barry

So what is your view on the proven efficacy on meningitis C vaccine

*******
I realize that you didn't ask me, but FWIW, I think that statement is complete and utter fantasy.

How about you produce something that proves me wrong. If you can.

Angus Files




If you follow links below this is for patent familys,linked to AJP`S self confessed 2 Patents.The best is yet to come, ISIS OXFORD, who manage patents for Oxford state through a FOI submitted by me they are not aware of any royalties from the Patents.
So there we have it folks, no money in vaccines, and Bollard is doing it to save the planet..right enough!!and so does Bill Gates..snd Bill Clinton only has eyes for Hilary...Offit now runs AOA..As for the mis-guided 500,000 we can only prey for them until MMR I to would have been one of them calling us on here crazy,prey for them folks and the babies they have are ok.



Ist APPLICATION NUMBER 05843720.3



http://worldwide.espacenet.com/publicationDetails/biblio?DB=EPODOC&II=0&ND=3&adjacent=true&locale=en_EP&FT=D&date=20070912&CC=EP&NR=1830878A2&KC=A2



Bibliographic data: EP1830878 (A2) ― 2007-09-12

• |

• In my patents list
• |
• EP Register
• |
• Report data error
• |
• Print


COMPOSITIONS COMPRISING OPA PROTEIN EPITOPES

No documents available for this priority number.

Page bookmark

EP1830878 (A2) - COMPOSITIONS COMPRISING OPA PROTEIN EPITOPES

Inventor(s):

MAIDEN MARTIN [GB]; FEAVERS IAN [GB]; POLLARD ANDREW [GB] + (MAIDEN, MARTIN, ; FEAVERS, IAN, ; POLLARD, ANDREW)

Applicant(s):

ISIS INNOVATION [GB] + (ISIS INNOVATION LIMITED)

Classification:

- international:

A61K39/095

- cooperative:

A61K39/095; A61K2039/55555

Application number:

EP20050843720 20051222

Priority number(s):

WO2005GB05014 20051222 ; GB20040028381 20041224

Also published as:

WO2006067469 (A2) WO2006067469 (A3) US2010183676 (A1) JP2013032364 (A) JP2008525410 (A)


WO2006067469 (A2) WO2006067469 (A3) US2010183676 (A1) JP2013032364 (A) JP2008525410 (A) less


Abstract not available for EP1830878 (A2)
Abstract of corresponding document: WO2006067469 (A2)


Translate this text into Tooltip


[Albanian \/]

Image removed by sender. Translate this text into



The present invention relates to a composition comprising at least one purified Opa HV 1 protein epitope and at least one purified Opa HV2 protein epitope. The epitopes are preferably purified protein epitopes, preferably recombinant epitopes. The composition is preferably a pharmaceutical composition, more preferably a vaccine composition. The invention also relates to methods of immunisation and to specific formulations presented in the tables, and to novel nucleic acids encoding Opa alleles.



2nd Patent Application number 05747119.5



http://worldwide.espacenet.com/publicationDetails/biblio?DB=EPODOC&II=0&ND=3&adjacent=true&locale=en_EP&FT=D&date=20070228&CC=EP&NR=1755663A2&KC=A2



Bibliographic data: EP1755663 (A2) ― 2007-02-28

• |

• In my patents list
• |
• EP Register
• |
• Report data error
• |
• Print


NEISSERIAL VACCINES

No documents available for this priority number.

Page bookmark

EP1755663 (A2) - NEISSERIAL VACCINES

Inventor(s):

MAIDEN MARTIN [GB]; FEAVERS IAN [GB]; POLLARD ANDREW [GB] + (MAIDEN, MARTIN, ; FEAVERS, IAN, ; POLLARD, ANDREW)

Applicant(s):

ISIS INNOVATION [GB] + (ISIS INNOVATION LIMITED)

Classification:

- international:

A61K39/02; A61K39/095; A61P31/04

- cooperative:

A61K39/095

Application number:

EP20050747119 20050603

Priority number(s):

WO2005GB02207 20050603 ; GB20040012407 20040603

Also published as:

WO2005117956 (A2) WO2005117956 (A3) US2013089571 (A1) US2007224222 (A1) US8318179 (B2) more


WO2005117956 (A2) WO2005117956 (A3) US2013089571 (A1) US2007224222 (A1) US8318179 (B2) JP2008501674 (A) GB2414667 (A) less


Abstract not available for EP1755663 (A2)
Abstract of corresponding document: WO2005117956 (A2)


Translate this text into Tooltip


[Albanian \/]

Image removed by sender. Translate this text into



The present invention relates to compositions comprising at least one purified PorA protein antigen and at least one purified FetA protein antigen. In particular, said PorA/FetA antigens are antigenically variable antigens comprising the variable regions of PorA/FetA. Specific combinations of PorA/FetA epitopes are presented for example in Table 3. The invention also relates to methods of immunisation comprising administering said compositions, and to methods for producing compositions. Preferably the compositions are purified protein compositions. Preferably the compositions are vaccine compositions.

MMR RIP

Linda1

"Meningococcal disease rates in children younger than 1 year peak at 0-6 months.[1, 11] More than 50% of meningococcal disease in children 0-6 months is caused by serogroup B; serogroup Y is also more prevalent in this age group.1 In time, children gradually become exposed to meningococci and develop bactericidal antibodies. By the time they reach adulthood, 65%-85% of persons possess bactericidal antibody against meningococcal disease.[12]"

How does vaccination impact the development of permanent antibodies? Is vaccination immunity (if it exists at all) temporary or permanent as with naturally derived immunity? The manufacturers of these Men B vaccines have stated that because the disease is so rare, it is impossible for them to know if these vaccines are effective. They determine effectiveness by counting antibodies after vaccination, but we know from vaccines for other diseases, that vaccine induced antibodies don't always stick around. In fact, now that I think of it, I do remember reading that men B vaccine induced immunity is "short-term", whatever that means.

"Carriage
Five to ten percent of adults are asymptomatic nasopharyngeal carriers of N. meningitidis. The frequency of carriage, like that of invasive disease, also varies by age. Adolescents and young adults have the highest rates of meningococcal carriage. Although asymptomatic carriage of both pathogenic and nonpathogenic strains is common, few carriers develop invasive disease. FOR THE MAJORITY OF PEOPLE, CARRIAGE IS AN IMMUNIZING PROCESS THAT RESULTS IN A SYSTEMIC, SEROGROUP-SPECIFIC PROTECTIVE ANTIBODY RESPONSE.[5]"

"Humans are the only natural reservoir for N. meningitidis. N. meningitidis organisms are gram-negative, aerobic diplococci that can attach to the surface of mucosal cells of the nasopharynx. There they multiply, bind to specific receptors, and are taken up by epithelial cells, which then transport the meningococci across the mucosal epithelium. IN A SMALL NUMBER OF PERSONS, THE BACTERIA PENETRATE THE MUCOSA AND GAIN ACCESS TO THE BLOODSTREAM, RESULTING IN SYSTEMIC DISEASE. Once colonized on the mucosal surfaces, meningococci can be transmitted from human to human through direct contact with large droplet respiratory secretions."

Please consider the above in relation to how human milk prevents bacterial/viral invasion of the mucosa that I posted earlier.

"Epidemiology
The epidemiology of meningococcal disease in the United States has changed dramatically over the past hundred years. Large outbreaks of meningococcal disease caused by serogroup A were common during the first half of the twentieth century, with primary attack rates as high as 310 per 100,000 population and case-fatality ratios of 70%.[7] Currently, serogroup A disease is exceedingly uncommon in the United States, while serogroup Y disease has emerged in importance. The proportion of meningococcal disease caused by serogroup Y increased from 2% during 1989-1991 to 37% during 1997-2002.[6]"

How many of the first half of the twentieth century cases were attributable to the rise in artificial infant feeding? In the early 1900's mothers were advised to supplement breast milk with orange juice (from "The Good Book"). Then breastfeeding was thrown out altogether. When childbirth moved to hospitals, mothers were drugged heavily, sometimes for days, then kept in bed sometimes for weeks. Conditions not conducive to maternal-infant health or breastfeeding. Then around mid century, it was Canned Carnation cow's milk + Karo Syrup + water. Not even considered safe to feed an infant today, yet that was the scientific advancement of the time (not THAT long ago either), far superior to old fashioned mother's milk, mothers were told by the doctors in the new specialty of pediatrics that had risen up about the same time that commercial infant formulas were being promoted to compete with human milk. And unlike the few mothers who breastfed, mothers who artificially fed NEEDED pediatricians to treat their resulting sick babies. Just like mothers now are being told that vaccination is the scientific advancement of THIS time. I don't know how the human race has gotten this far for its stupidity.

http://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/pubs/surv-manual/chpt08-mening.html

HansLitten

JDS , the BBC propaganda machine is in full swing today for Bexsero and Sarah Woolaston has shown her full colours .
The clear evidence of mass vaccine criminality makes little or no difference to these shameless people .

Its very sad for me to see 550+ thousand uneducated vaccine advocates have signed this petition .
The lemmings are going to take us over the cliff with them.

the Northampton incident is entirely stricken from the record . Safe & Effective , normal service resumed .

Hera

Eindeker

You seem to have ignored the possibility that vaccines may be causing the meningitis in the first place. Had the two year old you describe recently been vaccinated with the MMR vaccine?
It seems likely, given the normal timing of the MMR. And we know that some formulations are indeed linked with meningitis, though interestingly, mostly about three weeks after vaccination. Out of interest, if someone developed meningitis three weeks after an MMR vaccine,and you knew about it, would you say to them
A) this must be a coincidence
or B) perhaps this is linked to the MMR vaccine, you should check it out with your doctor...

Personally, I think it is almost amazing they managed to catch the connection at all; and I wonder how many adverse events three weeks out anyone connects with any vaccine.
By the way if meningitis does prove to be a side effect of the MMR vaccine, would you ask for the MMR to be withdrawn, or would meningitis/and or death in some people suddenly be an acceptable side effect?
.

And there is a definite connection with meningitis and the Urabes version of the MMR, per this peer reviewed article available on google scholar.

Outbreak of Aseptic Meningitis associated with Mass Vaccination with a Urabe-containing Measles-Mumps-Rubella Vaccine: Implications for Immunization Programs

As John Stone points out, if Professor Pollard was a chief investigator on the MEG B vaccine, then imo, he has a major conflict of interest, and imo should not be allowed to promote or mandate the vaccine.
Would you be okay with that kind of conflict of interest in any other area of medicine, or manufacturing?
And again per Mr Stones article , there appear to be major questions about whether the meningitis vaccine would work anyway. The assumption that no one would have any side effects, and that the vaccine will work perfectly, is extremely unlikely, but seems to be automatically assumed as the basis for all cost/benefit analyses. Surely these kind of decisions should be made by someone without any potential vested interest in promoting the vaccine?

Linda1

Eindecker,

Re the importance of breastfeeding to child mortality in developing countries. Keep in mind that the decline in breastfeeding is largely from cultural pressures brought about by Western influence/Pharma marketing of human milk substitutes, euphemistically called infant formula.

BMC Med. 2013 Dec 4;11:254. doi: 10.1186/1741-7015-11-254.
Can breastfeeding promote child health equity? A comprehensive analysis of breastfeeding patterns across the developing world and what we can learn from them.

Roberts TJ, Carnahan E, Gakidou E1.
Author information

1The Institute for Health Metrics and Evaluation (IHME), University of Washington, Seattle, WA 98121, USA. gakidou@uw.edu.

Abstract

BACKGROUND:
In 2010 more than 7.7 million children died before their fifth birthday. Over 98% of these deaths occurred in developing countries, and recent estimates have attributed hundreds of thousands of these deaths to suboptimal breastfeeding.

METHODS:
This study estimated prevalence of suboptimal breastfeeding for 137 developing countries from 1990 to 2010. These estimates were compared against WHO infant feeding recommendations and combined with effect sizes from existing literature to estimate associated disease burden using a standard comparative risk assessment approach. These prevalence estimates were disaggregated by wealth quintile and linked with child mortality rates to assess how improved rates of breastfeeding may affect child health inequalities.

RESULTS:
In 2010, the prevalence of exclusive breastfeeding ranged from 3.5% in Djibouti to 77.3% in Rwanda. The proportion of child Disability Adjusted Life Years (DALYs) attributable to suboptimal breastfeeding is 7.6% at the global level and as high as 20.2% in Swaziland. SUBOPTIMAL BREASTFEEDING IS A LEADING CHILDHOOD RISK FACTOR IN ALL DEVELOPING COUNTRIES AND CONSISTENTLY RANKS HIGHER THAN WATER AND SANITATION. Within most countries, breastfeeding prevalence rates do not vary considerably across wealth quintiles.

CONCLUSIONS:
Breastfeeding is an effective child health intervention that does not require extensive health system infrastructure. Improvements in rates of exclusive and continued breastfeeding can contribute to the reduction of child mortality inequalities in developing countries.

Comment in
Simple steps to equity in child survival. [BMC Med. 2013]

PMID: 24305597 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE] PMCID: PMC3896843 Free PMC Article

Linda1

Eindecker,
You are 100% wrong about how strong a factor infant/toddler feeding is. Below is from an article examining the significance of Group B Strep in human milk. It has a pretty good overview of the immune properties. Of course, artificially fed children get none of this and face the world immunologically unprotected. It is known that the protection lasts long after weaning. The authors describe research where women have been vaccinated in the third trimester of pregnancy and the results of pathogen specific SIgA in their later milk. They also state in more than one place that they have little understanding of the ecosystem they are attempting to manipulate. I do not agree with tampering with mother nature in this way - at all. They don't know what optimal levels of antibodies are. They don't know what other effects will ensue from their tampering. They do know that the microbiome is largely being established by the milk, but they don't understand if or how their tampering with immunoglobulin levels may affect that development. They don't know all that there is to look for. They haven't even identified all of the constituents in human milk or all of the biological processes involved. They are clueless yet they experiment on people to see what will happen. That is highly unethical.

I will see if I can find the pro-vaccine quote that admits the meningitis C vaccine has caused a shift in prevalence.

"3.1. Innate and adaptive immune properties of breast milk

Breast milk is the main source of non-pathogenic bacteria to the infant gastrointestinal tract. Intestinal bacteria are one of the most important stimuli for the development of mucosa-associated lymphoid tissue (MALT) in the neonatal small intestine [45] and produce organic acids that prevent growth of enteric pathogens. Additionally, breast milk and colostrum contain many components with antimicrobial and immunomodulatory properties that are believed to impair translocation of infectious pathogens [46]. Some of these substances compensate directly for deficiencies in the neonatal immune system and enhance survival of defense agents, including secretory IgA (SIgA), lactoferrin, lysozyme, IFN-γ; some adapt the gastrointestinal tract to extrauterine life, i.e. epidermal growth factor [47]; some prevent inflammation or enhance specific-antibody production, such as PAF-acetylhydrolase, antioxidants, interleukins 1, 6, 8, and 10, transforming growth factor (TGF), secretory leukocyte protease inhibitors (SLPI), and defensin 1 [46]. Breast milk also contains substantial amounts of intracellular adhesion molecule 1 and vascular adhesion molecule 1; low quantities of soluble S-selectin, l-selectin and CD14, which may mediate differentiation and growth of B cells [46]. Natural autoantibodies, thought to be important in the selection of the pre-immune B cell repertoire and in the development of immune tolerance, are also detected in colostrum and in breast milk [48]. Recently, the beneficial effects of human oligosaccharides in prevention of neonatal diarrhoeal and respiratory tract infections have been highlighted [49,50].

Human breast milk is known to contain factors that can modulate toll-like receptor (TLR) signaling, including soluble TLR2, which can competitively inhibit signaling through membrane TLR2 [51], as well as a protein that inhibits TLR2-mediated and activates TLR4-mediated transcriptional responses in human intestinal epithelial and mononuclear cells by an as-yet-unknown mechanism [52]. It has been speculated that reduced TLR2 responsiveness at birth may facilitate the normal establishment of beneficial Gram-positive bifidobacteria intestinal flora. Lipids present in human milk have been shown to inactivate GBS in vitro, providing additional benefit to protect from invasive infection at the mucosal surfaces [53].

4. Antibody in breast milk
Neonates have low levels of SIgA and SIgM [54] thus protection from invasive pathogens at the mucosal surface relies on antibodies in breast milk. As antibody in breast milk is produced following antigenic stimulation of the maternal MALT and bronchial tree (bronchomammary pathway) [55], these antibodies are targeted to many infectious agents encountered by the mother both prior to birth and during the breastfeeding period.

It is currently hypothesized that SIgA represents the crucial primary protective component of breast milk [56,57]. SIgA protects against mucosal pathogens by immobilizing these, preventing their adherence to epithelial surfaces, or by neutralizing toxins or virulence factors. SIgA concentration is far higher in colostrum (12 mg/ml) than in that found in mature milk (1 mg/ml). A breastfed infant may ingest around 0.5–1.0 g of SIgA per day [40].

5. The role of SIgA in breast milk
SIgA production is enhanced by Interleukin-6 (IL-6) whilst the production of secretory components is enhanced by TNF-α and TGF-β causes class switching towards B cells producing IgA [47], all of which are present in breast milk.

SIgA antibodies present in breast milk are specific for numerous enteric and respiratory pathogens. In studies from resource-poor countries, breast milk-mediated protection against infections with Vibrio cholerae, Campylobacter, Shigella, Giardia lamblia and respiratory tract infections was significantly related to the content of SIgA antibody in breast milk against these pathogens [58–60]. This could support the hypothesis that similar protection could be obtained from SIgA antibody in breast milk to GBS in a highly breastfed population. However, maternal SIgA does not appear to enter the neonatal circulation, [61] except in preterm infants, where ingestion of milk rich in IgA to respiratory syncytial virus (RSV) resulted in increased serum IgA levels during the perinatal period [62], so its effectiveness is limited to the mucosal surface.

SIgA is more resistant to proteolysis than other immunoglobulins and is therefore able to function in the gastrointestinal tract [46]. This could account for the finding that THE FAECES OF BREAST FED INFANTS CONTAINS IgA BY THE SECOND DAY OF LIFE, COMPARED TO 30% OF FORMULA-FED INFANTS, WHERE IgA IS ONLY FOUND IN FAECES BY ONE MONTH OF AGE [63].

Breast milk contains SIgA antibodies against bacterial-adhesion-site-like pili [46,64]. SIgA antibody in milk blocks adherence of S. pneumoniae and Haemophilus influenza to human retropharyngeal cells [64] and casein in vitro [65]. The neutralizing capacity of milk anti-poliovirus antibodies has also been reported [66,67].

The effect of third trimester maternal immunization with a single dose of licensed quadrivalent meningococcal vaccine on the potential protection of infants, including by breast milk demonstrated elevated N. meningitidis-specific IgA antibodies in breast milk up to six months post partum in vaccinated infants [68]. Similarly, in mothers who received pneumococcal polysaccharide vaccine (PSV) during the third trimester, the geometric mean concentration of IgA in breast milk was significantly higher two months postpartum than in women who received conjugate H. influenzae vaccine in the third trimester and remained higher at seven months post partum. [69]...

7. Human oligosaccharides
Oligosaccharides prevent cell adherence for S. pneumoniae [76] and Escherichia coli (E. coli) [77]. Additionally, E. coli and Campylobacter jejuni toxin can be neutralized by oligosaccharides [49,78] and milk glycoconjugates prevent cell adherence of Vibrio cholera and E. coli [79,80]. Taken together, these studies suggest that the transfer of human milk oligosaccharides delivers real protection to infants against many bacterial and viral infections.

GBS type Ib and II polysaccharides are of interest as they are virtually identical to certain oligosaccharides present in human milk [75,81,82] which raises the possibility of cross-reactivity with other human glycoconjugates [83]. The results from murine models suggest that these oligosaccharides may act as receptor analogues that anchor the bacteria in the mucosal layer and prevent cell adhesion in the epithelial layer, thus preventing invasive disease.

8. Conclusion
Most neonatal infections occur via mucosal membranes in the respiratory, gastrointestinal, and urinary tracts, yet there is only limited protection at these vast mucosal surfaces during the neonatal period. Breast milk provides considerable amounts of specific SIgA antibodies that are produced as a result of microbial and food antigens the mother has previously encountered. Such SIgA antibodies from breast milk provide protection to the neonate at the mucosal surface. Breast milk additionally contains high concentrations of non-specific protective molecules, such as lactoferrin that has bactericidal, viricidal, and fungicidal properties. Milk oligosaccharides might block adherence of microorganism at the mucosal surface by functioning as receptor analogues.

There is increasing data from recent publications that enhanced protection against diarrhea, respiratory tract infections, otitis media and H. influenzae infections, as well as wheezing illness may persist for years after breastfeeding."

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4037808/
------------------------------------------------------------
Also, many articles in the literature about human milk and Hib. Here is just one:

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10195681

John Stone

OK Eindeker

It may have escaped your notice that your alleged "straw man" was the topic of this article. And it was you who chose to post off topic. I have no doubt either that the agencies will say all sorts of things but it doesn't stop the many anomalies - or them steamrollering over anyone who reports bad effects. Have you ever heard of the principle of Primum Non Nocere? Yet all this is completely speculative on the data provided.

Eindeker

Dear John

Thanks for the Strawman, I'll pass on that one if you don't mind. You don't really understand the implications of European licensing law: EMA (European Medicines Agency) granted Bexsero a European wide marketing authorisation, they would have considered efficacy (Ab response), clinical trial data & AEs before granting this licence. "The CHMP, on the basis of quality, safety and efficacy data submitted, considers there to be a favourable benefit-to-risk balance for Bexsero and therefore recommends the granting of the marketing authorisation" http://www.ema.europa.eu/ema/index.jsp?curl=pages/medicines/human/medicines/002333/human_med_001614.jsp&mid=WC0b01ac058001d124 Prof Pollard & his committee basically consider the health economic modelling of cost benefit ratios before recommending it's adoption or not. From my understanding a significant price reduction in the NHS purchase price enabled the HE models to justify it's adoption. It's a committee John, basically driven by HE modelling, not Prof Pollard's private fiefdom!

Dear Linda1 please look at the facts of this sad case, a healthy 2 year old contracts & dies of meningitis, breast feeding has nothing to do with this! So what is your view on the proven efficacy on meningitis C vaccine, a few hundred lives saved in the UK over the years & 10 times that number saved from permanent neurological issues, the stats are absolutely clear on that, breast feeing, although very valuable, did not prevent these issues before the vaccine was available.: https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/meningococcal-disease-laboratory-confirmed-cases-in-england-and-wales

Linda1

More than 6,000 people die every year in this country in accidents involving drivers aged 15-20. This age group has about a 20x higher risk of being involved in an automobile accident. Most of the accidents occur with drivers aged 16-17. 6,000 deaths a year, including the young drivers, their young passengers, passengers of other cars involved and pedestrians, including babies. Yet NO ONE is advocating withholding drivers' licenses to this age group. We could drive them around for a few years longer to save 6,000 lives a year. But we don't. Because it isn't about saving lives, it's about selling products and manipulating mother nature.

Linda1

Eindecker,

As you can see from the below quote from the CDC Pink Book, the risk of contracting meningitis B in the United States is about the same as the risk of being struck by lightening. Just like with meningitis B, it is tragic when someone gets killed or disabled by lightning. If they came up with a vaccine to protect you from being struck by lightning, but the vaccine itself carried significant risk of disability and death, would you take it? Yet the difference is that with meningitis strains, the body can build up antibodies to them. Not everyone gets sick.

You quoted one Bexsero study: "15,351 individuals 16 through 65 years of age who received at least 1 dose. Overall 50 individuals reported serious adverse events, including one event considered related to vaccination, a case of anaphylaxis within 30 minutes following vaccination." Then you propose that the little girl who died might have live had she been vaccinated. You fail to consider that the little girl might have been one of the 50 out of 15,351 who didn't do so well or that she might have died from anaphylaxis. Then there is the possibility that the vaccine would not have protected here at all, as in the cases described in the CDC Pink Book. At any rate, 50 out of 15,351 is a much higher risk than about 250 out of 319,000,000.

In another reference that I don't have at the moment, study authors (CDC?) proposed that an observed rise in non C group meningitis cases was attributable to a shift caused by the C group vaccine.

CDC Pink Book http://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/pubs/pinkbook/mening.html:

"During 2005-2011, an estimated 800-1,200 cases of meningococcal disease occurred annually in the United States, representing an incidence of 0.3 cases per 100,000 population. Incidence has declined annually since a peak of disease in the late 1990s. Since 2005, declines have occurred among all age groups and in all vaccine-contained serogroups. In addition, incidence of disease attributable to serogroup B, a serogroup not included in the quadrivalent vaccine, declined for reasons that are not known. Serogroups B, C, and Y are the major causes of meningococcal disease in the United States, each being responsible for approximately one third of cases. The proportion of cases caused by each serogroup varies by age group. Approximately 60% of disease among children aged 0 through 59 months is caused by serogroup B, for which no conjugate vaccine is licensed or available in the United States. Serogroups C, W, or Y, which are included in vaccines available in the United States, cause 73% of all cases of meningococcal disease among persons 11 years of age or older.
The incidence of serogroups C and Y, which represent the majority of cases of meningococcal disease preventable by the conjugate vaccines, are at historic lows. However, a peak in disease incidence among adolescents and young adults 16 to 21 years of age has persisted, even after routine vaccination of adolescents was recommended in 2005. From 2000-2004 to 2005-2009, the estimated annual number of cases of serogroups C and Y meningococcal disease decreased 74% among persons aged 11 through 14 years but only 27% among persons aged 15 through 18 years.

During 2006-2010 (i.e., in the first 5 years after routine use of meningococcal vaccine was recommended) CDC received reports of approximately 30 cases of serogroups C and Y meningococcal disease among persons who had received the vaccine. The case-fatality ratio was similar among persons who had received vaccine compared with those who were unvaccinated. Of the 13 reports of breakthrough disease for which data on underlying conditions were available, four persons had underlying conditions or behaviors associated with increased risk for bacterial infections, including 1) Type 1 diabetes mellitus; 2) current smoking; 3) history of bacterial meningitis and recurrent infections; and 4) aplastic anemia, paroxysmal nocturnal hemoglobinuria, and receipt of eculizumab (which blocks complement protein C5)."

----------------
"Lightning Facts

NOAA says that during the 10-year period of 2004-2013, 33 people were killed and 234 were injured by lightning strikes annually."

https://weather.com/storms/severe/news/united-states-lightning-deaths-2015
---------------------------------

AND also in the CDC Pink Book, note the last line:

"Risk factors for the development of meningococcal disease include deficiencies in the terminal common complement pathway, functional or anatomic asplenia, and underlying chronic disease. Persons with HIV infection are probably at increased risk for meningococcal disease. Certain genetic factors (such as polymorphisms in the genes for mannose-binding lectin and tumor necrosis factor) may also be risk factors.

Household crowding, and both active and passive smoking are associated with increased risk. Persons with antecedent viral infection are also at increased risk. Early studies in the United States demonstrated that blacks and persons of low socioeconomic status were at higher risk for meningococcal disease than other persons; however, race and low socioeconomic status are likely markers for differences in factors such as smoking and household crowding rather than risk factors. As disease incidence has decreased, differences by race have also decreased, and no difference in disease incidence exists now between blacks and whites. DURING OUTBREAKS, BAR OR NIGHTCLUB PATRONAGE AND ALCOHOL USE HAVE ALSO BEEN ASSOCIATED WITH HIGHER RISK FOR DISEASE."

You don't suppose that anyone is going to suggest to young adults at highest risk of this rare infection that they should abstain from drinking alcohol on some college campuses, "party schools", where alcohol is consumed like water? Of course this lucrative market segment is not being informed that alcohol increases their risk. That's another industry to protect.

John Stone

Hi Eindeker

Can you tell me whether the principle scientist developing the Meningitis C vaccine also presided over the meeting which added it to the the JCVI recommended schedule?

Linda1

Eindecker,

If the UK were to show the public pictures of the children who have gotten sick and died from vaccination, that would be the end of such petitions. It would also be the end of vaccination.

They are promoting public hysteria to create yet another vaccine market. Yes, Men B does rarely lead to devastating illness in babies. What needs to be aggressively promoted and facilitated is BREASTFEEDING. Human milk is known to protect against bacterial, viral, and fungal invasion, including from meningitis strains. But the manufacturers of vaccines also manufacture human milk substitutes, so don't hold your breath for that.

Many people carry and develop meningitis strains as part of their flora without becoming ill. As people age, the CDC estimates that 65% - 85% of adults have developed antibodies from earlier carriage. The teen years are the time when carriage is greatest. But no one considers that this may be by design - nature's immunization process.

Instead of manipulating ecosystems they do not understand with dangerous vaccines, scientists should be looking for the reason why meningitis strains rarely become invasive in some people. Lack of human milk is one. What are the reasons for invasive disease in teens? We know that smoking is one risk factor. Low socioeconomic status has been another, although not in all cases. And, it could very well be that teens who were artificially fed in infancy are more prone to later invasive disease. Again, don't hold your breath for that study.

It would be much better to find out what CAUSES the problem and prevent it without further endangering the public with risky treatments.

Man's foolish hubris is a much greater danger to mankind than any N. meningitidis strain ever was.

Eindeker

Dear John
I think you'll find this was the same clinical plan as for Meningitis C vaccine (ie demonstrating serum Ab response) which has subsequently led to a 95% reduction in this disease (ie 883 cases pa year prior to vaccine programme, 28 last year)
Your article states Vaccine efficacy has been inferred by demonstrating the induction of serum bactericidal antibody responses to each of the vaccine antigens


Oh the petition number, yes it's currently at 587,574 which I guess you're right it is >300,000, in virtually double that number!

"Real world" SAEs with Bexsero seem to be considerably lower than those reported in the clinical studies:

In response to outbreaks of serogroup B meningococcal disease at two universities in the US, BEXSERO was administered as a 2 dose series at least 1 month apart. Information on serious adverse events was collected for a period of 30 days after each dose from 15,351 individuals 16 through 65 years of age who received at least 1 dose. Overall 50 individuals reported serious adverse events, including one event considered related to vaccination, a case of anaphylaxis within 30 minutes following vaccination.
and
Real-world experience of using Bexsero is growing. Nearly 17,000 students in the US were vaccinated in response to an outbreak of MenB disease at Princeton University in late 2013 and the University of California, Santa Barbara in early 2014. Additionally, in the summer of 2014 over 45,000 people between 2 months to 20 years of age, were vaccinated as part of a public immunisation program in the Saguenay-Lac-St-Jean region of Quebec, Canada[10]. No serious adverse events were reported following the program and rates of fever and local reactions were similar to that of other routine immunisations. The vaccine has also been administered to nearly 4,000 students at the University of Bristol with no serious adverse events being reported. From 2013 to the time of writing over 1 million doses of Bexsero have been distributed in 19 countries worldwide. - See more at: http://www.meningitis.org/menb-vaccine#sthash.8e9uugwc.dpuf

Jenny re your comment More 'education' for both parents and health professionals, and an early start to treatment if meningitis is suspected Of course you are correct, and I speak from very personal experience about delaying treatment, but look at this poor girl:Faye Burdett was taken to A&E with a rash on her forehead but died days later totally correct action by her parents but she still passed away, she may have been saved if the vaccine had been available to her

John Stone

It is very, very easy to manipulate people but this is a product with a shaky profile. Its disadvantages are much better documented than its effectiveness (which in fact to date has not been demostrated at all). This from Univadis Consult is interesting:

----------------------------
https://www.medicines.org.uk/emc/medicine/28407

5.1 Pharmacodynamic properties

Pharmacotherapeutic group: meningococcal vaccines, ATC code: J07AH09

Mechanism of action

Immunisation with Bexsero is intended to stimulate the production of bactericidal antibodies that recognize the vaccine antigens NHBA, NadA, fHbp, and PorA P1.4 (the immunodominant antigen present in the OMV component) and are expected to be protective against Invasive Meningococcal Disease (IMD). As these antigens are variably expressed by different strains, meningococci that express them at sufficient levels are susceptible to killing by vaccine-elicited antibodies. The Meningococcal Antigen Typing System (MATS) was developed to relate antigen profiles of different strains of meningococcal group B bacteria to killing of the strains in the serum bactericidal assay with human complement (hSBA). A survey of approximately 1,000 different invasive meningococcal group B isolates collected during 2007-2008 in 5 European countries showed that, depending on the country of origin, between 73% and 87% of meningococcal group B isolates had an appropriate MATS antigen profile to be covered by the vaccine. Overall, 78% (95% confidence limits from 63-90%) of the approximately 1,000 strains were potentially susceptible to vaccine-induced antibodies.

Clinical efficacy

The efficacy of Bexsero has not been evaluated through clinical trials. Vaccine efficacy has been inferred by demonstrating the induction of serum bactericidal antibody responses to each of the vaccine antigens (see section Immunogenicity).

Immunogenicity

Serum bactericidal antibody responses to each of the vaccine antigens NadA, fHbp, NHBA and PorA P1.4 was evaluated using a set of four meningococcal group B reference strains. Bactericidal antibodies against these strains were measured by the Serum Bactericidal Assay using human serum as the source of complement (hSBA). Data are not available from all vaccine schedules using the reference strain for NHBA.

Most of the primary immunogenicity studies were conducted as randomized, controlled, multicenter, clinical trials. Immunogenicity was evaluated in infants, children, adolescents and adults.

Immunogenicity in infants and children

In infant studies, participants received three doses of Bexsero either at 2, 4 and 6 or 2, 3 and 4 months of age and a booster dose in their second year of life, as early as 12 months of age. Sera were obtained both before vaccination, one month after the third vaccination (see Table 2) and one month after booster vaccination (see Table 3). In an extension study the persistence of the immune response was assessed one year after the booster dose (see Table 3). Previously unvaccinated children also received two doses in the second year of life, with antibody persistence being measured at one year after the second dose (see Table 4). The immunogenicity after two doses has been also documented in another study in infants 6 months to 8 months of age at enrolment (see Table 4).

Immunogenicity in infants 2 months to 6 months of age

Immunogenicity results at one month after three doses of Bexsero administered at 2, 3, 4 and 2, 4, 6 months of age are summarised in Table 2. Bactericidal antibody responses one month after the third vaccination against meningococcal reference strains were high against the fHbp, NadA and PorA P1.4 antigens at both Bexsero vaccination schedules. The bactericidal responses against the NHBA antigen were also high in infants vaccinated at the 2, 4, 6-month schedule, but this antigen appeared to be less immunogenic at the 2, 3, 4-month schedule. The clinical consequences of the reduced immunogenicity of the NHBA antigen at this schedule are not known.

Jenny Allan

@ Eindeker "For the benefit of non-UK readers this was because of a public petition that has raised >500000 signatures in less than a week asking for this catch up vaccination program: https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/108072 It follows the horrible death of a 2 year old girl from group b meningitis http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-kent-35596857"

Never underestimate the emotional response to pictures of dead or dying children. Pictures of poor little Faye Burdett in hospital, supplied by her parents, elicited the above response from a public petition in the UK. As Jack Humphries states:-

"Meningitis is indeed a terrible disease. Trouble is the public are never informed, other than that it's an "opportunistic infection", how a child succumbed to the disorder.I remember the sudden cases that occurred back in the early 90s amongst children who had just had their "catch up" MMR jabs."

Faye's grieving parents blame the UK Government for not introducing infant vaccinations with Bexero earlier; the above petition asks for ALL children to be administered this vaccine, but it's not that simple. Devastating meningitis deaths like Faye are very rare. The disease is treatable with timely antibiotics, but unfortunately doctors, parents and health workers often miss the early signs and treatment is started too late. Newborns have been targeted because meningitis is easily missed in young babies. Most meningitis deaths occur in very young children, More 'education' for both parents and health professionals, and an early start to treatment if meningitis is suspected. Waiting for confirmation can be fatal.

The early Urabe Mumps containing MMR vaccine caused widespread viral meningitis, leading in some cases to disabling encephalitis. It took the then UK Government nearly three years to withdraw this dangerous vaccine, and then only because the manufacturers stopped producing it. A 20 year official suppression of incriminating papers followed, but this issue was far more deserving of a public outcry. There are many different meningitis strains and most of them are already covered in the UK child vaccination schedules. My teenage grandson is presently deliberating whether to submit to a 4 strain meningitis jab. I think he will go ahead and have the jab, but he sensibly waited to see if any of his 'mates' had adverse reactions! (In the UK, older children can consent to vaccines and certain other procedures regardless of parental approval; my daughter and her husband, sensibly allow their son to make up his own mind. He is old enough to do his own research).

Jack Humphries

Meningitis is indeed a terrible disease. Trouble is the public are never informed, other than that it's an "opportunistic infection", how a child succumbed to the disorder.

I remember the sudden cases that occurred back in the early 90s amongst children who had just had their "catch up" MMR jabs. Of course the NHS didn't blame the jabs for the sudden outbreak, just more opportunism. Ironically, and unusually, an 18 year old male was amongst the UK wide list of sufferers, mainly children of MMR catch up age. It turned out that he'd, for some reason, decided to have a catch up MMR jab and, as with several of the children (some who did not, like him, survive) developed meningitis within 30 days of the jabs.

Surely it's in the public interest that any child who develops any strain of meningitis (and those once rare in Britain, and more deadly like B strain, seem to have become more common since "suppression" of other strains by vaccination)should be evaluated for recent vaccination?

Either this never happens or there is, for some reason and completely illogically, a moratorium on discussions of possible vaccine-induced meningitis despite the Urabe attenuated Mumps strain of the MMR being well known to have triggered meningitis.

John Stone

Eindeker

The trouble is that everyone would vote to end disease if they could, but the product may not be as safe or as effective as it ought to be if dealt out en masse, it may also divert resources from other objectives which may more effectively benefit the public. I don't suppose any of the people who signed the petition were told that the vaccine causes serious side effects to 1 in 50 recipients (aged between 10-25). If people sustain injuries from the vaccine who will listen?

Nor does it resolve the issues of conflict related here, which the signatories didn't know about.

BTW Prof Polllard is not my "bête noire": I think there have been institutional misjudgments.

Eindeker

Hi John

I'm assuming that you saw your bête noire, Prof Pollard, on UK television last night? Poor Prof Pollard defending the JVIC decision to offer Bexsero on the NHS to <12 month old babies.

Only thing was that in the case he was having to defend the decision to limit this to 12 months and not to have a catch up program to cover up to 11 year olds, poor Prof Pollard, with all your alleged conflicts of interest he still can't win can he??

For the benefit of non-UK readers this was because of a public petition that has raised >500000 signatures in less than a week asking for this catch up vaccination program: https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/108072 It follows the horrible death of a 2 year old girl from group b meningitis http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-kent-35596857

Poor Prof Pollard!! But at least it shows at least the British public is aware of the potential of vaccines to save lives, maybe the recent Welsh measles outbreak focused on unvaccinated adolescents served to remind us of this fact.

Elizabeth Hart

I have presented information re a ‘systematic review’ on aluminium and vaccine safety by Tom Jefferson and other members of the Cochrane Vaccines Field which was self-admittedly based on studies which were, overall, of low methodological quality.

Jefferson et al say: “We found no evidence that aluminium salts in vaccines cause any serious or long-lasting adverse events. Despite a lack of good-quality evidence we do not recommend that any further research on this topic is undertaken.”

As Jefferson et al admit the data they reviewed was of overall low methodological quality, I suggest they should have simply reported that there was a lack of good-quality evidence, and recommended further research in this area.

Instead, their finding that there is “no evidence that aluminium salts in vaccines cause any serious or long-lasting adverse events” has been taken up and promoted as a statement of fact, see for example the NCIRS Fact Sheet on Vaccine components: http://www.ncirs.edu.au/assets/provider_resources/fact-sheets/vaccine-components-fact-sheet.pdf and WebMD’s article Aluminium in Vaccines Poses No Harm – There’s More Pain and Redness, but No-Long-Term Side Effects: http://www.webmd.com/children/vaccines/news/20040129/aluminum-in-vaccines-poses-no-harm

I argue the poor quality data Jefferson et al reviewed does not support the notion that there is no evidence that aluminium salts in vaccines cause any serious or long-lasting adverse events. Jefferson et al’s recommendation that no further research on this topic is undertaken is bizarre and uncalled for.

It is astonishing that Jefferson et al’s review paper passed The Lancet Infectious Diseases‘ approval processes. What sort of ‘peer review’ did this paper undergo I wonder?

As mentioned previously, I forwarded a letter challenging Jefferson et al’s review paper to the Editor of The Lancet Infectious Disease, John McConnell. The text of my letter to Mr McConnell is included below. As far as I am aware, I did not receive any acknowledgement or response from Mr McConnell. (A fully referenced version of this letter is accessible via this link: http://users.on.net/~peter.hart/Letter_to_Lancet_Infect_Dis_re_Cochrane_aluminium_review.pdf)

QUOTE:

11 August 2014

For the attention of:
Mr John McConnell, Editor, The Lancet Infectious Diseases

Mr McConnell

I write to you to challenge a systematic review prepared by members of the Cochrane Vaccines Field, i.e. Adverse events after immunisation with aluminium-containing DTP vaccines: systematic review of the evidence, published in The Lancet Infectious Diseases in February 2004 (behind the paywall).

I have already forwarded letters on this matter to Professor Peter Gøtzsche, co-founder of The Cochrane Collaboration. Please see attached letters dated 8 July 2014 and 17 July 2014. My letters to The Cochrane Collaboration are also published on my website: http://over-vaccination.net/cochrane-collaboration/

I request that The Lancet Infectious Diseases take urgent action to re-evaluate this review prepared by members of the Cochrane Vaccines Field.

In my opinion this so-called ‘systematic review’ should be retracted by The Lancet Infectious Diseases.

I suggest this review has facilitated poorly evidenced acceptance of the safety of aluminium-adjuvanted vaccines. As a consequence, an increasing number of aluminium-adjuvanted vaccines are being added to vaccination schedules around the world e.g. multiple doses of diphtheria, tetanus and pertussis vaccines, and multiple doses of human papillomavirus (HPV) vaccine, amongst others. The meningococcal B vaccine is the latest to be promoted. The long-term cumulative effects of the ever-growing list of vaccine products are unknown.

In their systematic review, authors Tom Jefferson, Melanie Rudin and Carlo Di Pietrantonj state: “We found no evidence that aluminium salts in vaccines cause any serious or long-lasting adverse events.” They also admit that: “Overall, the methodological quality of included studies was low”. Bizarrely, Jefferson et al conclude: “Despite a lack of good-quality evidence we do not recommend that any further research on this topic is undertaken.”

From my layperson’s perspective, Jefferson et al’s ‘systematic review’ is an example of ‘garbage in, garbage out’.

Professor Christopher Exley of Keele University has raised this matter with your journal previously. In a letter published in The Lancet Infectious Diseases in June 2004 (behind the paywall) he noted: “I was surprised that the authors were able to conclude from their review that further research in this field was unnecessary. It would seem to me that this conclusion did not adequately reflect the findings of the limited resource base underpinning the review. The authors criticised the quality of the data they had available to them and yet these data were still deemed sufficient to support such a strong conclusion. In addition, the authors made no reference to the fact that aluminium-based adjuvants contribute to the recipients systemic body burden of aluminium. We now know that aluminium in adjuvants is dissolved and transported throughout the body, including the brain and we cannot discount the biological availability of this aluminium. It is a sobering thought that aluminium adjuvants have not had to pass any of the safety trials that would be expected of any drug or treatment. Their application is historical and this should not necessarily be equated with their safety. There is no consensus as to whether it is safe to introduce aluminium in prophylaxis or otherwise, and until the requisite research is carried out it is misleading to conclude that aluminium adjuvants are safe for all to use.”

Professor Exley followed up with another letter published in The Lancet Infectious Diseases in April 2006 (behind the paywall) in which he stated: “In 2004, I commented in The Lancet Infectious Diseases that it was too early to conclude that aluminium adjuvants were safe for all to use. This opinion has been strengthened by recent research highlighting delayed hypersensitivity to aluminium in children who have received aluminium-adsorbed vaccines. Contact allergy to aluminium has been known for some time, although delayed hypersensitivity to aluminium is a recently recognised phenomenon of unknown aetiology. The observation that the body retains a “memory” of previous exposure to aluminium (as an adjuvant) is intrigiuing and may support research that reported the development of anti-aluminium monoclonal antibodies. Delayed hypersensitivity to aluminium raises a number of issues relating to the biological availability of this environmental toxin, perhaps not least of which, and pertinent to this moment in time, is the plan to improve the immunogenicity of (bird) flu vaccine by using aluminium-based adjuvants. It is my opinion that substantially increased use of aluminium-adsorbed vaccines should be put on hold until research has demonstrated their safety, if not to all then to most individuals.”

It appears to me Jefferson et al’s systematic review was biased from the outset, and that the goal was to defend the use of aluminium adjuvants, i.e.: “Assessment of the safety of aluminium in vaccines is important because replacement of aluminium compounds in currently licensed vaccines would necessitate the introduction of a completely new compound that would have to be investigated before licensing. No obvious candidates to replace aluminium are available, so withdrawal for safety reasons would severely affect the immunogenicity and protective effect of some currently licensed vaccines and threaten immunisation programmes worldwide.”

This Cochrane Vaccines Field review plays into the hands of vaccine manufacturers who are keen to develop a mass market for lucrative vaccine products. A World Health Organisation presentation acknowledges that vaccines are “becoming an engine for the pharmaceutical industry”, creating a global market with a “spectacular growth rate”, growing in value from US$5 billion in 2000 to almost US$24 billion in 2013, and projected to rise to US$100 billion by 2025.

Aggressive vaccine marketing by the pharmaceutical industry and conflicted industry-affiliated ‘experts’ is threatening citizens’ bodily autonomy. It’s time there was an objective look at the burgeoning vaccine market and independent consideration of whether mass vaccination with all these lucrative vaccine products is justifiable. The potential conflicts of interests of academics working in the areas of vaccine development and promotion, and the influence of these academics on government policy, needs to be examined.

We need an investigation into the relationships between governments, the vaccine industry, and the industry’s handmaidens in the scientific/medical establishment, but who can we trust to do that? The mainstream media has generally been completely useless on this matter, and incapable of providing critical analysis, merely supporting the status quo.

Likewise medical journals appear to be stalwart promoters for the pharmaceutical industry, and are beset by their own financial conflicts of interest in selling the literature and advertising medical products. The Lancet’s editor, Richard Horton, has confessed that: “Journals have devolved into information laundering operations for the pharmaceutical industry”. In his book Deadly medicines and organised crime: How big pharma has corrupted healthcare, The Cochrane Collaboration’s Peter Gøtzsche notes: “Sadly, and although there are notable exceptions, our medical journals contribute substantially to the corruption of medical science.”

But of course even The Cochrane Collaboration is not above reproach. It is mystifying that an organisation which promises “to promote evidence-informed health decision-making by producing high-quality, relevant, accessible systematic reviews and other synthesised research evidence” could give its name to a ‘systematic review’ of such poor quality as Adverse events after immunisation with aluminium-containing DTP vaccines: systematic review of the evidence. Can the public rely on Cochrane?

Mr McConnell, I again request that The Lancet Infectious Diseases take urgent action to re-evaluate this review prepared by members of the Cochrane Vaccines Field.

In my opinion this systematic review should be retracted by The Lancet Infectious Diseases.

I request your urgent response on this matter.

Sincerely
Elizabeth Hart
http://over-vaccination.net/

Please note, in addition to the cc list below, this letter will be circulated to other parties, and has also been published on my website.

Professor Richard Horton, Editor, The Lancet

Professor Peter Gøtzsche, The Cochrane Collaboration

Dr Tom Jefferson, Cochrane Vaccines Field

Mr Mark Wilson, CEO, The Cochrane Collaboration

Professor Paul Glasziou, Bond University

Professor Chris Del Mar, Bond University

Mr Ray Moynihan, Bond University

A/Professor Peter Doshi, University of Maryland

Dr Fiona Godlee, British Medical Journal

Professor Peter Collignon, Australian National University

Professor Christopher Exley, Keele University

Professor Chris Shaw, University of British Columbia

Dr Lucija Tomljenovic, University of British Columbia

Professor Warwick Anderson, NHMRC

Professor Ian Olver, NHMRC Australian Health Ethics Committee

Professor Ian Frazer, University of Queensland

A/Professor Ruiting Lan, University of New South Wales

Professor Lyn Gilbert, University of Sydney

Dr Linjie Zhang, Federal University of Rio Grande

Professor Ronald Schultz, Vaccination Guidelines Group, World Small Animal Veterinary Association

Professor Michael Day, Vaccination Guidelines Group, World Small Animal Veterinary Association

Professor Brian Martin, University of Wollongong

Ms Bea Mies, Independent Vaccine Investigator

Ms Monika Peichl, Independent Vaccine Investigator

END OF QUOTE

Elizabeth Hart

Further to my previous comments detailing my correspondence with representatives of The Cochrane Collaboration re Jefferson et al’s review on aluminium and vaccine safety.

In December 2014 I followed up my correspondence with Dr David Tovey, sending him a formal letter on the matter. My letter was also copied to Mark Wilson, CEO of Cochrane.

In my covering email to Dr Tovey I advised him The Lancet Infectious Diseases journal had not responded to my letter requesting they take urgent action to re-evaluate Jefferson et al’s poor quality review. In my email I noted it appears no party is currently willing to be accountable for this very questionable review. I suggested that The Cochrane Collaboration is accountable for this review prepared by members of the Cochrane Vaccines Field, and requested he take responsibility for properly addressing my criticism of this review, a review which Jefferson et al admit is based on studies that were of overall low methodological quality.

The text of my full letter to Dr Tovey is included below. As far as I am aware, I did not receive a response to this letter from Dr Tovey.

QUOTE:

16 December 2014

For the attention of: Dr David Tovey
Editor in Chief, The Cochrane Library, and Deputy Chief Executive OfficerCochrane Editorial Unit / Cochrane Central Executive

David, further to our previous email correspondence re the systematic review prepared by Tom Jefferson et al, i.e. Adverse events after immunisation with aluminium-containing DTP vaccines: systematic review of the evidence, published in The Lancet Infectious Diseases in February 2004.[1] (Also refer to my letters to Peter Gøtzsche, dated 8 July 2014 and 17 July 2014.)

The Cochrane Collaboration has hitherto refused to address my concerns about this review prepared by members of the Cochrane Vaccines Field. You have fobbed me off to The Lancet Infectious Diseases journal which has not acknowledged or responded to my letter dated 11 August 2014 requesting they take urgent action to re-evaluate this review, a poor quality review which in my opinion should be retracted.

In their review on vaccine safety and aluminium Jefferson et al state: “We found no evidence that aluminium salts in vaccines cause any serious or long-lasting adverse events. Despite a lack of good-quality evidence we do not recommend that any further research on this topic is undertaken.”[2]

It is a matter for concern that this poorly evidenced review prepared by members of the Cochrane Vaccines Field has been used to categorically promote the safety of aluminium-adjuvanted vaccines. For example, an article about the review, titled “Aluminium in Vaccines Poses No Harm”[3], published on the industry-sponsored website WebMD[4] in January 2004, states: “After scouring through all the available medical data, researchers in Rome say there is no evidence that aluminium – contained within the combined diphtheria, tetanus and pertussis vaccine commonly known as DTP and routinely given to children – poses any serious or long-term side effects.”

In the article Paul Offit, arguably the vaccine industry’s foremost vaccine product promoter[5], lauds Jefferson et al’s review on vaccine safety and aluminium as “a very thorough, thoughtful review of the subject…”[6]. Tom Jefferson is reported as saying: “Scare stories on aluminium-containing vaccines are not supported by evidence”[7].

Yet only a year or so previously, in an interview with The Telegraph (published in October 2002) titled “Vaccines expert warns studies are useless”, Tom Jefferson candidly stated: “Most safety studies on childhood vaccines have not been conducted thoroughly enough to tell whether the jabs cause side effects” and the information available on the safety of vaccines that are routinely given to babies and toddlers was “simply inadequate”.[8]

It is bizarre that Dr Jefferson did a backflip on his publicly doubtful attitude towards vaccine safety studies just a year or so later in his 2004 Cochrane Vaccines Field review on vaccine safety and aluminium, and in his comments on the industry-sponsored website WebMD.[9]

The review on vaccine safety and aluminium prepared by members of the Cochrane Vaccines Field, i.e. Jefferson et al, is self-admittedly based on studies that were of overall low methodological quality.[10] It is also notable that this review by members of the Cochrane Vaccines Field is not freely accessible, being located behind the paywall on The Lancet Infectious Diseases website.[11] These lapses in quality of evidence and accessibility are at odds with The Cochrane Collaboration’s declaration that “our mission is to promote evidence-informed health decision-making by producing high-quality, relevant, accessible systematic reviews and other synthesised research evidence”.[12]

As the review in question was published under the auspices of the Cochrane Vaccines Field, and is listed in the Cochrane Vaccines Field bibliography[13], I again request that The Cochrane Collaboration address the matter of this poorly evidenced review and the implications it has for international vaccination policy and practice, particularly in helping to facilitate the proliferation of aluminium-containing vaccine products, and potential over-vaccination of children and adults.[14]

I request your early response on this matter.

Yours sincerely

Elizabeth Hart

http://over-vaccination.net/

References: (All links accessible as at 16 December 2014.)

1. Jefferson T, Rudin M, Di Pietrantoni C. Adverse events after immunisation with aluminium-containing DTP vaccines: systematic review of the evidence. Lancet Infect Dis. 2004 Feb; 4(2):84-90: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1473309904009272 This review is also listed in the Cochrane Vaccines Field Bibliography: http://vaccinesfield.cochrane.org/bibliography-2003 (UPDATE: As at 5 February 2016, the Cochrane Vaccines Field Bibliography does not appear to be publicly accessible on the Cochrane website.)
2. Ibid.
3. Sid Kirchheimer. Aluminium in Vaccines Poses No Harm. WebMD News Archive, 29 January 2004: http://www.webmd.com/parenting/news/20040129/aluminum-in-vaccines-poses-no-harm
4. WebMD is an industry-sponsored website: http://www.webmd.com/about-webmd-policies/about-our-sponsors?ss=ftr I suggest visitors to the WebMD website should remain wary of industry bias in its articles.
5. Paul Offit “perhaps the most widely-quoted defender of vaccine safety” also “has strong industry ties. In fact, he’s a vaccine industry insider”. Sharyl Attkisson. How Independent Are Vaccine Defenders? CBS, 25 July 2008: http://www.cbsnews.com/news/how-independent-are-vaccine-defenders/
6. Op cit. Aluminium in Vaccines Poses No Harm.
7. Ibid.
8. Lorraine Fraser. Vaccines expert warns studies are useless. The Telegraph, 27 October 2002: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1411417/Vaccines-expert-warns-studies-are-useless.html In this article Tom Jefferson also states: “There is some good research, but it is overwhelmed by the bad. The public has been let down because the proper studies have not been done.” Dr Jefferson is also reportedly concerned because future vaccination programmes were likely to involve giving children “five, six, even seven vaccines all at once”. Dr Jefferson said: “For people like me, it is becoming more and more difficult to tease out what problems may be due to an individual vaccine…It is almost becoming impossible to do this. We have to think very carefully about how we will monitor these vaccines…We have a responsibility to these children – they are our future. It is no use having a situation where someone suggests a possible harm and everyone runs around frantically trying to find bits of evidence. What is required is good-quality information that has been systematically collated and assessed.”
9. WebMD is an industry-sponsored website: http://www.webmd.com/about-webmd-policies/about-our-sponsors?ss=ftr I suggest visitors to the WebMD website should remain wary of industry bias in its articles.
10. In their review on vaccine safety and aluminium, Jefferson et al admit that: “Overall, the methodological quality of included studies was low” and “The results of our review should be interpreted within the limited quantity and quality of available evidence”. Op cit. Jefferson et al
11. The Lancet Infectious Diseases website notes: “To read this article in full you will need to make a payment.” The purchase price for the article is $31.50 USD: http://www.thelancet.com/journals/laninf/article/PIIS1473-3099(04)00927-2/abstract
12. The Cochrane Collaboration – About us: “Our mission is to promote evidence-informed health decision-making by producing high-quality, relevant, accessible systematic reviews and other synthesised research evidence. Our work is internationally recognised as the benchmark for high quality information about the effectiveness of health care.” http://www.cochrane.org/about-us (UPDATE: Wording appears to have changed on the Cochrane ‘About us’ webpage as at 5 February 2016.)
13. Cochrane Vaccines Field Bibliography: http://vaccines.cochrane.org/bibliography-2003 (UPDATE: As at 5 February 2016, the Cochrane Vaccines Field Bibliography does not appear to be publicly accessible on the Cochrane website.)
14. As discussed in my letters to Peter Gøtzsche dated 8 July 2014bli and 17 July 2014, and my letter to John McConnell, The Lancet Infectious Diseases, dated 11 August 2014.

END OF QUOTE

John Stone

And of course they keep on using the desperate shortage line to keep mercury in the vaccine supply (although not of course in this case). This is one of my favourite articles of Ed Yazbak about the great flu vaccine shortage of 2004-5.

http://www.vaccinationnews.org/node/19929

Georg Elser

Hi Elizabeth Hart

this is a strategy they have used over and over .
for those of us , who are watching them closely , this is a three card trick (find the jack).

heard the exact same story about the swine flu vaccine , and the mumps vaccine .

These manipulative strategies are so transparent and criminal - its such a shame all the newbies will fall for them.

Elizabeth Hart

Interesting advertising/promotional angle for the GSK Bexsero meningitis B vaccine, courtesy of The Telegraph: "Meningitis B vaccine shortage leaves parents unable to get jab privately. GlaxoSmithKline says it cannot keep up with the demand for meningitis B vaccine Bexsero". The Telegraph, 22 Jan 2016: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/science/science-news/12116423/Meningitis-B-vaccine-shortage-leaves-parents-unable-to-get-jab-privately.html

John Stone

Georg

Yes, good level headed reports from John Rappaport. We've been here so many times before. Nice perspective.

Georg Elser

John Rappoport is writing a great deal about Zika currently and I'm glad he is .According to his crystal clear logic this is a another fake false fraudulent alarm .
And I get it , why they have to keep doing this all the time , this is the way they keep the vaccination acceptance rates high by creating false medical realities .

http://www.nomorefakenews.com/

John Stone

Hi Georg

Thanks for this. One of the puzzling things about this report is that it doesn't mention which vaccine/vaccines athough it mentions an earlier report about Bexsero, which horrifically is given to infants with seven other vaccines. I think some people who have reviewed Bexsero thought it might be useful if there was specific outbreak but not for widespread use.

One issue which this report raises (whatever you think about vaccination in general) is vaccinating children in schools rather than properly controlled conditions. I remember being lined up for the useless BCG (tuberculosis) vaccination in the 1960s and I still have scar tissue to prove it.

Perhaps the most problematic thing is that parents didn't seem to know what their children had been given - they were dolling out vaccines perhaps based on records which might not be correct or complete but certainly without informed consent.

Georg Elser

http://www.prisonplanet.com/vaccines-suspended-at-uk-school-after-up-to-15-students-collapse.html


JDS - the meningitis vaccine has hit a major bump in the road . Students collapsing in Northampton

Elizabeth Hart

Yes John, Tom Jefferson and his colleagues Melanie Rudin and Carlo Di Pietrantonj at the Cochrane Vaccines Field used the Cochrane brand on their 'systematic review' of aluminium and vaccine safety and then had it published behind the paywall of The Lancet Infectious Diseases.[1]

This goes against Cochrane’s stated mission, i.e. “Our mission to provide accessible, credible information to support informed decision-making has never been more important or useful for improving global health….Cochrane contributors…work together to produce credible, accessible health information that is free from commercial sponsorship and other conflicts of interest."[2]

Jefferson et al’s review isn’t freely accessible and it is a review which has the potential to impact on international government vaccination policy and practice.

Why did Jefferson et al have this review paper published in The Lancet Infectious Diseases journal, rather than go through the Cochrane process described by Cochrane’s Editor-in-Chief, David Tovey, i.e. “There is a specific process to be followed, which starts with registration of a title by a relevant Cochrane Review Group, and this proceeds through to publication of a peer reviewed protocol and then to the review itself”.[3]

Dr Tovey says “Cochrane researchers are free to publish their work elsewhere, as happened here.”[3]

I suggest if Cochrane researchers publish their work elsewhere they should not use the 'Cochrane brand', i.e. it should be made clear the paper has not gone through the Cochrane process.

It’s also notable that the Conflicts of interest statement in Jefferson et al’s review paper notes Tom Jefferson “owns shares in Glaxo SmithKline, manufacturer of some aluminium-containing vaccines”.[1] As a member of the Cochrane Vaccines Field, Tom Jefferson’s admission of owning Glaxo SmithKline shares does not sit well with Cochrane’s description of itself as “a global independent network of researchers…”[2] Defending the products of a company he owns shares in rather tarnishes the idea of Jefferson’s ‘independence’. It seems Jefferson et al’s ‘systematic review’ on aluminium and vaccine safety laid the way for a proliferation of aluminium-adjuvanted vaccine products, worth literally billions for the vaccine manufacturers, including GSK.

In regards to accessibility, it is my contention that any material used to support and influence government vaccination policy and practice must be openly and freely accessible to the public. Jefferson et al’s review is behind the paywall of The Lancet Infectious Diseases and not freely accessible.

As I mentioned previously, it appears Jefferson et al’s review is being cited in a fact sheet on vaccine components published by the Australian National Centre for Immunisation Research & Surveillance (NCIRS) which states: “Aluminium salts, in small amounts, have been added to certain vaccines for about 60 years and a recent review of all the available studies of aluminium-containing diphtheria, tetanus and pertussis vaccines (either alone or in combination) found that there was no evidence that aluminium salts in vaccines cause any serious or long-term adverse events…”[4]

I suggest this statement is misleading as Jefferson et al’s review was self-admittedly based on poor quality data, i.e. “overall, the methodological quality of included studies was low”[1].

Now the idea is being promoted by the NCIRS and others that there is “no evidence that aluminium salts in vaccines cause any serious or long-term adverse events…”[4] It is certainly not appropriate to rely on Jefferson et al’s poor quality review. Many aluminium-adjuvanted vaccines are being added to the schedule e.g. multiple revaccinations with the problematic diphtheria, tetanus and pertussis vaccine, plus multiple shots of the controversial HPV vaccines, and recently the meningococcal B vaccine in the UK, which is also being pushed for in Australia[5], despite being rejected by the Pharmaceutical Benefits Advisory Committee (PBAC) three times, due to multiple uncertainties in relation to the clinical effectiveness of the vaccine against the disease when delivered in a vaccine program, and the use of optimistic assumptions about the extent and duration of effect and herd immunity.[6] Given these uncertainties I question why the Therapeutic Goods Administration (TGA) allowed this product to be registered.

How many more lucrative and questionable vaccine products are in the vaccine industry’s pipeline? We have no idea of the long-term cumulative effects of the burgeoning amount of vaccine products and revaccinations being mandated for children.

Vaccination is now mandated by the Australian Federal government to access financial inducements, and State governments are insisting on vaccination for childcare. The right to give ‘informed consent’ before vaccination has been trashed in Australia, it’s really quite shocking what is going on here in our so-called liberal democracy, endorsed by our political representatives, who also seek to keep the cost of taxpayer funded vaccines secret, i.e. ‘commercial-in-confidence’.[7]

And to clarify, my position is not ‘anti-vaccination’, but there are questionable vaccines on the schedule and citizens are entitled to ask questions about government-mandated medical interventions, i.e. vaccination.

I suggest children are being grossly over-vaccinated with these vaccine products. It is alarming that people such as myself who are asking valid questions about vaccination policy and practice are labelled as ‘anti-vaccination’ by members of aggressive ‘pro’ vaccine lobby groups and others to discredit and marginalise our concerns.[8]

The community is facing a serious over-use of vaccine products, promoted by government-appointed vaccination committees, some members of which are associated with the vaccine industry.[9]

And Cochrane is part of this picture, thanks to Jefferson et al’s Cochrane branded review, published in The Lancet Infectious Diseases in 2004.

I wonder what sort of ‘peer review’ process was undertaken with Jefferson et al’s review paper before it was published in The Lancet Infectious Diseases? A pretty shoddy one in my opinion…

References:

1. Jefferson T, Rudin M, Di Pietrantoni C. Adverse events after immunisation with aluminium-containing DTP vaccines: systematic review of the evidence. Lancet Infect Dis. 2004 Feb; 4(2):84-90: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1473309904009272 This review is also listed in the Cochrane Vaccines Field Bibliography: http://vaccinesfield-old.cochrane.org/bibliography-2003
2. Cochrane – About us: http://www.cochrane.org/about-us
3. Email from David Tovey, 27 August 2014.
4. Vaccine components. NCIRS Fact sheet: May 2013 (Content last updated February 2008):http://www.ncirs.edu.au/assets/provider_resources/fact-sheets/vaccine-components-fact-sheet.pdf
5. Call to fund Meningococcal B vaccine. Medical Observer, 27 July 2015.
6. Recommendations made by the PBAC July 2015 – Subsequent decisions not to recommend. http://www.pbs.gov.au/industry/listing/elements/pbac-meetings/pbac-outcomes/2015-07/web-outcomes-july-2015-subsequent-decision-not-to-recommend.pdf
[7] A response to me from the Immunisation Branch, Australian Government Department of Health (21 October 2015) advises: "The Australian Government provides free vaccines to eligible people through the NIP. As previously advised, the costs of individual vaccines purchased under Commonwealth contracts are not released due to commercial in confidence provisions."
[8] See for example attacks on me by associates of pro-vaccine lobby group SAVN, Dave Hawkes and Patrick Stokes, on the comments thread of Ray Moynihan's article "Most people want to know risk of overdiagnosis, but aren't told", published on The Conversation, 21 May 2015: https://theconversation.com/most-people-want-to-know-risk-of-overdiagnosis-but-arent-told-41889
[9] See for example the Conflict of Interest document for members of the Australian Technical Advisory Group on Immunisation (ATAGI): http://www.immunise.health.gov.au/internet/immunise/publishing.nsf/Content/FC7BB2DC63225F8ACA257D770012DBF7/$File/ATAGI-conflict-interest-October-2015.pdf

John Stone

Hi Elizabeth

So he doesn't want to answer because it was not a Cochrane Review although the authors used the Cochrane brand (as it were). Secondly, he has a ghastly point that it is not the science so much that you are criticising as the recommendation (as part of the conclusion). But that you would make such a recommendation after having drawn a blank with the science is decidedly troubling, just as it has been with their MMR papers (which are definitely Cochrane Reviews). I do think they want to have it both ways. They want to do scientific analysis they can underwrite but they don't want to make any ripples. It doesn't seem to me to be ethically or intellectually acceptable.

Elizabeth Hart

Further to my previous comment in which I included a link to my letter to John McConnell, Editor of The Lancet Infectious Diseases, requesting that Tom Jefferson et al’s review on aluminium and vaccine safety be retracted: http://users.on.net/~peter.hart/Letter_to_Lancet_Infect_Dis_re_Cochrane_aluminium_review.

(January 28, 2016 at 05:20 AM)

My letter to John McConnell includes a list of people to whom it was copied. The letter was also widely circulated beyond this list, including to Dr David Tovey, Editor in Chief, The Cochrane Library, and Deputy Chief Executive Officer (11 August 2014).

On 25 August 2014 I received a response from David Tovey, i.e.

QUOTE:

Dear Ms Hart, George and colleagues,

Thanks for copying me into this correspondence. I agree with George that since this is not a Cochrane Review there is not an obvious route for posting your feedback, which we would usually do.

I have read your letter to The Lancet Infectious Disease with interest, and will be interested to see their response. However, I was unclear whether you were saying that the analysis of the data identified by the researchers was wrong, and if so, it would be helpful to know more about this. If it is simply that in the absence of high quality evidence you would have preferred a different recommendation in terms of future research, that’s another thing. For example, is the evidence you seek likely to be found via an RCT, given the short term nature of these studies? And what specific patient important outcomes would you be seeking?

Finally, I must say that it is probably a first for this author team to be accused of bias towards industry, and I think I can say with some degree of confidence that whatever the rights and wrongs of this case, this is not the explanation.

Best wishes

David Tovey

END OF QUOTE

On 26 August 2014 I emailed the following response to David Tovey. (Also copied to George Swingler, Liz Dooley, Mark Wilson, Peter Gøtzsche and Tom Jefferson):

QUOTE:

David, thank you for your reply.

You say 'this is not a Cochrane Review'. Can you please clarify this?

The paper in question was a 'systematic review' prepared by members of the Cochrane Vaccines Field.

Why was this review published behind the paywall in The Lancet Infectious Diseases, and not in The Cochrane Library?

I would appreciate your response on this matter.

Regards

Elizabeth Hart

END OF QUOTE

David Tovey responded on 27 August 2014 saying:

QUOTE:

Dear Elizabeth

Cochrane Reviews are published in the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, within The Cochrane Library. There is a specific process to be followed, which starts with registration of a title by a relevant Cochrane Review Group, and this proceeds through to publication of a peer reviewed protocol and then to the review itself.

Cochrane researchers are free to publish their work elsewhere, as happened here, although I should say that I am not aware of the specific circumstances in this case, and there may be important details of which I am unaware. Tom Jefferson, the lead author is a highly experienced and respected Cochrane review author, so nothing in this email should be interpreted as suggesting that there is anything improper in this review having been published in the Lancet Infectious Diseases journal.

I hope this is helpful.

Best wishes,

David

END OF QUOTE

On 2 September 2014 I emailed the following response to Dr Tovey. (This response was also copied to George Swingler, Liz Dooley, Mark Wilson, Peter Gøtzsche, Tom Jefferson and Brian Martin):

QUOTE

David, thank you for your response.

I am currently travelling abroad on holidays. When I return home I will consider making further submissions to The Cochrane Collaboration in relation to the massive vaccine product promotion campaign currently underway worldwide.

As indicated on my website, I am challenging mass vaccination with a number of questionable vaccine products: http://over-vaccination.net. Promotion of these products is lucrative for a variety of parties including pharmaceutical companies, research scientists, medical practitioners etc.

I am particularly interested to investigate the enormous power being wielded by small groups of people, ie vaccination committees in various countries, eg the US Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP), the UK Joint Committee on Vaccination and Immunisation (JCVI), the Australian Technical Advisory Group on Immunisation (ATAGI), and others. It will be interesting to investigate the members of these committees, including their relationships with each other and other parties, eg the pharmaceutical industry and organisations such as the World Health Organisation and others.

Vaccine products are being promoted very aggressively, including mandated use. This is a serious political and ethical issue which is important to consider in regards to 'informed consent' and bodily autonomy.

I will also be examining some more Cochrane reviews in regards to vaccination policy and practice.

Also, for your information, I have not received any acknowledgement or response from the The Lancet Infectious Diseases journal re my challenge to the systematic review prepared by the Cochrane Vaccines Field re aluminium/vaccines: http://over-vaccination.net/2014/08/11/request-for-retraction-of-the-cochrane-vaccines-field-systematic-review-re-vaccine-safety-and-aluminium/

I intend to pursue this matter further.

Regards

Elizabeth Hart

END OF QUOTE

Elizabeth Hart

Further to my previous comment re my correspondence with Professor Peter Gøtzsche of Cochrane. (January 27, 2016 at 04:04 AM)

I followed up my correspondence to Professor Gøtzsche with another letter dated 17 July 2014, in which I acknowledged that Professor Gøtzsche had encouraged me to “submit a criticism” re Jefferson et al’s review on aluminium and vaccine safety, and asking he clarify how I should go about this. In my letter I included reference to correspondence undertaken directly with Dr Tom Jefferson on this matter including information re aluminium in vaccines and comparison with vaccination of companion animals.

My letter to Professor Gøtzsche dated 17 July 2014 can be accessed via this link: http://users.on.net/~peter.hart/Vaccine_safety_and_aluminium_follow-up_to_Cochrane.pdf

I did not receive a response from Professor Gøtzsche

I had tried to submit a criticism of Jefferson et al’s review online, although this was complicated in that the review on aluminium and vaccine safety is not actually accessible online, and I used a form via a Cochrane review on measles, mumps and rubella vaccination.

On 16 July 2014 I was advised by George Swingler, Feedback Editor of the Cochrane ARI Group, that “there are currently no reviews in the Cochrane Library on the toxicity of aluminium-containing vaccines”. This was confusing information as Jefferson et al’s review on aluminium and vaccine safety is listed in the Cochrane Vaccines Field’s bibliography.[1] The review published in The Lancet Infectious Diseases also notes that the authors are at the Cochrane Vaccines Field.[2]

In his email of 16 July 2014, George Swingler advised me that “The Cochrane Collaboration has no editorial authority over the Lancet Infectious Diseases, and is thus not in a position to respond to a comment on the paper published in that journal.”

While the review was published in The Lancet Infectious Diseases under the auspices of the Cochrane Vaccines Field, it transpired that Cochrane was not prepared to accept any responsibility for this systematic review. It seems questionable to me that this review was published under the apparent imprimatur of Cochrane, i.e. as acknowledged in the review published in The Lancet Infectious Diseases, and yet Cochrane was not prepared to be accountable for this review.

I decided to take up this matter with The Lancet Infectious Diseases and on 11 August 2014 I forwarded a letter to the Editor, Mr John McConnell, requesting that The Lancet Infectious Diseases take urgent action to re-evaluate the review undertaken by members of the Cochrane Vaccines Field, noting that, in my opinion, this so-called ‘systematic review’ should be retracted by The Lancet Infectious Diseases. I also copied my letter to Richard Horton, Editor of The Lancet.

In my letter I quoted letters criticising Jefferson et al’s review by Professor Christopher Exley of Keele University, as published in The Lancet Infectious Diseases.

My letter to Mr McConnell dated 11 August 2014 can be accessed via this link: http://users.on.net/~peter.hart/Letter_to_Lancet_Infect_Dis_re_Cochrane_aluminium_review.pdf

References:

1. Cochrane Vaccines Field Bibliography: http://vaccinesfield-old.cochrane.org/bibliography-2003

2. Jefferson T, Rudin M, Di Pietrantoni C. Adverse events after immunisation with aluminium-containing DTP vaccines: systematic review of the evidence. Lancet Infect Dis. 2004 Feb; 4(2):84-90: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1473309904009272

Elizabeth Hart

Thanks for your response Jenny. It’s pretty chilling that citizens such as ourselves have to do this work. It’s becoming clear that we cannot rely on academia or our political representatives who appear to be under the influence of the pharmaceutical industry and its associates i.e. the WHO, CDC, NIH, GAVI, Gates et al.

Jenny Allan

Re Elizabeth Hart's letter to Professor Peter Gøtzsche, co-founder of The Cochrane Collaboration and Director of The Nordic Cochrane Centre, challenging the systematic review on aluminium and vaccine safety prepared by the Cochrane Vaccines Field, i.e. Tom Jefferson et al.

Thank you Elizabeth. In our constant attempts to publicise our concerns about vaccines and other important topics, including genetically modified foods and vaccine ingredients, often in the face of relentless challenges by trolls and self appointed 'experts', plainly financed and sponsored by corporate sources, we forget the excellent 'behind the scenes' work and lobbying carried out by Elizabeth and others. This is VERY important work, since 'mainstream experts' and representatives from the pharmaceutical industries have more or less a 'clear field' when advising politicians and government health officials.

I was particularly fascinated by this paragraph in Professor Peter Gøtzsche's response:-

"Many of our vaccines are fantastic, but others aren’t, and even good vaccines can sometimes give unpleasant surprises. Danish researchers, for example, found out that a vaccine recommended by the WHO for African children, actually killed them (I think it was the di-te-pol vaccine; one of the authors are Peter Aaby, an absolutely outstanding researcher)."

I assume this refers to the disastrous MenAfriVac vaccine which paralysed and killed African children. This was all hushed up by the WHO and never made the mainstream press. It's very worrying that Professor Peter Gøtzsche, considers himself too 'overworked' to take any responsibility for investigating the issues raised by Elizabeth, particularly since Bexsero is yet another menigitis vaccine, inflicted on our children.
Quotes re MenAfriVac:-
"African Children Still Paralyzed After Vaccines, Government Says “All in Their Head” - See more at:
http://healthimpactnews.com/2013/african-children-still-paralyzed-after-vaccines-government-says-all-in-their-head/#sthash.tpuik0Qc.dpuf
“In a statement, the country’s health ministry said tests “failed to establish a causal link between the clinical manifestations observed in the patients and the MenAfriVac vaccine.”
According to the statement, one child who never received the meningitis shot ‘complained of suffering from the same symptoms’ found in the other children.” [3]
However, a contact in Chad gave VacTruth an extremely different version of events. He said:
“The government and the World Health Organization have made up these facts.
The government banned journalists from visiting the hospital since the children brought in. (sic) All the children from Gouro received the vaccine.
Firstly, they (Government/WHO) collaborated with the school’s headmaster who locked the school’s main door before vaccinating all the children. The school headmaster told the children that anyone who refused the vaccine would be banned from school and be arrested.
Secondly, they went door to door and injected the babies over one year.”

Elizabeth Hart

On 8 July 2014 I forwarded a letter to Professor Peter Gøtzsche, co-founder of The Cochrane Collaboration and Director of The Nordic Cochrane Centre, challenging the systematic review on aluminium and vaccine safety prepared by the Cochrane Vaccines Field, i.e. Tom Jefferson et al.

My covering email and letter were also copied to Tom Jefferson, Paul Glasziou, Chris Del Mar, Mark G Wilson, Peter Doshi, Peter Collignon, Fiona Godlee and Ray Moynihan.

My full letter to Professor Gøtzsche can be accessed via this link: http://users.on.net/~peter.hart/Challenge_to_Cochrane_re_vax-safety_and_aluminium.pdf

In my covering email to Professor Gøtzsche I said:

QUOTE

Professor Gøtzsche

Please see attached a letter challenging a systematic review prepared by members of the Cochrane Vaccines Field, i.e. Adverse events after immunisation with aluminium-containing DTP vaccines: systematic review of the evidence.

I request that The Cochrane Collaboration take urgent action to re-evaluate this review prepared by members of the Cochrane Vaccines Field.

I suggest this review has facilitated poorly evidenced acceptance of the safety of aluminium-adjuvanted vaccines. As a consequence, an increasing number of aluminium-adjuvanted vaccines are being added to vaccination schedules around the world e.g. multiple doses of diphtheria, tetanus and pertussis vaccines, and multiple doses of human papillomavirus (HPV) vaccine, amongst others. The meningococcal B vaccine is the latest to be promoted. The long-term cumulative effects of the ever-growing list of vaccine products are unknown.

Please note I am not ‘anti-vaccination’. Rather, I am challenging the increasing number of questionable vaccines and repeat vaccinations being foisted upon children, adults and animals by the burgeoning and unfettered vaccine industry. There’s a ‘big picture’ on lucrative over-vaccination which needs to be examined. I request your urgent response to the matters I have raised in my letter.

Sincerely
Elizabeth Hart
http://over-vaccination.net/

END OF QUOTE

On 9 July 2014, Professor Gøtzsche responded to me (and others copied in my original email) saying:

QUOTE:

Dear Elizabeth Hart,

you discuss some relevant issues. I am aware, for example, that the placebos in some of the vaccine trials of HPV contained aluminium adjuvant, which means that findings of no harm are questionable, if we think that aluminium adjuvant might cause the harm we are concerned about (in this case, brain damage).

However, I am not the person you should address. Furthermore, our procedure is to ask critics of Cochrane reviews to submit a criticism, which I therefore encourage you to do.

I personally believe the discussion you raise is important and hope you will carry on with it. Many of our vaccines are fantastic, but others aren’t, and even good vaccines can sometimes give unpleasant surprises. Danish researchers, for example, found out that a vaccine recommended by the WHO for African children, actually killed them (I think it was the di-te-pol vaccine; one of the authors are Peter Aaby, an absolutely outstanding researcher).

I have holidays now, and am overworked, so I will not respond to further emails about this.

best wishes Peter Gøtzsche

END OF QUOTE

I subsequently contacted Professor Gøtzsche asking his permission to quote his email, but he responded:

QUOTE:

It was a personal email, so I would like to approve if you want to publicise any of it. For di-te-pol, please search pubmed on Peter Aaby, or write to him 8and copy me) if you want to know what it was about.

bw
Peter

END OF QUOTE

I forwarded a draft for his approval but he did not respond.

I did not write to Professor Gøtzsche in a personal capacity, I wrote to him as a senior representative of The Cochrane Collaboration in regards to a poor quality review published by the Cochrane Vaccines Field in The Lancet Infectious Diseases.

I am publishing the content of Professor Gøtzsche’s email response to me now in light of the complete lack of action by Cochrane on this matter.

Elizabeth Hart

John, re Cochrane and your suggestion “they are scared of the responsibility of disrupting policy”. (January 11, 2016 at 07:30 AM)

It seems to me that Jefferson et al’s review of aluminium and vaccine safety[1] was biased from the outset, and that the goal was to defend the use of aluminium adjuvants.

Consider this statement included in Jefferson et al’s review:

QUOTE

Although they have been used as adjuvants in vaccines for decades, aluminium salts have been blamed for the causation of nodules, granulomas, erythema, and a progressive syndrome characterised by muscle wasting and severe fatigue called macrophagic myofasciitis.

Assessment of the safety of aluminium in vaccines is important because replacement of aluminium compounds in currently licensed vaccines would necessitate the introduction of a completely new compound that would have to be investigated before licensing.

No obvious candidates to replace aluminium are available, so withdrawal for safety reasons would severely affect the immunogenicity and protective effect of some currently licensed vaccines and threaten immunisation programmes worldwide.

END OF QUOTE

In other words…we can’t upset the apple cart…even though ‘experts’ such as Paul Offit admit “it’s still unclear exactly how aluminium salts stimulate the body’s immune response…”[2]

I suggest the Cochrane Vaccines Field’s review of aluminium and vaccine safety plays into the hands of vaccine manufacturers who are keen to develop a massive international market for lucrative vaccine products, as we are seeing now with the increasing number of aluminium-adjuvanted vaccines and revaccinations being added to vaccination schedules around the world, e.g. repeat dtaps, pneumococcal, HPV, and recently meningococcal B in the UK.

Vaccines are the booming new market for pharmaceutical companies. See for example “The top 5 vaccine makers by 2014 revenue”[3] and “Vaccines Market Worth $57.8 Billion by 2019”[4].

It appears the floodgates opened in the 1980s, when the United States protected vaccine manufacturers from liability.[5]

A World Health Organisation presentation acknowledges that vaccines are “becoming an engine for the pharmaceutical industry”, creating a global market with a “spectacular growth rate”, growing in value from US$5 billion in 2000 to almost US$24 billion in 2013, and projected to rise to US$100 billion by 2025.[6]

In 2009, Associated Press reported: “Vaccines now are viewed as a crucial path to growth, as drug companies look for ways to offset a slowing of prescription-medicine sales amid intensifying generic competition and government pressure to restrain prices under the federal health-care overhaul.”[7]

An article published in New Scientist in late 2011 says: “No longer the unprofitable runt of the pharmaceutical family, vaccines are fast becoming the industry’s breadwinner…While the rest of the pharmaceutical sector struggles to keep afloat as expiring patents send profits plummeting, the vaccine industry has become remarkably buoyant.”[8]

In 2012, FierceVaccines noted: “Thanks in part to the adult influenza market and vaccines such as Gardasil and Prevnar, the global vaccines market has enjoyed a decidedly solid boost in revenue.[9] (Both Gardasil[10] and Prevenar[11] are aluminium adjuvanted vaccines.)

And now GSK is seeking another “solid boost in revenue” with the implementation of the aluminium-adjuvanted Bexsero meningococcal B vaccine around the world, kick-started by its adoption in the UK, courtesy of Professor Andrew Pollard and his colleagues on the UK Joint Committee on Vaccination and Immunisation (JCVI).

References:

1. Jefferson T, Rudin M, Di Pietrantoni C. Adverse events after immunisation with aluminium-containing DTP vaccines: systematic review of the evidence. Lancet Infect Dis. 2004 Feb; 4(2):84-90: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1473309904009272 This review is also listed in the Cochrane Vaccines Field Bibliography: http://vaccinesfield-old.cochrane.org/bibliography-2003
2. Sid Kirchheimer. Aluminium in Vaccines Poses No Harm – There’s More Pain and Redness, but No Long-Term Side Effects. WebMD, 29 January 2004:http://www.webmd.com/children/vaccines/news/20040129/aluminum-in-vaccines-poses-no-harm
3. The top 5 vaccine makers by 2014 revenue, FierceVaccines, 13 August 2015: http://www.fiercevaccines.com/special-reports/top-5-vaccine-makers-2014-revenue
4. Vaccines Market Worth $57.8 Billion by 2019, PRNewswire, 21 July 2015: http://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/vaccines-market-worth-578-billion-by-2019-517808711.html
5. The US National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program was established to protect vaccine manufacturers from direct liability: http://www.hrsa.gov/vaccinecompensation/index.html Also see Feds Vows to Publicize Vaccine Injury Help Program, The New York Times, 21 November 2014. This AP article is still available online via the UK Daily Mail: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/wires/ap/article-2844694/Feds-vows-publicize-vaccine-injury-help-program.html
6. Miloud Kaddar, Senior Adviser, Health Economist, WHO, IVB, Geneva. Gobal Vaccine Market Features and Trends: http://who.int/influenza_vaccines_plan/resources/session_10_kaddar.pdf (Powerpoint slides 5 and 6.)
7. Linda A Johnson. Vaccines become drugmakers’ profit boosters. Pharmaceutical companies drawn to development of vaccines for variety of diseases. The Columbus Dispatch, 30 November 2009: http://www.dispatch.com/content/stories/business/2009/11/30/vaccine_revolution.ART_ART_11-30-09_A10_7NFQQE7.html
8. Deborah MacKenzie. Vaccines enjoy a healthy return. NewScientist, 28 September 2011: http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn20877-vaccines-enjoy-a-healthy-return.html#.U7Np2vmSz-s
9. Alison Bryant. 20 Top-selling Vaccines – H1 2012. FierceVaccines, 25 September 2012: http://www.fiercevaccines.com/special-report/20-top-selling-vaccines/2012-09-25
10. Gardasil Product Information: https://www.ebs.tga.gov.au/ebs/picmi/picmirepository.nsf/pdf?OpenAgent&id=CP-2010-PI-05714-3
11. Prevenar Product Information: https://www.ebs.tga.gov.au/ebs/picmi/picmirepository.nsf/pdf?OpenAgent=&id=CP-2010-PI-07066-3&d=2016011216114622412

Angus Files

A fair summarizing by RFK which wont be of on a certain persons bookshelf of worldly knowledge is

http://www.dailycamera.com/guest-opinions/ci_28283397/robert-f-kennedy-jr-doing-math-meningitis-vaccinations

THE MATH

With billions of dollars in annual revenue at stake, vaccine makers are pushing meningitis vaccine mandates across the country. Vaccine issues are always complex, but advocates of the meningitis mandate should consider some simple math.

Meningococcal meningitis is exceedingly rare. There were only about 390 cases in the U.S. last year. In a population of 319 million, that adds up to one case in 817,949 people. There were only three meningococcal meningitis cases in Colorado last year — one resulting in death. The CDC has approved three vaccines targeting the A, C, Y and W135 strains of meningitis: Menactra, Menveo and Menomune, which still contains significant mercury concentrations in multi-dose vials. These vaccines are effective in providing immunity to those strains of meningitis in only 85 percent of people who receive them.
Thirty percent of the meningitis cases are the B strain, which typically occur in college-aged kids and against which the three vaccines are completely ineffective

MMR RIP

John Stone

A further word of regret. Dr Harrison submitted a comment this afternoon of nearly 3,000 words which never touched on the topic of this column in any way. He also berated me in a further comment for favouring other commenters who have written off-topic replying to him. I think it has been very difficult because he has been the person driving the comments off topic all along. He also failed to respond when I asked him to respond to comments I wrote on Saturday and repeated yesterday. I believe he was just ploughing on with his own agenda regardless of context.

It is very difficult - you are left to edit in the end.

John Stone

Hi Elizabeth,

I am disgusted with Cochrane's elliptical and disingenuous utterances on both aluminium and MMR - I think they are scared of the responsibility of disrupting policy (much less so with flu vaccine where they are quite outspoken) so the policy remains based on an unchallenged deception, and in the case of aluminium the burden just gets ever larger (as with Bexsero). In both cases they were unable to cite any hard science in support of the safety of the policy but just advised that it should continue.

Elizabeth Hart

Re my previous comments(1) referring to the Cochrane Vaccines Field’s ‘systematic review’ of aluminium and vaccine safety, authored by Tom Jefferson et al, and published in The Lancet Infectious Diseases journal in 2004.(2)

I suggest Jefferson et al’s review has facilitated poorly evidenced acceptance of the safety of aluminium-adjuvanted vaccines.

As a consequence, an increasing number of aluminium-adjuvanted vaccines are being added to vaccination schedules around the world e.g. multiple doses of diphtheria, tetanus and pertussis vaccines(3), and multiple doses of human papillomavirus (HPV) vaccines(4), among others.

The meningococcal B vaccine is the latest to be promoted.

The long-term cumulative effects of the ever-growing list of vaccine products are unknown.

I have challenged The Cochrane Collaboration, requesting they take urgent action to re-evaluate the review of aluminium and vaccine safety undertaken by Jefferson et al, published in The Lancet Infectious Diseases journal in 2004.

On 8 July 2014 I forwarded a letter in this regard to Professor Peter Gøtzsche, Co-founder of The Cochrane Collaboration and Director of The Nordic Cochrane Centre.

My letter to Professor Gøtzsche can be accessed via this link: http://users.on.net/~peter.hart/Challenge_to_Cochrane_re_vax-safety_and_aluminium.pdf


References:
1. Comments by Elizabeth Hart at January 07, 2016 at 08:14 AM and January 08, 2016 at 02:15 AM
2. Jefferson T, Rudin M, Di Pietrantoni C. Adverse events after immunisation with aluminium-containing DTP vaccines: systematic review of the evidence. Lancet Infect Dis. 2004 Feb; 4(2):84-90: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1473309904009272 This review is also listed in the Cochrane Vaccines Field Bibliography: http://vaccinesfield-old.cochrane.org/bibliography-2003
3. Repeated so-called ‘boosters’ with the apparently defective acellular pertussis (whooping cough) vaccine may actually be causing new strains of the disease to develop, and spreading the disease via vaccinated individuals. See my webpage on the pertussis/whooping cough ‘booster’ for more background: http://over-vaccination.net/questionable-vaccines/whooping-cough/
4. The implementation of HPV vaccination was fast-tracked in Australia in 2006/2007, after the Pharmaceutical Benefits Advisory Committee’s original rejection of the Gardasil HPV vaccine product was overturned within 24 hours after interference by politicians, including the then Prime Minister, John Howard. This occurred during the lead-up to the 2007 Federal election. In a domino effect, HPV vaccination was subsequently rolled out around the world, with many millions of children being vaccinated with this still experimental vaccine product. Late last year, an Irish senator, Paschal Mooney, made an impassioned speech about young girls and women suffering adverse events after HPV vaccination. I have written to Senator Mooney, providing him with background information on this matter, see my letter to Senator Mooney via this link: https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B9ZVuVqOGTd5b0o2bGZVV3RDUVk/view Also see my letter to former Australian Prime Minister Tony Abbott re HPV vaccination, dated 4 July 2015: https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B9ZVuVqOGTd5LTJaemhEWnJHSUU/view

Jenny Allan

From above article:-
"But there can be no doubt that whatever financial arrangements Prof Pollard has come to with his complex of professional associations that he has a huge professional investment in the reputation and success of the product Bexsero."

It seems this Bexero vaccine conflict of interest expose by John Stone has touched a very raw nerve within the corporate medical establishment. I am distressed to learn John has been bombarded by 'unpleasant emails' from Joel Harrison headed 'YOUR DISHONESTY' (actually coming from an email box belonging to Every Child By Two's Director of Operations) This is abuse, and in the UK at least probably actionable.

Dr Harrison's unedifying ramblings on this thread, have failed miserably in their mission to discredit us and obfuscate the main issues, with his lies and 'smoke and mirrors' tactics, not to mention the ad hominem barbs about our collective and individual stupidity and 'denseness'.

Dr Harrison is at least the same age as my elder daughter, who got one of the last UK smallpox jabs in 1968. My guess is he is considerably older. He is flogging a dead horse with those old fashioned 'immunology' textbooks. On this thread we are far more interested in up to date cutting edge research, for example, emerging evidence about the role of the gut microbiome in the immune system.

Go back to your trollmeisters Dr Harrison. There's no place for you here.

Jenny Allan

When is an admission of 'mea culpa' NOT an admission of 'mea culpa'? When it is delivered by Joel A. Harrison, PhD, MPH.

Dr Harrison apologises for missing an 'error' in Dr Andrew Wakefield's book 'Callous Disregard', but it would seem Dr Harrison follows the 'They didn't have bowel disease' Brian Deer style of investigative reporting.

(In his BMJ article 'How the case against the MMR vaccine was fixed' Deer was commissioned to spend a huge amount of time looking for discrepancies in the Lancet childrens' GP medical histories. Deer then accused Dr Wakefield of fraudulently altering things. The Lancet hospital medical histories were all written by clinician colleague Professor Walker-Smith, later completely exonerated by a High Court Judge of any wrongdoing. Since neither Professor Walker-Smith nor Dr Wakefield had previous access to the GP notes, it would have been impossible to alter them.)

Dr Harrison accuses Dr Wakefield of misrepresenting post MMR vaccine anaphylaxis data in this BMJ article:

"Cutts, Felicity T. (1996 March 9) Revaccination Against Measles and Rubella, BMJ, Vol. 312: 589-590"
In his book Callous Disregard Dr Wakefield quoted:-

“doctors in New York in 1992 had reported their experience of five cases of potentially life-threatening anaphylaxis in 2, 789 booster doses of MMR . . . The data from New York indicate that anaphylaxis is LIKELY (emphasis mine) to be more common and more severe in older children who have previously been exposed to an MCV”

Dr Harrison quotes from the same Cutts article:-

"The Cutts article states: “An analysis of allergic reactions reported through the United States' vaccine adverse events reporting system in 1991-3 showed fewer reactions among children aged 6-19 years, considered to be second dose recipients, than among those aged 1-4 years, considered to be first dose recipients.”

Dr Harrison goes on (from his comment below):-

"The (Cutts) article gives additional data on particular adverse reactions, though not anaphylaxis; and all were higher from the first dose given to younger children. In other words, Wakefield is claiming in his book the exact opposite of what the Cutts article contains."

What did Dr Wakefield ACTUALLY state in his Callous Regard book? (I trust AJW will not object to my quoting from the book)
On the same page 78 (referred to by Dr Harrison):-

"Anaphylaxis is likely to be more common and more serious with second and subsequent exposures to an allergen, since the body's immune system has been primed by the initial exposure and is capable of reacting more vigorously."

This statement, by Dr Wakefield is accepted medical fact. Dr Harrison, as a self professed immune system 'expert' should be aware of this.

Furthermore, the Cutts Data used by Dr Harrison to discredit Dr Wakefield is "An analysis of allergic reactions following MMR vaccinations". Again, as Dr Harrison ought to be well aware of, 'allergies' are not always serious conditions, and commonly cause only a minor rash. Dr Wakefield's quoted data was referring to potentially fatal 'anaphylaxis' reactions after MMR vaccines, a far more serious concern.

On Page 80 of his book, Dr Wakefield makes the following observations:-
" In a paper endorsing the merits of the MR campaign, Dr Felicity Cutts reported that with MMR vaccine anaphylaxis occurs in up to 1 in 20,000 doses (i.e.an expected 400 anaphylaxis cases following MR vaccine). This is certainly an underestimate because her data was based, almost exclusively , on inadequate surveillance methods and primary MMR vaccination of 1 year olds. The observation of Kalat et al of severe anaphylaxis in 1 in 558 school age children reinforces the fact that the risk is likely to be considerably greater in older children getting a booster dose."

Dr Wakefield laments the lack of information given to parents about the anaphylaxis risk prior to MMR vaccinations. Callous Disregard indeed.

* A reminder of Linda 1's observation, most of the 6-19 cohort, quoted as having fewer allergic reactions to MMR vaccine, will have already received their MMR pre school boosters at 4 years old. Hardly surprising then, most of the allergic reactions to MMR vaccine will be recorded for the 1-4 years cohort.

John Stone

Readers might find it interesting, as Joel here has revealed that while all this has been going on he has been sending me unpleasant emails headed 'YOUR DISHONESTY' (actually coming from an email box belonging to Every Child By Two's Director of Operations). But leaving aside the impenetrable history that he posted last night (which is even further removed from the topic of this blog) what is more significant is that he side stepped dealing with my comment yesterday. Unless he proposes to do this I really think this ought be the end of the road:

"Joel

"There might be questions about the official account of the decline of smallpox (as say compared with other lethal diseases which declined or became much less deadly before the era of vaccination for multiple diseases) but you are missing the substantive point which was to do with the fact that it was a vaccine too far for the man that claimed a child's immune system could very well cope with 10,000 vaccines. As I understand it what he and the British "experts" were doing was trying to get people to prostrate themselves before an industry which had many new products to introduce and be accepted. The context of such pronouncement were clear - but the theoretical basis while interesting had very little to do with real and often known hazards of products being given together and in large quantites. In the UK now we have at two months DTaP/IP/HiB+13 strain pneumococal+rotavirus+MenB and rising. We do not have as yet the utterly pointless for most infants HepB, though Prof Pollard has been a big advocate. Of course, if that barrage makes an infant ill you may have difficulty establishing what has done which (apart from anything else).

"But another point is that if it does go wrong everything has been done by the industry and by Dr Offit to shut down any sympathetic discussion of it. In the US you might possibly go to the "vaccine court" where you will stand a much better chance of a fair hearing if you are an adult with medico-legal training than an infant of an ordinary citizen. But for most parents they are surrounded by a howling press mob egged on by Dr Offit to deride their testimony.

"In the UK any professional giving testimony about vaccine damage is likely to end up before the General Medical Council. Again, in the UK, despite the fact that hundreds of millions of products have been dispensed not a single case has been compensated in 5 years (in the last case the testimony was given by a US expert - no one in the country would have stuck their necks out). The point is that this is not about actual science it is about very effective state repression."

I also append two comments I made about Dr Harrison's scholarship regarding Andy Wakefield in our email exchange:

"...It was your attempt to falsify Wakefield's account of the Pluserix affair that I commented on in your review of his book. It was simply Wakefield's claim that the SKB vaccine Trivirix/Pluserix had been withdrawn in Canada before it was introduced in the UK and you deliberately obfuscated the matter by pointing out that the license was not removed in Canada until 20 months afterwards: it sounds like the same thing but it is completely different, and you are refuting something that Wakefield did not claim. The vaccine (not the license) was in actual fact withdrawn in Canada in February 1988, so Wakefield's information was correct. I quote from a 1989 paper:

""Use of Trivirix vaccine has been discontinued pending further epidemiologic investigation to determine the relative risk of meningoencephalitis following vaccination with Trivirix versus MMR II vaccine. At our institution there have been no further cases of mumps CNS infection since the vaccine was withdrawn in February 1988 (unpublished data)"

Pediatr Infect Dis J. 1989 Nov;8(11):751-5.
Clinical and epidemiologic features of mumps meningoencephalitis and possible vaccine-related disease.
McDonald JC1, Moore DL, Quennec P.

"Pluserix was introduced in the UK in autumn 1988. Why would you go to such lengths to put Wakefield in the wrong?..."

"From footnote 60 of your own article:

""Consequently, the manufacturer of TRIVIRIX voluntarily discontinued the distribution of the vaccine in Canada until laboratory data were available to demonstrate that mumps viruses isolated from these vaccine recipients were not related to the Urabe mumps vaccine strain."

http://gsg.uottawa.ca/gov/Docs/CDWR%20RHMC%20Vol.16-50.pdf

"No date given but the vaccine was withdrawn across Canada. We do know, however, from this report that it happened before the laboratory data started to come through in 1989. Three cases came to light shortly after vaccine was introduced in 1986 and the decision to pull the vaccine occured after the 8th case. There were four cases at the Montreal Children's Hospital alone before February 1988. The Macdonald study does not say that it was the hospital which withdrew the vaccine. That is an unwarranted surmise (I note that you have turned the hospital into "a clinic" in order to make this claim)..."

Slippery, very slippery.

Hera

Dr Harrison,

You have stated that vaccine injured children and adults are compensated, but John has indicated that no one has been compensated in the UK for over five years, and even in the US most Doctors don't even know about VICP, let alone their patients. I believe it is only two years from first onset of symptoms before the case is automatically rejected and the child cannot ever be compensated? Please correct me if I am wrong, but I think you will find that for most vaccine injured people, compensation is a theoretical idea that doesn't actually happen.

I referenced an article on inflammation and glial priming Could you comment on it , please?
You have stated (though without a link to the scientific studies you base it on) that a child who reacts badly to vaccines probably would have reacted badly to normal childhood infections .

The idea that exposure to antigens is the same as getting a vaccine is no doubt a comforting thought, and if we expand it, then, given that adults have already been exposed to 10000 antigens every day of their life ( as well as multiple infections) , it would be impossible for any adult to ever react to any vaccine.
What a relief.
In fact, when you were vaccinated in the military, according to that theory, there is no way you could have reacted with a slight fever or inflammation. You had already been exposed to millions more antigens, so it is impossible that the few you were given in a shot could have caused any reaction at all.

Yet we know that vaccines cause mild reactions immediately in many people. This is because there is something fundamentally different about vaccinations versus casual exposure to antigens.
By the way, for what it is worth, imo, you are a decent person who has never reacted to vaccines, has no autoimmune problems, and who doesn't realize that others who don't share you good health may be forced to get a medical treatment they are already aware will likely damage them and their kids.
Imo, you wouldn't be the first good person who hasn't realized the consequences of what he is pushing.

Elizabeth Hart

Joel A. Harrison, PhD, MPH, re your reference to the MMR vaccine (which incidentally is not the subject of this article or discussion thread…) (Your comment: January 09, 2016 at 06:57 PM)

Just as an aside, this is another major scandal, i.e. parents being compelled to have their children vaccinated with *two* doses of the live MMR vaccine.

According to the manufacturers’ data, most individuals are likely to be immune after the *first dose* of effective live measles, mumps and rubella (MMR) vaccine.

For example, according to the GSK Priorix Product Information sheet, after the first dose of MMR vaccine, antibodies against measles were detected in 98.4% of previously seronegative subjects, 94.8% for mumps and 100% for rubella.(1)

According to the Information Sheet for Merck’s M-M-R II vaccine, “a single injection of the vaccine induced measles hemagglutination-inhibition (HI) antibodies in 95%, mumps neutralizing antibodies in 96%, and rubella HI antibodies in 99% of susceptible persons”.(2)

So the manufacturers’ data is showing a high seroconversion rate after *one dose* of MMR vaccine.

Immunity can be verified via a blood test, i.e. an antibody titre test (also known as serological testing). A positive blood test would provide evidence the individual is immune, i.e. evidence-based medicine.

However, most parents are not informed of the option to have a blood test to verify immunity after the first dose of MMR vaccine, instead they are compelled to have an arbitrary second dose of live MMR vaccine for their children, which in most cases will provide no benefit to the individual and may cause harm.

I suggest to not offer the option of antibody titre testing instead of the arbitrary second dose of live MMR vaccine contravenes the obligation for ‘valid consent’ before vaccination, as outlined in Section 2.1.3 of The Australian Immunisation Handbook.(3) The Australian Immunisation Handbook acknowledges “In general, a parent or legal guardian of a child has the authority to consent to vaccination of that child…” and states:

QUOTE:

For consent to be legally valid, the following elements must be present:

1. It must be given by a person with legal capacity, and of sufficient intellectual capacity to understand the implications of being vaccinated.
2. It must be given voluntarily in the absence of undue pressure, coercion or manipulation.
3. It must cover the specific procedure that is to be performed.
4. It can only be given after the potential risks and benefits of the relevant vaccine, risks of not having it and any alternative options have been explained to the individual.

END OF QUOTE

Point 4 specifically states any ‘alternative options’ must be explained to the individual. I suggest in the case of the MMR second dose this is not happening in many cases, particularly for children, i.e. their parents are not being informed of the evidence-based option of antibody titre testing to check if they are already immune after the first dose, an option that some cautious parents might be willing to pay for themselves if necessary.

I have raised this matter with a number of parties in Australia and the United States.

See for example my fully referenced letter to Tony Abbott, former Prime Minister of Australia, which I forwarded to him in August 2015 in response to his edict for compulsory vaccination of children for financial inducements: https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B9ZVuVqOGTd5Wksza0VpYmNaZzQ/view

Also see my letter to Sylvia Mathews Burwell, Secretary of the US Department of Health and Human Services: http://users.on.net/~peter.hart/Letter_to_Sylvia_Mathews_Burwell_HHS_re_MMR_second_dose.pdf

Joel A. Harrison, PhD, MPH, do you think it is ethical to compel parents to have two doses of live MMR vaccine, despite the reportedly high seroconversion rate after one dose of live MMR vaccine?

Do you think it is ethical to deny parents the option of antibody titre testing to verify immunisation after the first dose of live MMR vaccine?

References:
1. According to the GSK Priorix Product Information Leaflet, in “a more recent study comparing the formulation of PRIORIX (albumin-free) with the previous formulation containing albumin, antibodies against measles, mumps and rubella were detected in 98.4, 94.8 and 100% of previously seronegative subjects (n=191)”. The leaflet also contains similarly high seroconversion rates from earlier studies. The GSK Priorix Product Information Leaflet notes that: “Seroconversion has been shown to equate with protection against each of the measles, mumps and rubella viruses.” Despite the fact it appears one dose of PRIORIX MMR live vaccine is likely to provide protection for most previously seronegative subjects, the GSK Priorix Product Information Leaflet indicates two doses are to be given, i.e. “The Australian NH&MRC Immunisation Handbook recommendations for MMR vaccinations are as follows: MMR vaccine is recommended for all children at 12 months of age and again at 4-6 years of age unless there is a genuine contraindication.” So it appears the NHMRC is behind the two dose ‘recommendation’. GSK Priorix Product Information Leaflet as accessed on the TGA website: https://www.ebs.tga.gov.au/ebs/picmi/picmirepository.nsf/pdf?OpenAgent&id=CP-2010-PI-05279-3&d=2015042916114622412&d=2015052816114622412 (Note: The second dose of live MMR vaccine is described as a ‘booster’ in the GSK Priorix Leaflet - I suggest this term is misleading as a ‘booster’ is not required if the individual is already immune after the first dose.)
2. According to the Information Sheet for Merck’s M-M-R II (Measles, Mumps, and Rubella Virus Vaccine Live) “clinical studies of 284 triple seronegative children, 11 months to 7 years of age, demonstrated that M-M-R II is highly immunogenic and generally well tolerated. In these studies, a single injection of the vaccine induced measles hemagglutination-inhibition (HI) antibodies in 95%, mumps neutralizing antibodies in 96%, and rubella HI antibodies in 99% of susceptible persons.” Merck Sharp & Dohme Corp., a subsidiary of Merck & Co., Inc. M-M-R ® II. (Measles, Mumps, and Rubella Virus Vaccine Live). Information Sheet. 9912202: http://www.merck.com/product/usa/pi_circulars/m/mmr_ii/mmr_ii_pi.pdf
3. Section 2.1.3 Valid consent. The Australian Immunisation Handbook, 10th Edition: http://www.immunise.health.gov.au/internet/immunise/publishing.nsf/Content/Handbook10-home~handbook10part2~handbook10-2-1

Linda1

From _Shots in the Dark: The Wayward Search for an AIDS Vaccine_ by Jon Cohen p. 77:

"Jonas Salk, in addition to promoting the whole-, killed-virus idea, pushed the merits of the old-fashioned empirical approach. "Perhaps it is useful at this time when we are about to examine the AIDS question to look at the successes of the past and not merely the failures, and see perhaps whether or not that could offer us some inspiration," said Salk.

Maurice Hilleman, a cantankerous Merck & Co. researcher who had a hand in making more vaccines than anyone alive, pointed out how little vaccine developers actually understood about their successes. "I think the big problem of trying to get up here and talk about how vaccines work is that we don't know a damn thing about how they work, and in the old days, you know, we used to try to solve problems without understanding them, and it was great," said Hilleman, a tall, can-do man with a bloodhound's eyes who was raised on a farm in the high plains of Montana and had a Wild West streak. "This is the first time we have ever had need to understand anything, and maybe what we should do now is to go back and try to figure out how those old vaccines worked, and maybe we would learn a lot about AIDS. I am sorry I couldn't talk about how vaccines work because I don't know."

"Maybe that's the point," said Salk. "You did it by the seat of your pants before, and you didn't know, but somehow you succeeded.' "

Is that in your immunology books, Dr. Harrison?

Linda1

Dr. Harrison quoted:

"An analysis of allergic reactions reported through the United States' vaccine adverse events reporting system in 1991-3 showed fewer reactions among children aged 6-19 years, considered to be second dose recipients, than among those aged 1-4 years, considered to be first dose recipients.”

The two groups do not include children 5 years old, which is the age when children typically start kindergarten. Children receiving the second dose prior to starting school would likely be in the younger group - that was shown to have more allergic reactions.

Interesting from CDC 1995 on the reasoning behind the current schedule (there is more at the link). They explain that they lowered the MMR vaccination age from 15 mos to 12 mos because the mothers at that time were from the first wave of those vaccinated as children. They were the first generation of women that did not have natural immunity. It was only then, decades after the vaccine was approved and used on an entire generation of children, that scientists discovered that - whoopsie - mothers vaccinated as children were not able to protect their infants from measles as their naturally infected mothers did for them when they were babies. Public health authorities lowered the age because they realized that they screwed up and created a dangerous vulnerability to measles for the offspring of the mothers they had vaccinated as children. Just as scientists have no idea of what the unintended consequences of giving any of the new vaccines like HPV will be down the road.

"MMR

First Dose

During 1989 and 1990, more than 55,000 cases of measles were reported in the United States. Nearly 25% of these cases occurred among children less than or equal to 15 months of age, including approximately 9% among children 12-15 months of age (CDC, unpublished data). At that time, the recommended age for routine measles vaccination was 15 months of age. Recent studies have examined the impact of vaccine-induced immunity on maternally derived transplacental antibody levels; these studies have indicated that younger women (i.e., women who were born after 1956 and who are therefore more likely to have vaccine-induced immunity) transfer lower titers of measles antibodies to their newborn infants than older women (who are more likely to have had natural measles infection). The transplacental antibody acquired by these younger mothers' infants wanes earlier, causing their children to become susceptible to measles at a younger age (14,15). This finding suggests that children born to younger mothers might respond well to measles vaccine administered at 12 months of age. In one recent study in which children randomly received measles vaccine at either 12 or 15 months of age (16), the measles antibody response to MMR was 93% when the vaccine was administered at 12 months of age; at 15 months of age, the antibody response was 98%. Among children of mothers born after 1961, who probably had received measles vaccine and were less likely to have had measles infection than women born in previous years, the seroconversion rate was 96% among children vaccinated at 12 months of age and 98% among those vaccinated at 15 months of age.

Recommendation: The slightly lower response to the first dose of measles vaccine when administered at 12 months of age compared with administration at 15 months of age has limited clinical importance because a second dose of MMR is recommended routinely for all children, enhancing the likelihood of seroconversion among children who do not respond to the first dose. In addition, earlier scheduling of the first dose of measles vaccine can improve vaccination coverage. In 1994, both AAP and ACIP recommended administration of the first dose of MMR vaccine at 12-15 months of age (2,8); this schedule is still recommended.

Second Dose

In 1989, both ACIP and AAP recommended that all children receive a second dose of measles-containing vaccine; however, ACIP recommended administering the second dose at 4-6 years of age (5), and AAP recommended this dose at 11-12 years of age (4). Most states have implemented school entry requirements based on one or both of these recommendations. Currently, 12 states require administration of the second dose of measles vaccine before children enter kindergarten (i.e., at 4-6 years of age), 12 require this dose before entry to middle school (i.e., at 11-12 years of age), and 13 states require that the second dose be administered before children enter either kindergarten or middle school.

Recommendation: Because response to the second dose is high when administered to children in either age group (CDC, unpublished data), and because state-specific laws govern the administration of the second dose of MMR, the second dose of MMR can be administered at either 4-6 years of age or 11-12 years of age."

http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/00038256.htm

Joel A. Harrison, PhD, MPH

@Carol

The smallpox vaccine was made from a related virus, cowpox. Two hundred years ago they discovered that those infected with cowpox were protected against smallpox and, as with many things, before knowing about the immune system, they just accepted the empirical evidence. Numerous studies confirmed the wisdom of this. Genetically, the two viruses are almost identical, so, though cowpox doesn’t have the virulence factor that smallpox has, it has enough antigens for our immune systems to recognize either. With this said, no one is absolutely sure where the current vaccine came from, probably some mixture of various cowpox vaccines, etc.; but it has been proven to work as demonstrated in the WHO program that eradicated smallpox. Because the smallpox virus is a very large and complicated virus, it has about 200 antigens compared to about 150 from all the current vaccines combined. In addition, since it was used as is, it contains other “impurities.”

All other vaccines are derived by a much more specific focused methodology. The Hepatitis B is from taking certain surface antigens, growing them in yeast, etc., so it is very specific. The current polio vaccine used in US is made by killing the three strains of virus. The shape of the antigens doesn’t change in the killing, so the immune system can recognize it.

I have suggested over and over again that you and others learn about the immune system, then you will understand how and why vaccines work. Since undergraduate textbooks in immunology are way too dense and way to much chemistry, etc., I suggest a really super book, only 150 pages, Lauren Sompayrac’s How the Immune System Works, 5th Edition.

I am not about to write a 20 pages explanation of how each and every vaccine is made; but the regulations and enforcement is far better than for any other pharmaceutical or food. You might remember that in 2004 we had a shortage of flu vaccine. FDA tests every lot. In this case, the Brits discovered in their testing that lots were contaminated with a bacteria, so all vaccine from the one company was banned. The first rotavirus vaccine led to reports of intussusception. Within 6 months it had been stopped. Maybe that isn’t fast enough for you; but other drugs with far more reports have sometimes taken a decade to get off the market and, until recently, even with major outbreaks of food poisoning, the government could only request a voluntary recall. In addition, the sample size for vaccine clinical trials is much larger than any other drug and reporting requirements are far more rigorous. And we don’t really require anything for the 1,000s of chemicals released in our environment. Not perfect; but vaccines are actually the safest product on the market and compared to the diseases themselves, a bargain.

As for the “side effects listed being fearsome,” the side-effects don’t give the actual probabilities, the most “fearsome” are extremely rare and if a child reacts to the vaccine in such a severe manner then there is a high probability they would also have reacted to the natural microbe in the same way. Sometime read the warnings on any medication you get. They just list them all; but if you go to the actual medical literature, some may be extremely rare and they aren’t even certain that they were reactions to the medications; but they are required to list them, even if only a suspicion.

If you are really interested in how vaccines are made, how they are tested, etc. I can suggest one book above all. Unfortunately, it is quite expensive, $350; but most University libraries would have a copy, perhaps, not the latest edition which I have; but a recent edition. Perhaps even your main public library may have a copy. They usually aren’t for checking out; but what you could do is pick just one vaccine as it would involve perhaps 30 pages and read them carefully. The book also has chapters on vaccine regulations, adjuvants, vaccine safety, etc. The book is: Stanley A, Plotkin et al (Eds). Vaccines, 6th Edition, Elsevier.

No, I haven’t read the entire book, only about 1/4 of it. I read the chapters on regulations, adjuvants, safety, etc., and then on specific vaccines I was interested in.

There is also a lot of information available free in the CDC Pink Book available at: http://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/pubs/pinkbook/index.html

You can read chapters online, download by chapters or download the entire book and appendices, which I did. It is far less comprehensive that the above book; but, free, and a good place to start.

So, I hope this has, at least to some extent, answered your question. The smallpox vaccine was developed a century before the next vaccine and really not developed, just cowpox was used unchanged.

Joel A. Harrison, PhD, MPH

@John Stone

Mea Culpa

A correction is in order on my part. I wrote in an e-mail to you that you had been wrong about Wakefield claiming that one study found that adverse reactions were higher when kids got the second vaccine than the first and the actual study that Wakefield referred to in his book said the exact opposite, one more error by Wakefield in his book. My memory of two years ago wasn’t as good as it would have been years ago when I was younger. What actually occurred was that you criticized my journal article reviewing Wakefield’s book and when I went back to double check if I had misquoted or misinterpreted anything I realized that I had actually missed another error by Wakefield. So, it was your bogus critique that led to my double checking that led to my discovery of one more error in Wakefield’s book. So, I was wrong in attributing it to you; but, still, can thank you in that I found one more of Wakefield’s numerous errors. So, I plead mea culpa. If I were writing an article, not a comment on a blog or a quick e-mail, I would have double and triple checked. However, I did take your critique serious enough to actually check and if I had misquoted Wakefield I would have admitted it and asked the journal to post an Erratum; but I wasn’t wrong.

Below gives the actual quotes by me and you (note my attribution is correct in the comment):

From one of my comments to your article on AOA, “Offit Vaccine Under Review in Fraance After Baby Deaths”, April 7, 2015

Thanks to you in a comment posted on a Forbes blog (Available at: http://www.forbes.com/sites/danmunro/2014/01/23/big-datacrushes- anti-vaccination-movement/), I found the following:
One additional example from Wakefield’s book which I should have included in my paper. Wakefield writes (p.78): “doctors in New York in 1992 had reported their experience of five cases of potentially life-threatening anaphylaxis in 2, 789 booster doses of MMR . . . The data from New York indicate that anaphylaxis is likely to be more common and more severe in older children who have previously been exposed to an MCV” (referring to an article by Cutts). The Cutts article states: “An analysis of allergic reactions reported through the United States' vaccine adverse events reporting system in 1991-3 showed fewer reactions among children aged 6-19 years, considered to be second dose recipients, than among those aged 1-4 years, considered to be first dose recipients.” (Cutts, Felicity T. (1996 March 9) Revaccination Against Measles and Rubella, BMJ, Vol. 312: 589-590 Available at: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2350416/) The article gives additional data on particular adverse reactions, though not anaphylaxis; and all were higher from the first dose given to younger children. In other words, Wakefield is claiming in his book the exact opposite of what the Cutts article contains. I’m sorry I didn’t include this in my article, just one more example of Wakefield being wrong!

The comment you made to an article in Forbes “BIg Data Crushes Anti-Vaccination Movement” January 23, 2015 (comment on page 15 of comments)

John Stone 2 years ago
Dorrit Reiss

I didn’t pick out the issue, you did in the first of your comments about it, and indeed it is central to the article’s claims. There is a great deal else wrong with the article including outright fabrication. For instance, Harrison writes: ” It would be difficult to characterize the discrepancy between Wakefield’s eatimate of “ up to 14,337 anaphylaxis deaths from MR vaccine” and the real world’s figure of zero…” But what Wakefield actually wrote, citing a letter PEDIATRICS from Kalet et al 1992 who reported 5 cases of anaphylaxis out 2,789 MMR booster shots http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/content/89/1/168.3, was : “For the UK, this figure equated to the potential for up to 14,337 cases of potentially life-threatening complications in that campaign.” 

I then had Dorit Reiss post my reply (I don’t like registering on websites) (comment on page 18 of comments)

Dorit Reiss 2 years ago
From Dr. Harrison: Stone wrote: There is a great deal else wrong with the article including outright fabrication. For instance, Harrison writes:” It would be difficult to characterize the discrepancy between Wakefield’s eatimate of “ up to 14,337 anaphylaxis deaths from MR vaccine” and the real world’s figure of zero…” But what Wakefield actually wrote, citing
a letter PEDIATRICS from Kalet et al 1992 who reported 5 cases of anaphylaxis out 2,789 MMR booster shots http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/content/89/1/168.3, was :“For the UK, this figure equated to the potential for up to 14,337 cases of potentially lifethreatening
complications in that campaign.” So, Harrison has Wakefield stating something
preoposterous when in fact anaphylaxis is a real concern of modern life, with hundreds of thousands of children having to go to school with EpiPens.

Wakefield wrote both statements. He wrote “doctors in New York in 1992 had reported their experience of five cases of potentially life-threatening anaphylaxis in 2, 789 booster does of MMR . . . The data from New York indicate that anaphylaxis is likely to be more common and more severe in older children who have previously be exposed to an MCV (referring to an article by Cutts). For the UK, this figure equated to the potential for up to 14,337 cases of potentially life-threatening complication. (Wakefield, p. 78). Then he wrote: “trying to persuade parents of the merits of an MR campaign on the basis of up to 50 possible measles deaths while ethically warning them of the possibility of up to 14, 337 anaphylaxis deaths from the MR vaccine would have doomed the campaign to failure.”

The letter to the journal Pediatrics stated, which I wrote in my paper: “Missing the studies indicating the safety of the MMR in a two-dose regimen, Wakefield found only one letter discussing anaphylaxis in the journal Pediatrics, missing what this letter actually
stated: ‘All patients responded to treatment with aqueous adrenaline and/or diphenhydramine. There were no reported serious reactions in 406 children between 1 and 2 years old who received the vaccine. We cannot be certain that all five allergic reactions
were secondary to the MMR vaccine . . .’”

As I pointed out, there were numerous studies available to Wakefield long before he wrote his book, none found a single death. Wakefield based his entire claim on one letter. In addition, based on the Cutts article he claimed anaphylaxis to be more common and severe in older children; but the Cutts paper stated: “An analysis of allergic reactions reported
through the United States’ vaccine adverse events reporting system in 1991-3 showed fewer reactions among children aged 6-19 years, considered to be second dose recipients, than among those aged 1-4 years, considered to be first dose recipients” (p. 589) (Felicity T. Cutts. Revaccination against measles and rubella: Side effects are outweighed by improved disease control. BMJ, 312, March 9, 1996, pp. 589- 590). Wakefield didn’t even get this right!

Stone is correct that anaphylaxis has the potential to be serious; but the letter to Pediatrics explained how easily it is treated, if what the children experienced even was anaphylaxis. Yes, children with serious allergies carry epipens; but since anaphylaxis to an injection occurs almost 100% of the time within minutes, doctors’ offices have the equivalent of epipens available. However, I remember seeing children scream, faint, sweat, and get dizzy in the pediatrician’s office before even being injected. Even in the worst case scenario, it was gross exaggeration to extrapolate from the numbers in one small practice of possible cases of anaphylaxis to the possibility that even a small number would have resulted in death. If Wakefield had written the potential of a few deaths from anaphylaxis from vaccinations, though highly unlikely, that would vaccinations, though highly unlikely, that would have been reasonable (even this would have ignored the immense amount of data that found No deaths); but, of course, then it would still have shown it to be lower than the risk of death from the actual disease. In addition, he leaves out that, besides deaths, measles confers life-long disabilities on some children, e.g. mental retardation, seizure disorders, deafness, and blindness, so the numbers of dead and disabled children in the UK would have been in the 100s.

Carol

Joel,

You misunderstand what I'm asking. My first question: What makes (and made) the smallpox vaccine so dangerous? Second question: Is whatever makes/made it so dangerous different in kind or merely in degree from other vaccines? The side effects listed for the modern vaccine are fearsome, but also familiar.

It's OK to say, "I don't know." My question really wasn't addressed to you anyway.

Elizabeth Hart

Joel A. Harrison, PhD, MPH – can you please clarify your position?

Q.1: Do you think children should be compelled to have every vaccine product and revaccination on the government’s vaccination schedule, and be forced to comply with every new addition to the vaccination schedule?

For example, in Australia, children aged from birth to teenage years will have at least 43 doses of vaccines i.e. breaking down combination vaccines and including revaccinations on the schedule: 4 x hepatitis B, 5 x diphtheria, 5 x tetanus, 5 x acellular pertussis, 4 x haemophilus influenza type b, 4 x inactivated poliomyelitis, 3 x pneumococcal conjugate, 2 x rotavirus (possibly 3 doses, see note b on the schedule), 1 x meningococcal C, 2 x measles, 2 x mumps, 2 x rubella, 1 x varicella (chickenpox), 3 x human papillomavirus: Total 43 doses of vaccines.(1)

33 of these doses will be given in the first 18 months, this will rise to 36 doses when the recently PBAC approved 18 months diphtheria, tetanus and acellular pertussis ‘booster’ is implemented(2), therefore making a total of 46 vaccines up to teenage years. (This does not include the dubious annual flu vaccinations we are all being pressured to have.)

Dr Harrison, vaccination is a medical intervention.

Q.2: Do you think people should be denied the right to give ‘informed consent’ before the medical intervention of vaccination?

Q.3: Do you think parents of children should be denied the opportunity to consider the risks and benefits of all the vaccine products and revaccinations on the schedule, and forbidden from making a decision on vaccination in the best interests of their child?

Q.4: Do you think parents of children should be pressured, coerced and manipulated into vaccination with all of the vaccine products and revaccinations on the schedule, e.g. with financial inducements such as childcare benefits and tax benefits?

Q.5: Do you think parents of children should be denied these taxpayer funded benefits if they decline *any* of the vaccine products and revaccinations on the schedule?

Q.6: Do you think childcare facilities and schools should deny children access if they are not vaccinated with *all* of the vaccine products and revaccinations on the schedule?

Q.7: Do you think citizens should be forbidden from questioning vaccination policy and practice?

References:
1. The Australian National Immunisation Program Schedule (From 20 April 2015): http://www.immunise.health.gov.au/internet/immunise/publishing.nsf/Content/national-immunisation-program-schedule
2. At its meeting in November 2014, the PBAC recommended including an 18 month ‘booster’ dose of GSK Infanrix combination diphtheria, tetanus and acellular pertussis vaccine on the National Immunisation Program Schedule. November 2014 – Positive Recommendations. Recommendations made by the PBAC November 2014:http://www.pbs.gov.au/info/industry/listing/elements/pbac-meetings/pbac-outcomes/2014-11The Sanofi-aventis TRIPACEL vaccine was approved for the NIP by the PBAC in 2015. July 2015 – Positive Recommendations. Recommendations made by the PBAC July 2015:http://www.pbs.gov.au/info/industry/listing/elements/pbac-meetings/pbac-outcomes/pbac-outcomes-2015-07

John Stone

Joel

There might be questions about the official account of the decline of smallpox (as say compared with other lethal diseases which declined or became much less deadly before the era of vaccination for multiple diseases) but you are missing the substantive point which was to do with the fact that it was a vaccine too far for the man that claimed a child's immune system could very well cope with 10,000 vaccines. As I understand it what he and the British "experts" were doing was trying to get people to prostrate themselves before an industry which had many new products to introduce and be accepted. The context of such pronouncement were clear - but the theoretical basis while interesting had very little to do with real and often known hazards of products being given together and in large quantites. In the UK now we have at two months DTaP/IP/HiB+13 strain pneumococal+rotavirus+MenB and rising. We do not have as yet the utterly pointless for most infants HepB, though Prof Pollard has been a big advocate. Of course, if that barrage makes an infant ill you may have difficulty establishing what has done which (apart from anything else).

But another point is that if it does go wrong everything has been done by the industry and by Dr Offit to shut down any sympathetic discussion of it. In the US you might possibly go to the "vaccine court" where you will stand a much better chance of a fair hearing if you are an adult with medico-legal training than an infant of an ordinary citizen. But for most parents they are surrounded by a howling press mob egged on by Dr Offit to deride their testimony.

In the UK any professional giving testimony about vaccine damage is likely to end up before the General Medical Council. Again, in the UK, despite the fact that hundreds of millions of products have been dispensed not a single case has been compensated in 5 years (in the last case the testimony was given by a US expert - no one in the country would have stuck their necks out). The point is that this is not about actual science it is about very effective state repression.

Jenny Allan

"If the human race survives the spread of autism at man's irresponsible and negligent hand, the next generation will likely read something very different from what you are reading in your immunology textbooks about vaccination now."

The above was extracted from Linda 1's excellent response to the recurrent ramblings of Joel A. Harrison, PhD, MPH on this thread. This is also my response to Dr Harrison's last comment aimed at me.

Science moves on and evolves, as new discoveries are made and previous knowledge is refined and adapted. Science is never 'in'. We must not be afraid to challenge those establishment and corporate assertions, when we believe them to be false or biased, in order to protect reputations and profits.

Dr Harrison is part of the political/corporate geo-force, collectively determined to shut down reasoned debate. Thank you AoA editors and commenters for dealing with the likes of Harrison, Eindeker et al, in such a well reasoned, dignified way.

I pray 2016 will bring some much needed public debate in the world corridors of power on the issues of autism and its prevention. This MUST include a complete review on the child vaccine schedules. To ignore vaccines as causation whilst inventing all kinds of other possibilities is no longer negligent. It is CRIMINAL

Benedetta

Joel A. Harrison, PhD, MPH;
Willing to do your part and there by the grace of God goes you.

My husband's cancer on his face was removed by a plastic surgeon - now in private practice. BUT he was an army doctor during Desert Storm - you know the one were all the soldiers had Desert Storm Syndrome that ended up being ALS.
You know lots got ALS whether deployed or stayed right here at home.

You remember that the second time the British Navy headed out for Iraq under Bush the Younger - a few days later thousands of vial floated up on shore where some ones had thrown them over board.

While my husband was waking up from his surgery- you can bet I tell everyone about his vaccine reaction -and I had told this Doctor too - I never miss an opportunity.

So, this Doc tells me standing there in the hall that his brother-in-law and some of his family wanted to know if he was going to take that anthrax vaccine , and he said nope - he was not going to.

This past army doctor says that he tells the nurse that when it comes his turn in line to get the vaccine that the nurse is not to give it to him - but to aim it toward the ground and shot it harmlessly - on the ground and not in his behind.

When it came his turn; that is what the nurse did, and he grabbed his behind and yelled out ouch; even though he never took the anthrax vaccine.

You were willing to do your part.
But you did not have to - you lucky, lucky dog.

n

CZ

Zuckerberg has jumped on the vaccine defence bandwagon and put up a picture of his baby's doctor visit for vaccines. I still don't think it answers whether he and his wife are giving the full schedule (birth hep b, flu shots soon...)

Linda1

Dr. Harrison,
It's good that you continue to study, but it is apparent that you study with a deep bias that is based at least in part on assumption, and partial assumption is all it takes to derail legitimate logic and undermine the development of wisdom.
You also are pretty arrogant and condescending in your dealings with other people, assuming (again) your own superiority.

I just want to point out with respect to the Polings, that after Hannah's case was deemed "rare", her father, pediatric neurologist Jon Poling, made the point publicly that it was (and is) not known how many children suffer from mitochondrial dysfunction. He further made a public plea to the scientific community to research the incidence to prevent future injuries. The scientific community was not interested. Also, many in the vaccine safety community, those you pejoratively refer to as "antivaccinationists", have been asking for the development of screening tests for mitochondrial dysfunction and other indicators of vaccine intolerance, for years.

Your contention that Hannah Poling and children with this disorder would have become autistic with or without the vaccines is a huge assumption. Yes, you can say that based on her biology after the fact, she was theoretically prone to damaging sequelae post other febrile illness, but the fact is that it is not known how much she would have tolerated of interaction with wild disease. It is not known what disease she would have encountered naturally throughout her life and exactly what her response would have been with her mitochondrial disorder. I believe that her mother, a healthy, accomplished RN, JD, has the same disorder. But her mother was never subjected to the childhood schedule of 9 vaccines in one day as happened to her daughter in a series repeated often throughout the first two years because when Mrs. Poling was a child, babies were not subjected to nearly as many vaccines. I don't know too, if Mrs. Poling was vaccinated as a baby. Probably yes, but we can't assume.

I was reading a medical text from 30 years ago that swore up and down that they were absolutely sure that blankets and crib bumpers had nothing to do with SIDS. In 30 years, if the human race survives the spread of autism at man's irresponsible and negligent hand, the next generation will likely read something very different from what you are reading in your immunology textbooks about vaccination now. No doubt many things will be exactly opposite, like now they swear up and down that in order to prevent SIDS they are absolutely sure that there should be no blankets or bumpers in a baby's crib.

Joel A. Harrison, PhD, MPH

@Carol

You are absolutely right that smallpox vaccine is the vaccine with many serious adverse reactions, even approximately 1 or a couple of deaths per million, cases of progressive and generalized vaccinia (you can look these up), and everything you listed. And, if smallpox was still endemic in the world, 99% of reasonable people would chance the vaccine compared to the alternative. Smallpox killed yearly children and broke out in epidemics every few years that killed at least 1/3 of all children, left many blind, and the survivors had suffered many days where their entire body was on fire and then most left disfigured for life. So, if I gave you odds of a serious adverse event from a vaccine compared to a much higher risk from the disease, I’ll give a low figure of 100,000 dead from disease for every death or serious adverse event from the vaccine, which would you choose?.

With that said, the smallpox vaccine was the first vaccine ever developed and, though it saved 10s of millions of lives, it was and still is a primitive vaccine. Current vaccines are totally different in how they are developed and produced. From what I understand, they are working on a newer smallpox vaccine. The chances of smallpox occurring are miniscule; but not zero, either from some rogue group that gets hold of the one of the few remaining samples or the remote possibillity that monkey pox could mutate into become airborne and transmitted between humans. Currently, there have only been a few cases of humans catching it based on close contact with an infected animal and, at least in the US, all have recovered.

Yes, after 9/11 when we were in panic mode, Paul Offit was the only one on the committee to vote against mass inoculation with smallpox vaccine. Of course, had he been wrong and terrorists released smallpox, you and many others would be criticizing him. However, I understand his reasoning. The likelihood of smallpox was miniscule and the vaccinations would have certainly caused deaths and disabilities. I might have used an approach in between. I would have begun with offering voluntary vaccinations to first responders, medical personnel and other essential personnel, e.g. people who work transporting food, people who work at our sewage treatment and power plants. This would include indemnification for any adverse events, including complete medical care, loss of wages, etc. In this way, if the miniscule chance of smallpox occurring, the basic infrastructure necessary to keep our society going would be in place; but, of course, I didn’t have a vote. So, in this case, Offit was the voice of reason.

By the way, I was ready to get vaccinated immediately. Though not a medical doctor, I was younger than now, healthy, and willing to help, e.g. work at hospitals and other centers that would be dealing with the overwhelming number of ill people. I figured that I did not have an autoimmune disease and had already had three smallpox vaccinations, so the risk was miniscule. And, if smallpox broke out, by excluding those with autoimmune diseases and other risk factors, we could vaccinate the population with a small amount of adverse events and those unvaccinated would be somewhat protected by herd immunity. The list of adverse events you posted are true; but the risk varies by what pre-existing conditions one has. Though one can’t know all about ones body, the risk would be much much less for those without certain conditions and, as I wrote above, the risk from the actual disease if it were epidemic would be exponentially worse.

Joel A. Harrison, PhD, MPH

@Jenny Allen You write: “Yes - Let's put this to bed. Eindeker and Joel A. Harrison PhD, MPH, are not interested in reasoned arguments or evidence. Their purpose in commenting here is to make us all look stupid and ignorant, whilst deflecting attention from credible evidence of vaccine harm, including those warnings on vaccine manufacturer's inserts, and the $millions already paid out by the US Government for child vaccine damage. Dr Harrison seems to imagine his PhD qualifies him to pontificate on the interactions of vaccines and childrens' immune systems. Dr Harrison's generalisations include ALL children and ALL child vaccines, including those still in the pipeline. Dr Harrison claims vaccines are inviolate, always safe, always effective. Those of us who dare to express concerns about the safety of vaccines, or the wisdom of administering multiple doses during a single visit are accused of being ‘dense’.”

First, I have NEVER claimed that vaccines are “always safe, always effective.” The Pink Book put out by the CDC, the CDC website, and Vaccine Information Sheets given out with vaccines, all include a detailed list of mild and severe adverse reactions. I am quite aware that vaccines do NOT confer complete immunity for everyone and that many will suffer short term adverse events and a few serious long term adverse events. However, what I do understand is that without vaccines, an exponentially greater number of children would suffer serious adverse events and even death. In the 1950s, just measles alone each year killed on average 400-500 children and left up to several thousand brain damaged, either retardation or seizure disorders or blind.

Take the Hannah Poling case. She had an underlying mitochondrial disorder. Quite simply, she did not have the capacity to mount a full level immune response. The CDC lists as one possible consequence of vaccines, precipitation, that is, the vaccine brought on something that would have inevitably occurred. This means that had Hannah Poling become sick with flu, a bad cold, gone to a picnic and got food poisoning or any of many possibilities, she would have developed the encephalopathy she did from the vaccines. So, she was compensated by the Vaccine Court; but what happens to all the children with similar mitochondrial disorders who develop problems when experiencing some major infection? They are left out in the cold. And if more and more children do NOT get vaccinated, then the risk of infection with vaccine-preventable diseases increase and more and more children with mitochondrial disorders will be at risk at ever earlier ages.

What we need is some inexpensive screening tool, test for mitochondrial disorders so, for those children we can space out the vaccines; but also their parents would have to be more protective, that is, make sure foods properly refrigerated, hands washed, etc. because they are at greater risk. Unfortunately, we con’t have such a screening tool right now. In any case, if we didn’t have vaccines, far more children would suffer. We do have vaccines and are aware that a few children will be harmed from them and we compensate them for that. Without the vaccines, an exponentially greater number would be harmed and there would be no compensation. I hate to read about a single child being harmed; but if I read about someone harmed by a seatbelt, I still support seatbelts because the risk of harm from them is much smaller than the risk of harm without them.

And vaccines don’t always protect people. Their immune systems may not rev up to full capacity or the vaccine may actually work; but the level of exposure still overwhelms them. Think of a bullet proof vest that will protect against low caliber bullets but not high velocity. It is absurd and typically dishonest that I and others supporting vaccines claim they work perfectly and never cause harm. Try being honest!

As for: “Dr Harrison seems to imagine his PhD qualifies him to pontificate on the interactions of vaccines and childrens' immune systems. Dr Harrison's generalisations include ALL children and ALL child vaccines, including those still in the pipeline.” If you mean by “pontificate” that I actually quote not one but many scientific studies, so be it. If you meant that because I have actually studied immunology, reading several rather long text books and several shorter ones as well as many articles in Scientific American and other journals, so that I actually understand how vaccines work, yes, I plead guilty. It must be nice to think that you or anyone else can understand something by reading a few articles without any in depth understanding of immunology, microbiology, epidemiology, biostatistics, the history of infectious diseases, and the current state of infectious diseases in the world, many just a plane flight away.

Throughout my life I have known people who are as intelligent as I am and many far more intelligent. In grad school, I did better than the more intelligent because while they had a life, did things other than studying, I spent Saturday nights in the library. I still do the same. Except for going to a gym every day and walking my dog, I devote most of my day to reading and learning. I am currently reading a new edition of an undergraduate microbiology text, both to refresh what I know and for any new developments. I continue to read Scientific American and other journals and, for each of the articles I write for Every Child By Two, I read hundreds of papers and take notes. It isn’t my PhD, it is that I put in the time and effort.

Are you “dense” well, I wrote comments that explained over and over that Offit’s statement of 100,000 vaccines was taken out of context. In context what he was saying was that our immune systems are quite capable of dealing with the antigenic equivalent of the antigens in 100,000 vaccines. Try going back and reading ALL my comments. So, the number of antigens in several vaccines, especially given they are killed or attenuated, are certainly well below the number our immune systems are designed to deal with. Yes, if you continue to ignore what I’ve written, you are dense. Who knows, genetically you may be much more intelligent than I am; but if you make such absurd claims that I believe vaccines 100% effective and have no risks and you continue to quote one or a few studies, e.g. Cochrane, rather than delving into the immense literature on the subject, and if you don’t take the time to begin to learn immunology, microbiology and all the other necessary subjects, your intelligence is about the same as someone born with natural athletic abilities who is a couch potato. Abilities still have to be developed. I have recommended several books. Once more, a delightful short book of 150 pages, Lauren Sompayrac “How the Immune System Works, 5th Edition”. 800 page textbook can lead to missing the forest for the trees. Read it, you may actually like it.

Hera

Jenny Allan,
Thanks for the breakdown of vaccine dosages.So at 2 months kids are already getting 8 doses of vaccines.
I wonder how many vaccines in a day before Dr Harrison would think there was a risk involved? Eight is obviously fine with him, so where does he draw the line? Or does he believe the theoretical 10 000 or 100 000 would be fine as long as he can fit them in a small amount of injecting fluid? Or did he not know that babies were already getting eight vaccines in a single day?
John,
I am sorry your post got off topic. I do think though that it is important to respond to comments that make statements that imo show a huge lack of research.
Facts are facts, and as you point out being exposed to antigens in dust is nothing like getting 10 000 infections at once. Or even getting eight infections at once. Dust on the ground does not typically result in fevers and immune system inflammatory responses.
Dr Harrison, if you wish to continue with this, how about moving to the thread that John suggested.

John Stone

Just a word of explanation and regret - a lot of comments have not been posted by me on this thread both from Joel Harrison and from others trying to draw him out on his opinions. I was not happy that the column should be hi-jacked by off topic comments although I have not really succeeded in preventing it anyway. A lot of it might have been more appropriate if it had been posted under my earlier column:

http://www.ageofautism.com/2015/12/bexsero-offit-article-still-the-theoretical-basis-of-the-ever-expanding-vaccine-schedule.html

Jenny Allan

Yes - Let's put this to bed. Eindeker and Joel A. Harrison PhD, MPH, are not interested in reasoned arguments or evidence. Their purpose in commenting here is to make us all look stupid and ignorant, whilst deflecting attention from credible evidence of vaccine harm, including those warnings on vaccine manufacturer's inserts, and the $millions already paid out by the US Government for child vaccine damage.

Dr Harrison seems to imagine his PhD qualifies him to pontificate on the interactions of vaccines and childrens' immune systems. Dr Harrison's generalisations include ALL children and ALL child vaccines, including those still in the pipeline.

Dr Harrison claims vaccines are inviolate, always safe, always effective. Those of us who dare to express concerns about the safety of vaccines, or the wisdom of administering multiple doses during a single visit are accused of being 'dense'.

Dr Harrison's attempted defence of Offit's incontinent utterings, including that notorious claim babies can tolerate 100,000 vaccines at once, demonstrates Dr Harrison's arrogance and ignorance. Offit's totally unproven and crass statement, has been used by Government health departments worldwide to support the introduction of multiple dose child vaccines.

Even more dangerous, Offit's claim has enabled vaccine manufacturers to cut corners, during vaccine safety trials, since multiple vaccines must be safe, mustn't they? Well NO. According to the respected Cochrane Collaboration safety trials on the MMR vaccine were 'inadequate', a disgrace which continues to this day. Now tiny babies can be administered up to 8 vaccines at once in the UK. More in the US. Time for a long hard look at what this is doing to our precious children

Doctors Harrison and Offit are examples of the harm which is caused by persons who use their 'DR' status to spout unscientific nonsense, knowing they will be believed by lazy politicians and health personnel, due to their status, often 'sponsored' by the vaccine manufacturers.

Just for everyone's interest, the following is the current UK infant vaccine schedule:-

2 months
5-in-1 (DTaP/IPV/Hib) vaccine – this single jab contains vaccines to protect against five separate diseases: diphtheria, tetanus, whooping cough (pertussis), polio and Haemophilus influenzae type b (known as Hib – a bacterial infection that can cause severe pneumonia or meningitis in young children)
Pneumococcal (PCV) vaccine
Rotavirus vaccine
Men B vaccine
Total 8 Vaccines

3 months
5-in-1 (DTaP/IPV/Hib) vaccine, second dose
Men C vaccine
Rotavirus vaccine, second dose
Total 7 vaccines

4 months
5-in-1 (DTaP/IPV/Hib) vaccine, third dose
Pneumococcal (PCV) vaccine, second dose
Men B vaccine second dose
Total 7 vaccines

12-13 months
Hib/Men C booster, given as a single jab containing meningitis C (second dose) and Hib (fourth dose)
Measles, mumps and rubella (MMR) vaccine, given as a single jab
Pneumococcal (PCV) vaccine, third dose
Men B vaccine third dose
Total 7 vaccines
http://www.nhs.uk/Conditions/vaccinations/Pages/vaccination-schedule-age-checklist.aspx

Elizabeth Hart

Further to my previous comments re the poor quality Cochrane Vaccines Field’s ‘systematic review’ of aluminium and vaccine safety, in which Tom Jefferson et al advise “we do not recommend that any further research on this topic is undertaken”.(1)

(See my previous comment dated January 07, 2016 at 08:14 AM)

Around the time of publication, Jefferson et al’s review received enthusiastic publicity on the industry-funded WebMD website(2) in an article titled “Aluminium in Vaccines Poses No Harm – There’s More Pain and Redness, but No Long-Term Side Effects”.(3)

The WebMD article states: “After scouring through all the available medical data, researchers in Rome say there is no evidence that aluminium - contained within the combined diphtheria, tetanus and pertussis vaccine commonly known as DTP and routinely given to children - poses any serious or long-term side effects”

Tom Jefferson is quoted as saying: “Scare stories on aluminium-containing vaccines are not supported by evidence.”

However, as I note in my previous comment, in their ‘systematic review’ of aluminium and vaccine safety, Jefferson et al admit that “overall, the methodological quality of included studies was low”.

Given the low quality of the ‘evidence’ he reviewed, it is unaccountable that Dr Jefferson would make a statement negating any safety concerns about aluminium-containing vaccine products, and recommending against further research.

This is particularly remarkable in light of his earlier comments in The Telegraph in 2002 where he expressed his concern about future vaccination programmes including “five, six, even seven vaccines all at once”, and where he reportedly warned “…the information available on the safety of vaccines that are routinely given to babies and toddlers was ‘simply inadequate’.”(4)

The WebMD article also includes fulsome praise for Jefferson et al’s review from the world’s foremost vaccine promoter, Paul Offit.

Offit describes Jefferson et al’s review as “a very thorough, thoughtful review of the subject, and the findings don’t surprise me at all”.(3) Perhaps Offit missed the admission in Jefferson et al’s review that “overall, the methodological quality of included studies was low”.(1) So much for the “very thorough, thoughtful review of the subject”…

In fact Jefferson et al’s review may have had dramatic consequences in facilitating the international proliferation of aluminium-adjuvanted vaccine products and revaccinations, e.g. repeated revaccinations with diphtheria, tetanus and pertussis vaccines, and multiple vaccinations with HPV vaccines, and recently the meningococcal B vaccine.

While increasing numbers of aluminium-adjuvanted vaccine products and revaccinations continue to be added to vaccination schedules around the world, we have no idea of the long-term consequences of repeated revaccination with these vaccine products throughout life.

This is particularly alarming considering so-called ‘experts’ such as Paul Offit admit “it’s still unclear exactly how aluminium salts stimulate the body’s immune response…”(3)

References:

1. Jefferson T, Rudin M, Di Pietrantoni C. Adverse events after immunisation with aluminium-containing DTP vaccines: systematic review of the evidence. Lancet Infect Dis. 2004 Feb; 4(2):84-90: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1473309904009272 This review is also listed in the Cochrane Vaccines Field Bibliography: http://vaccinesfield-old.cochrane.org/bibliography-2003
2. WebMD Our Sponsors: http://www.webmd.com/about-webmd-policies/about-our-sponsors?ss=ftr
3. Sid Kirchheimer. Aluminium in Vaccines Poses No Harm – There’s More Pain and Redness, but No Long-Term Side Effects. WebMD, 29 January 2004: http://www.webmd.com/children/vaccines/news/20040129/aluminum-in-vaccines-poses-no-harm
4. Lorraine Fraser. Vaccines expert warns studies are useless. The Telegraph, 27 October 2002: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1411417/Vaccines-expert-warns-studies-are-useless.html

John Stone

Joel

It really is time we called a halt - it is you who are not following what you yourself are saying.

Your defence of the 10,000 vaccine theory was based on fact that it was not practically possible but based on the alleged spare capacity of the immune system, but 20 vaccines is practical and you suggested that this would probably be too far for Offit. I have no reason to believe this.

Secondly, 10,000 vaccines is an abstract proposition but we are talking about specific products with different effectiveness and safety profiles: some are very unpleasant, some are certainly potentially dangerous. None should be given casually. Their safety is not god-given. Even the manufacturers' package inserts acknowledge that.

Thirdly, why it is not like Cohn and Langman. Most days of the year the environmental challenges that I meet don't cause me to have a raised temperature. Vaccines are designed to stimulate the system in specifc ways: they are not like normal environmental challenge.

What you remind of a little is Tom Buchanan in The Great Gatsby insisting the innate superiority of the white races had been scientifically proven. You also remind me somewhat of a foot-in-the-door salesman (did you ever do that for a living?) I think it is time to close the door.

Joel A. Harrison, PhD, MPH

@John Stone

You really should read more carefully. You wrote: “Apart from dodging the point about the 20 vaccines issue (which was your original bargaining counter) you are involved in blatant contradiction.” It was Hera who suggested this and I clearly said that for sake of argument if we did that how many vaccine injections and fluid would be involved. I was NOT endorsing putting 20 different vaccines in one injection, I was simply using it to illustrate the number of injections and fluid involved. I could have, instead, used computations based on the standard volume of vaccine injections and would have come up with much larger numbers. Typical how you read into things whatever fits your agenda.

You write: “There is no given that any of the products are individually safe - Offit himself wrote a book about the Cutter incident. That was just a single vaccine that caused havoc .” Did you actually read Offit’s book on the Cutter Incident? Yes, it was terrible. In fact, since some of the Cutter vaccine was used in my home town and I was in the first cohort to get the newly approved vaccine, it could have been me. But you missed two things:

After the Cutter vaccine was withdrawn and the vaccine program continued, the number of cases of polio were less than half that of previous years;
The Cutter Incident resulted in more stringent regulations and enforcement for vaccines

I don’t discount the tragedy of the children who were crippled by the Cutter vaccine. I shudder to think I could have been one them; but, if you read the book, you would understand that once the vaccine was approved, the pressure to get it out from the public before the onset coming polio season was enormous. Salk and others made a major error. In fact, a Swedish researcher, Sven Gard, warned them and Sweden own polio vaccine has NEVER had any problems. And, most children who got the Cutter vaccine did fine. Most children who were infected with polio did fine; but an average of 16,000 per year ended up crippled. So, it is possible that at least some of the Cutter cases would have developed polio from natural infection given that most children were eventually exposed to the virus and whatever genetic predisposition that allowed the virus to wreak havoc from the natural virus would have been present when getting the Cutter vaccine. Not only have I read Offit’s book; but probably a couple dozen medical journal articles on the Cutter Incident. I have read books and articles on the history of organ transplants and the first years were really not good. If I wanted to condemn organ transplants today, I could just focus of the first years and ignore anything thereafter.

You write: “Offit made his decision at a time of present national danger but perhaps he could see that if smallpox vaccine was rolled out there would be likely many horrible and conspicuous incidents and the reputation of the vaccine program would not recover.”

And, given that smallpox has only human’s as its reservoir and the last case of natural smallpox anywhere in the world was in 1977, 24 years before 2001, and the only known for certain remaining samples of smallpox were in the US and Russia, all which you ignore, Offit’s was a voice of reason; but, as I pointed out, if smallpox had broken out, it would have led to 100s of millions of deaths around the world as virtually NO ONE today has any immunity to it. And there is NO proven treatment. So, yes, without an epidemic the results of a smallpox vaccination campaign would have been horrible; but you refuse to even consider that Offit and others might actually have ethical motives and the knowledge to support their decisions. You have to believe the worst of people, otherwise your raison d’etre would be undermined. If Offit had supported the smallpox campaign you would have attacked him. If he doesn’t, you attack him. Damned if he does, damned if he doesn’t. Heads you win, tails he loses. You are incredible.


So, if you base your antivaccination beliefs on the Cutter Incident then I expect you to condemn transplants and any other medical treatments that in the beginning had problems.

As for “10,000 vaccines isn't science it is sales pitch used as sales pitch;” yes, it is a sales pitch; but not for anyone who has an open mind; but for antivaccinationist like you.


Hera

Sorry; just a little more info,
from Medscape

http://emedicine.medscape.com/article/165315-overview

From the article

In healthy subjects, only 0.3% of orally administered aluminum is absorbed via the gastrointestinal (GI) tract, and the kidneys effectively eliminate aluminum from the human body. Only when the GI barrier is bypassed, such as by intravenous infusion or in the presence of advanced renal dysfunction, does aluminum have the potential to accumulate. As an example, with intravenously infused aluminum, 40% is retained in adults and up to 75% is retained in neonates.[4]

By the way, John Stone has again pointed out to you that 20 vaccines in a single shot is certainly very possible..

Hera

Hi Dr Harrison,

Route is everything in terms of safety.
I can drink five cups of orange juice.
Completely safe, assuming I don't have an orange allergy.
But I can't put five cups of OJ in a sub Q injection
Or an IM injection
or put in it an IV.
NG tube ( same route, via the stomach) would be fine, of course.

You appear to be very interested in research, so I am kind of surprised you haven't already looked at the difference in mercury or aluminium toxicity between something that is swallowed and something that is injected.
Pretty much the first studies I looked into when I first started questioning vaccine safety.

Something else you may be interested in, full of many peer reviewed journal articles, from passionless drone; it will only take you five minutes, maybe ten to read, and she/he lists all sources in detail. There are a lot of studies to read, but here is the conclusion

" Could
the same chemical messengers of inflammation be subtly
priming the microglia to respond with increased vigor to
insults later in life? Has our replacement of infection with
inflammation included an unanticipated effect that alters the
developmental pathway of the very cells that help shape our
children’s brains? I don’t think we are (quite) clever enough to
answer these types of questions yet, but we are at least starting
to generate the right kind of data to inform us on how to get
started."
the glial priming article is pretty good ( okay, very scary,) too.


https://passionlessdrone.wordpress.com/2013/02/03/the-biologically-plausible-model-of-perturbed-microglial-colonization-and-developmental-trajectories-participating-in-some-cases-of-autism-and-the-ribs-hypothesis-of-maternal-inflammation-and-causat/

The Cliff Notes Version, an explanation of
why using substances designed to produce inflammation in very young infants could create long term damage in the way their brain develops.
Repeated inflammatory responses are friends to vaccines, creating a better, more robust response, but that same inflammation may not be a friend to the developing brain.

John Stone

Joel

Apart from dodging the point about the 20 vaccines issue (which was your original bargaining counter) you are involved in blatant contradiction. The problem that Offit recognised with the smallpox vaccination is that it is (without getting into very familiar arguments about the history - in which I am something of an agnostic) an unpleasant, dangerous vaccine. Something you'd want to avoid once let alone give 10,000 times - it is not something the body takes easily. We are dealing with human inventions, industrial products, not magic bullets.

Offit made his decision at a time of present national danger but perhaps he could see that if smallpox vaccine was rolled out there would be likely many horrible and conspicuous incidents and the reputation of the vaccine program would not recover.

The Bexsero vaccine administered not to babies but to 10-25 year-old has routinely unpleasant side efects, and serious adverse effects in as many as 1 in 50 cases according to the US package insert, and it is being administered with other vaccines which frequently have unpleasant effects like pertussis. We are talking about multiple vaccines each likely to cause fever.

Joel you keep on making contradictory and impossible claims trying to recuperate the half-baked statements of Offit, Salisbury, Donaldson, Miller etc. made for popular consumption and then invoke higher reason, superior intelligence, but actually it is all completely deluded and bogus: Humpty Dumpty calculations.

There is no given that any of the products are individually safe - Offit himself wrote a book about the Cutter incident. That was just a single vaccine that caused havoc.

10,000 vaccines isn't science it is sales pitch used as sales pitch.

Joel A. Harrison, PhD, MPH

@John Stone

You write: "A simple criticism both of the video and his comments in the CHOP pamphlet is that being injected with toxic substances in order to provoke an immune reaction is not remotely like casual environment exposure over the course of 24 hours. It should be obvious that two thing are not remotely comparable."

Sounds like English; but does it have any backing in a study of how vaccines and the immune system work? Or does it indicate how our body deals with toxic substances or what is a toxic substance? Nope! Toxic substances, what like mercury and aluminum? First, except for the flu vaccine, thimerosal has been eliminated from vaccines in US and even the flu shot is available without thimerosal. Second, the average American gets about 6 micrograms of mercury a day from air breathed, water drunk, food eaten, and scratch to skin, far more than what was contained in a few shots. Thimerosal was NEVER in MMR, for instance. As for aluminum, I am currently reading up on it; but, so far, an infant gets more aluminum from breast milk or formula than contained in vaccines and aluminum or, perhaps, you prefer the British spelling, aluminium, is one of the most ubiquitous substance on Earth and, as with mercury, we get it from many sources on a daily basis.

What you fail to understand is that our bodies have evolved to handle many things, from microbes to heavy metals. We have mechanisms to detoxify, transform, excrete, and sequester heavy metals as long as they don't exceed some threshold and the amounts in vaccines don't come even close. The US government took research on both substances, then divided by t0 then again divided to come up with a safe threshold, so even if one got slightly more than the safe level promulgated by our government, it is really far below the "real" safe level.

Obviously, you believe what you choose to believe. I suggest you read a book on history of smallpox and ask yourself "was it better to scratch an infants arm with "cowpox" or to risk every few years about 1 in 3 infants dying?

One fascinating book, only 250 pages, on smallpox: Ian and Jennifer Glynn. The Life and Death of Smallpox. 2004. Both authors from Cambridge University, down the street from you, at least, compared to from where I live

John Stone

Carol

And note that smallpox was one vaccine Offit did not want back on the schedule in 2001. Its a contradiction.

Carol

Joel Harrison mentions that he got the smallpox vaccine three times, once as a toddler. That got me thinking about the smallpox vaccine. People talk about it as if it's merely the juice of a few flowers, but the blackbox warning is just about the first thing in the package insert. The manufacturer seems to think it's pretty bad news. Here's the warning:


"Suspected cases of myocarditis and/or pericarditis have been observed in healthy adult primary vaccinees (at an approximate rate of 5.7 per 1000, 95% CI: 1.9-13.3) receiving ACAM2000.

Encephalitis, encephalomyelitis, encephalopathy, progressive vaccinia, generalized vaccinia, severe vaccinial skin infections, erythema multiforme major (including STEVENS-JOHNSON SYNDROME), eczema vaccinatum resulting in permanent sequelae or death, ocular complications, blindness, and fetal death have occurred following either primary vaccination or revaccination with live vaccinia virus smallpox vaccines. These risks are increased in vaccinees with the following conditions and may result in severe disability, permanent neurological sequelae and/or death:

Cardiac disease or a history of cardiac disease

Eye disease treated with topical steroids

Congenital or acquired immune deficiency disorders, including those taking immunosuppressive medications

Eczema and persons with a history of eczema or other acute or chronic exfoliative skin conditions

Infants less than 12 months of age

Pregnancy

....The risk for experiencing serious vaccination complications must be weighed against the risks for experiencing a potentially fatal smallpox infection."


And that's the warning from the new and improved vaccine, one that presumably has far fewer antigens than the earlier one with 200 (Harrison, Offit). What is it that makes the vaccine so dangerous (especially to infants)?

John Stone

Joel

You said at the start:

"It is also absurd to even believe that Offit or anyone else would believe giving 10,000 or even 20 vaccines at one time reasonable."

The point that it would not be physically possible to administer 10,000 vaccines doesn't hold for 20. I can't believe that Prof Offit woudn't be happy with 20 (irrespective of their common unpleasant side effects).

A simple criticism both of the video and his comments in the CHOP pamphlet is that being injected with toxic substances in order to provoke an immune reaction is not remotely like casual environment exposure over the course of 24 hours. It should be obvious that two thing are not remotely comparable.

Jenny Allan

@Joel A. Harrison
"This is the last time I write since you and several others posting comments seem to be too dense to understand simple language. If one really believed that Offit meant literally that a child could be given 10,000 or even 100,000 actual shots, not meaning from the overall context of what he wrote or said, then it would entail 500 or more needles and 1 liter of fluid for the 10,000 shots and 5000 or more needles and 10 liters of fluid for the 100,000 shots, all given either at once or over a very short time interval since he said at one time."

Still here Dr Harrison? There are other pharma friendly web sites which specialise in rubbishing AoA writers and commenters. From one of your comments:-"Ad hominem anyone? Before you start joining dots to make your sly little innuendos" ....Methinks pots calling kettles black, not to mention protesting too much.

T think we are not too 'dense' to understand what Offit was implying when he stated babies could tolerate up to 100,000 vaccines at once. His comment has been taken up by those persons, including UK former Director of Immunisation, Prof David Salisbury, in order to convince parents of vaccine safety, in particular those vaccines like MMR which deliver more than one live virus.

Joel A. Harrison, PhD, MPH

@John Stone & Linda1

The webshot of the page you give a URL to had the following:

Dr. Offit says: “A baby’s body is bombarded with immmunologic challenges - from bacteria in food to the dust they breath. Compared to what they typically encounter and manage during the day, vaccines are literally a drop in the ocean.” In fact, Dr. Offit’s studies show that in theory, healthy infants could safely get up to 100,000 vaccines at once.”

Once again, you focus on the last part of the quote and ignore that NO RATIONAL PERSON WOULD EVER EVEN ATTEMPT TO INJECT AN INFANT WITH EVEN A FRACTION OF THAT NUMBER. Offit clearly says, IN THEORY, and only this in the context of “what they typically encounter.”

Just for fun, I downloaded the pamphlet from Offit’s website, took it to the gym I go to and asked a dozen people to read it to me and explain what he meant by 10,000 vaccines. I didn’t hint or prompt them. I actually am well-trained in interview techniques. Not one got it wrong.

And, actually, it is 100,000 NOT 10,000 antigens that a child’s immune system is designed to handle, actuallly even more. So, your disingenuous concession is also wrong.

I realize that you are NOT a logical reasonable person and no amount of logic will sway you; but, as I’ve written before, I use these occasions to practice, to develop ideas for articles that I write. I know full well that I am wasting my time if my goal was to have an effect on you or anyone involved with AOA. Linda1’s comment shows just how bizarre the thinking of some of your followers is. The fact that you post such an ABSURD comment and don’t write anything to inform the reader that you don’t censor; but want to inform them that you don’t believe anyone would in reality want to do such, says a lot about you.

Linda1 writes: “More importantly, I think Paul Offit envisions himself "placing a child in some type of chamber as in some old Vincent Price movies, pushing a lever, and 500 to 5000 needles darting out at once, while the excess fluid spurted everywhere”. That's about right. Very perceptive of you, Dr. Harrison. You get one point.

Thank you Linda1. It was already clear from your many posts that you don’t understand science, are illogical and irrational. You actually admitted in posts that you don’t devote much time to studying the various issues and that you lack any background in science, microbiology, immunology, epidemiology, biostatistics and related disciplines. OK, I’ve know lots of people who are not as educated as I am and who devote their time to other things, still, I find many of them nice people who are willing to listen; but you made it clear that you assume that anyone who supports vaccines is already dishonest, part of some conspiracy, as you clearly believe the CDC researchers are, so you close your mind to even considering the possibility that you may be wrong. But now you actually believe that Paul Offit or anyone else would actually want to place infants in a chamber and stick them with 100s of needles at once. I now believe that you are seriously disturbed and should seek professional help at once. I worry you might harm yourself or someone else.

John Stone

Hi Joel,

I wasn't going to post you again making the same assertion that you understand things and we don't but should there be any doubt about what Dr Offit has said about this matter here he is in a CHOP pamphlet saying just what he said about "one" being able to take I00,000 vaccines every day only about babies specifically:

"But it should be the least of your worries. "Children have an enormous capacity to respond safely to challenges to the immune system from vaccines," says Dr. Offit. "A baby's body is bombarded with immunologic challenges - from bacteria in food to the dust they breathe. Compared to what they typically encounter and manage during the day, vaccines are literally a drop in the ocean." In fact, Dr. Offit's studies show that in theory, healthy infants could safely get up to 100,000 vaccines at once."

A webshot of the page here:

http://www.whale.to/vaccines/offit23.html

Admittedly there seems to be an obsession with the decimal system, and I am prepared to go with 10,000 if that is his final decision.

Joel A. Harrison, PhD, MPH

@John Stone

John Stone writes: “Offit breazily telling an audience in 2008 that an infant could happily withstand 100,000 vaccines a day (yes, every day)” I guess you either didn’t actually watch Offit’s presentation and/or didn’t read my comment to Angus Files where I wrote: He then said: “that ONE could respond to 100,000 vaccine at one time”. Note that he did NOT mention infants.” So, once more, if you are capable of any level of understanding and honesty, he did NOT mention infants! And it still doesn’t matter because he was referring for anyone who followed the entire presentation to the amount of antigen our immune systems can deal with.

And John Stone writes: “Well, there you are - you are defending the claim on the basis that it was nonsensical. That's vaccinology for you.”

As I wrote in a previous comment, I can take from any book, article, speech, a phrase or sentence, ignoring the context and just keep repeating it, If you really believe that a sentence, taken out of context, proves that vaccinology is “nonsense.” Then, in essence, everything can be seen as nonsense, history books, physics books, biology books, anything and everything. Or, do you have separate criteria/standards for anything related to vaccines as opposed to everything else?

Yes, Salisbury was trying to reassure the British public and probably did not do as good a job as possible; but you have jumped on it, ignoring, not trying to understand what was meant. Really, you don’t understand the purpose of referring to Cohn and Langman’s paper? The purpose is to explain just how robust our immune systems are, just how many antigens our immune systems can handle at one time. Does this really escape you? If you were honest, rather than repeating the 10,000 vaccines or the 100,000 vaccines, you would explain to your readers what he meant by this. But, your agenda isn’t to rely on the science, is it?

SInce I doubt you would be willing to go through a dense 800+ page introductory immunology text, I highly recommend a superb book, only 150 pages, by Lauren Sompayrac “How the Immune System Works, 5th Edition” If you are NOT willing to take the time to learn anything; but continue to stick to your ill informed inflammatory beliefs, nothing I or any other rational being can do about it.

Elizabeth Hart

Further to my previous comments re aluminium adjuvanted vaccines…
(See January 06, 2016 at 06:42 AM and January 05, 2016 at 08:18 AM)

A vaccine components fact sheet, published by the Australian National Centre for Immunisation Research & Surveillance (NCIRS) notes: “Aluminium salts, in small amounts, have been added to certain vaccines for about 60 years and a recent review of all the available studies of aluminium-containing diphtheria, tetanus and pertussis vaccines (either alone or in combination) found that there was no evidence that aluminium salts in vaccines cause any serious or long-term adverse events…”(1)

Unfortunately, this NCIRS ‘fact sheet’ does not provide a numbered list of endnotes to facilitate checking of sources. However, looking at the ‘Further reading’ list provided it is likely the ‘recent review’ referred to is: “Adverse events after immunization with aluminium-containing DTP vaccines: systematic review of the evidence”, authored by members of the Cochrane Vaccines Field, i.e. T Jefferson, M Rudin and C Pietrantonj, and published in The Lancet Infectious Diseases in 2004.(2)

In the abstract of this systematic review Jefferson et al conclude: “We found no evidence that aluminium salts in vaccines cause any serious or long-lasting adverse events. Despite a lack of good-quality evidence we do not recommend that any further research on this topic is undertaken.”

However, looking beyond the abstract of Jefferson et al’s ‘systematic review’ (which is behind the paywall of The Lancet Infectious Diseases, US$31.50) we discover that Jefferson et al admit that “overall, the methodological quality of studies was low”. And yet, “despite a lack of good-quality evidence” Jefferson et al advise “we do not recommend that any further research on this topic is undertaken”.

This recommendation is bizarre, particularly in light of Tom Jefferson’s comments in an interview published in the UK newspaper The Telegraph in 2002 titled “Vaccines expert warns studies are useless”.(3). This article reports Dr Jefferson’s warning that “most safety studies on childhood vaccines have not been conducted thoroughly enough to tell whether the jabs cause side effects”. He says: “There is some good research, but it is overwhelmed by the bad. The public has been let down because the proper studies have not been done.”

The Telegraph article reports Dr Jefferson “emphasised that there was no evidence to suggest that any vaccine now in use was dangerous” but said “there was a ‘dearth’ of sound studies on the risks and benefits” and “as a result, the information available on the safety of vaccines that are routinely given to babies and toddlers was ‘simply inadequate’.”

The Telegraph article notes Dr Jefferson’s “outspoken and unprecedented comments will anger public health officials in Britain and elsewhere, who fear that any discussion will undermine parents’ confidence in national vaccination programmes”.

It was reported Dr Jefferson was “especially concerned…because future vaccination programmes were likely to involve giving children ‘five, six, even seven vaccines all at once’.”

Which of course is exactly what happens now, see for example vaccination schedules in Australia(4), the UK(5) and the US(6) which list multiple combination vaccinations and revaccinations for children.

(According to the current Australian vaccination schedule, children aged from birth to teenage years will have at least 43 doses of vaccines via combined vaccines and revaccinations(7). 33 of these doses will be given in the first 18 months, this will rise to 36 doses when the recently approved 18 month diphtheria, tetanus and acellular pertussis ‘booster’ is implemented(8), therefore making a total of 46 vaccines up to teenage years. This does not include the dubious annual flu vaccinations we are all being pressured to have.)

Given Dr Jefferson’s apparent appreciation of the ‘dearth’ of sound studies on the risks and benefits of vaccine products, and his concern about future vaccination programmes including “five, six, even seven vaccines all at once”, it is unaccountable that he and his Cochrane Vaccines Field colleagues could conclude in their strategic review on aluminium and vaccine safety “we do not recommend that any further research on this topic is undertaken”.

From my layperson’s perspective, Jefferson et al’s ‘systematic review’ is an example of ‘garbage in, garbage out’.

As mentioned above, the Australian National Centre for Immunisation Research & Surveillance now cites this poor quality review in its ‘fact sheet’ on vaccine components to indicate there is “no evidence that aluminium salts in vaccines cause any serious or long-term adverse events…”

This is just one example of unreliable information being promoted by supposed ‘authorities’ on vaccination practice.

The mind boggles at how many more poorly evidenced papers and reviews supporting the use of vaccine products lurk within The Lancet Infectious Diseases and other ‘scientific’ journals.

References:
1. Vaccine components. NCIRS Fact sheet: May 2013 (Content last updated February 2008): http://www.ncirs.edu.au/assets/provider_resources/fact-sheets/vaccine-components-fact-sheet.pdf
2. Jefferson T, Rudin M, Di Pietrantoni C. Adverse events after immunisation with aluminium-containing DTP vaccines: systematic review of the evidence. Lancet Infect Dis. 2004 Feb; 4(2):84-90: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1473309904009272 This review is also listed in the Cochrane Vaccines Field Bibliography: http://vaccinesfield-old.cochrane.org/bibliography-2003
3. Lorraine Fraser. Vaccines expert warns studies are useless. The Telegraph, 27 October 2002: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1411417/Vaccines-expert-warns-studies-are-useless.html
4. Australian National Immunisation Program Schedule from 20 April 2015: http://www.immunise.health.gov.au/internet/immunise/publishing.nsf/Content/national-immunisation-program-schedule
5. UK NHS Vaccination Schedule (Last reviewed 04/04/2014, next review due 04/04/2016): http://www.nhs.uk/Conditions/vaccinations/Pages/vaccination-schedule-age-checklist.aspx
6. United States Birth-18 Years & “Catch-up” Immunization Schedules, 2015: http://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/schedules/hcp/child-adolescent.html
7. I calculate at least 43 doses of individual vaccines ie breaking down combination vaccines and including revaccinations on the general schedule for children aged from birth to 15 years ie:
4 x Hepatitis B, 5 x Diphtheria, 5 x Tetanus, 5 x Acellular pertussis, 4 x Haemophilus influenza type b, 4 x Inactivated poliomyelitis, 3 x Pneumococcal conjugate, 2 x Rotavirus (possibly 3 doses, see note b on the schedule), 1 x Meningococcal C, 2 x Measles, 2 x Mumps, 2 x Rubella, 1 x Varicella (Chickenpox), 3 x Human papillomavirus
Total 43 doses of vaccines. Also consider many children are being vaccinated with annual flu vaccines too, and are being set up for annual flu vaccination for life - another profit centre for Big Pharma. Plus Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islanders and 'medically at risk groups' are recommended to get annual flu vaccines plus additional Pneumococcal conjugate (13vPCV) and Pneumococcal polysaccharide (23vPPV) vaccines. Refer to the National Immunisation Program Schedule (From 20 April 2015): http://www.immunise.health.gov.au/internet/immunise/publishing.nsf/Content/national-immunisation-program-schedule
8. At its meeting in November 2014, the PBAC recommended including an 18 month ‘booster’ dose of GSK Infanrix combination diphtheria, tetanus and acellular pertussis vaccine on the National Immunisation Program Schedule. November 2014 – Positive Recommendations. Recommendations made by the PBAC November 2014: http://www.pbs.gov.au/info/industry/listing/elements/pbac-meetings/pbac-outcomes/2014-11 The Sanofi-aventis TRIPACEL vaccine was approved for the NIP by the PBAC in 2015. July 2015 – Positive Recommendations. Recommendations made by the PBAC July 2015: http://www.pbs.gov.au/info/industry/listing/elements/pbac-meetings/pbac-outcomes/pbac-outcomes-2015-07

Linda1

More importantly, I think Paul Offit envisions himself "placing a child in some type of chamber as in some old Vincent Price movies, pushing a lever, and 500 to 5000 needles darting out at once, while the excess fluid spurted everywhere".

That's about right.

Very perceptive of you, Dr. Harrison. You get one point.

Cherry Misra

Meningitis- Does anyone know what is the incidence of meningitis in unvaccinated children- that is to say, children who have not had their immune systems deranged by mercury in vaccines, mercury in fish, mercury in their mother's milk, and by live viruses such as those in the MMR , which depress the child's immune system. Most peculiar- this emphasis on vaccines rather than on keeping children's immune systems robust.

John Stone

Joel

Well, there you are - you are defending the claim on the basis that it was nonsensical. That's vaccinology for you.

Joel A. Harrison, PhD, MPH

@Elizabeth Hart

I really don’t care what Newsweek or any other mass media outlet writes. The often focus on a few points and almost never take the time to give context.

This is the last time I write since you and several others posting comments seem to be too dense to understand simple language. If one really believed that Offit meant literally that a child could be given 10,000 or even 100,000 actual shots, not meaning from the overall context of what he wrote or said, then it would entail 500 or more needles and 1 liter of fluid for the 10,000 shots and 5000 or more needles and 10 liters of fluid for the 100,000 shots, all given either at once or over a very short time interval since he said at one time. So, do you really envision Offit placing a child in some type of chamber as in some old Vincent Price movies, pushing a lever, and 500 to 5000 needles darting out at once, while the excess fluid spurted everywhere?

As I have written here and elsewhere, his 100,000 vaccines taken in context clearly means “the antigen equivalent of 100,000 vaccines” and, if you actually took the time to read about immunology, you would understand that our bodies confront far more antigens on a regular basis and our immune systems deal with them.

SInce I doubt you would be willing to go through a dense 800+ page introductory immunology text, I highly recommend a superb book, only 150 pages, by Lauren Sompayrac “How the Immune System Works, 5th Edition” If you are NOT willing to take the time to learn anything; but continue to stick to your ill informed inflammatory beliefs, nothing I or any other rational being can do about it.

Danchi

Lets not forget what Dr. Christopher Shaw stated in this video about aluminum:

DR. CHRIS SHAW: ALUMINUM IN THE BODY - ONE MORE GIRL EXCERPTS
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FfTo35UrFPA

Danchi

Jim Thompson
I found this at: http://www.vaccidemic.org/campaign-strategy/dorit-the-bully-troll-reiss/the-clandestine-money-web/.

The following content is excerpted and edited for brevity, clarity, and pertinence. It is from a comment (which checks out as accurate) on our webpage Dorit Reiss which is still intact there.


The intent here is to provide a snapshot perspective of the complex interwoven, clandestinely cloaked billions that flow through the pharma shill-mill vaxxer cult cesspool.

But realize and remember that this is just one little corner of their dark abyss, as there is no doubt that there is much more to the vast pharma funding machine of it’s shameless charlatan shills…

We have highlighted each entity of import with their own identifying individual colors to better visually follow the tangled interwoven complexities of just this one little piece of the pharma money pot. In this example, follow the green highlighted entity, intertwined with the fuchsia highlighted entity, to see the main guilty connection…

“Shot of Prevention”, “Voices for Vaccines” and “Every Child by Two” are sister sites/siblings [Jeb: Reiss is closely tied to all three*].

A little research revealed this: Task Force for Global Health, the third largest charity in the United States, is bringing in about $1.66 billion a year, according to Forbes. The Task Force for Global Health, programs have an impact on global health in three sectors: Health System Strengthening, Immunizations and Vaccines, and Neglected Tropical Diseases…

Task Force for Global Health is in a partnership called: Public Health Informatics Insitute with the CDC. http://www.cdc.gov/stltpublichealth/Partnerships/phii.html

Dr. Alan Hinman is Director for Programs in the Center for Vaccine Equity and is involved in a number of immunization projects… In addition, he serves on Scientific Advisory Board of Voices for Vaccines.

Alan Hinman is also a Task Force for Global Health director and Scientific Advisory Member. He is on the Scientific Advisory board for Voices for Vaccines…and…Every Child by Two…

The Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation is a financial contributor to several programs that the Task Force for Global Health operates. To be noted, William H. Foege, founder of Task Force for Global Health, serves as the Senior Medical Advisor for the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation.

Merck has partnered with the Task Force for Global Health for over 25 years…

The two connections to the pharmaceutical companies, The Task Force for Global Health and the websites Every Child by Two, Voices for Vaccines, and Shot of Prevention are: Dr. Alan Hinman and Amy Pisani, who is co-editor of Shot of Prevention.

From: Every Child by Two website Scientific Advisory Board…

The Every Child by Two Scientific Advisory Board is a panel of vaccine experts who provide the organization with their scientific and medical expertise in order to ensure that medically accurate [sic] information is provided to the public via Every Child by Two’s many online sources.

Through the Every Child by Two and companion Vaccinate Your Baby website, as well as the Vaccinate Your Baby Facebook page and Shot of Prevention blog our team aims to reach an increasingly larger audience with messages about the importance of and the safety [sic] of vaccines. In providing such a large amount of information to the public via the Internet, we realize how important it is that we base our information on reputable [sic], science-based [sic], peer-reviewed sources such as medical studies and the recommendations of the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices.

Every Child by Two does not provide specific medical advice, however we rely on members of the Scientific Advisory Board to respond to a variety of questions from the public. Below is [an abbreviated] list of our Scientific Advisory Board members.

…Alan Hinman
Paul Offit, MD
Mark H. Sawyer, MD…

The one person that connects all three sites is Alan Hinman…

Emory University works with or is under the umbrella of the Task Force for Global Health. Some employees of the Task Force for Global Health work for Emory University: Task Force for Global Health’s IRS Tax Form 990 page 49 of their 2011 document states “The Task Force for Global Health is an affiliate of Emory University, and as such, all Task Force for Global Health employees are in fact Emory University employees. For both the President and Executive Vice President, Emory University includes these positions in its annual market review of compensated professionals in these categories … http://www.taskforce.org/sites/default/files/2011_tfgh_990_tax_return.pdf

There has been a long standing relationship between Emory University and the CDC. Several CDC employees with direct connections:
-James W. Curran, MD, MPH: Dean and Professor of Epidemiology at Emory University, Former Researcher at Centers for Disease Control
-John B. Hardman, MD: Emory University Faculty
-Charles H. “Pete” McTier: Emory University Graduate and Former Administrator, Board Member Centers for Disease Control Foundation
-Mark L. Rosenberg, MD, MPP President and CEO: Emory University Faculty, CDC’s National Center for Injury Prevention and Control
-Carol C. Walters, Treasurer & Founder: Former Executive Assistant to the Assistant Director of Centers for Disease Control
-William H. Foege, MD, MPH emeritus, Founder: Emory University Advisory Board Member and Faculty, Former Director for Centers for Disease Control
-Former US Surgeon General David Satcher, MD, PhD emeritus: Honorary Degree from Emory University, Former Director for Centers for Disease Control, Board Member for Centers for Disease Control Foundation

AT the very bottom of Voices For Vaccines ‘About’ page is their disclaimer: Voices for Vaccines is an administrative project of the Task Force for Global Health, an Atlanta-based 501(c)(3) organization. Contributions to Voices for Vaccines are tax-deductible.

Big Pharma payouts to Emory University are not a secret. Emory University and some of their employees receive hundreds of thousands of dollars from pharmaceutical companies. This certainly does not make their stance regarding vaccines a philosophical one. Theirs is backed with dollars. Go to ProPublica’s Docs for Dollars program and do a search for “Emory University”…

Task Force for Global Health also receives funds from the Gates Foundation, Johnson & Johnson, Novartis, Pfizer, Merck, GlaxoSmithKline and Wyeth.

With Dr. Alan Hinman‘s prominent role in all of the above it is inconceivable to believe that EveryChild by Two, Voices for Vaccines and Shot of Prevention aren’t benefiting from the relationship despite their About Us pages stating they are being run basically by soccer moms.

Voices for Vaccines: 11 Facts Show How it’s a Propaganda Ploy for Emory University, CDC, and Big Pharma: http://vactruth.com/2014/02/19/cdc-and-emory-university/

This was wrote after Dorit's infamous attack of a Mom who lost a daughter to Gardasil who was a guest on the now defunk Katie Couric show.

It was also posted on this website a link to a comment board Dorit was engaged in where she admitted that her family owns stock in GSK. Dorit has also disclosed in a recent interview that her family owns GSK stock: http://abovethelaw.com/2015/12/highlighting-a-law-professor-whos-helping-to-support-vaccination/. Other than the comment at Vaccidemic: http://articles.philly.com/2014-10-26/news/55451059_1_hpv-vaccine-hpv-shot-cervarix (scroll to comments), she has not disclosed this often. So conflict of interest runs amok among those who support vaccines.

Elizabeth Hart

I’m one of those people concerned about the over-use of aluminium-adjuvanted vaccine products.

The GSK Bexsero meningococcal B vaccine contains components adsorbed on aluminium hydroxide.(1)

It’s another one to add to the growing list of aluminium adjuvanted vaccine products being foisted upon children, including multiple revaccinations or ‘boosters’.

For example, in Australia children are being compelled to have five vaccinations with the aluminium adjuvanted combination diphtheria, tetanus and acellular pertussis vaccine, i.e. primary vaccination at 2 months, 4 months and 6 months, then so-called ‘boosters’ at 4 years, and between 10-15 years, plus the PBAC has recently ‘recommended’ another ‘booster’ at 18 months(2)(3), so this makes six vaccinations with the diphtheria, tetanus and acellular vaccine for children.

And it doesn’t stop there as, in an attempt to protect newborns from whooping cough, (which may cause death in babies in rare cases), pregnant women, household contacts of infants, and healthcare workers are also being urged to be revaccinated again and again with the diphtheria, tetanus and acellular pertussis vaccine, in other words lifelong revaccination.

What is the point of imposing more and more so-called ‘boosters’ with an apparently defective vaccine which may actually be causing new strains of the disease to develop(4), and spreading the disease via vaccinated individuals?(5) What sort of ‘science’ is this? The so-called ‘vaccination experts’ seem to be making this up as they go along, and using the population as guinea pigs.

The problems with the acellular pertussis vaccine raise important questions about “what is immunity?”, “what is a vaccine preventable disease?”, and “what level of disease risk justifies mass vaccination?” (It’s also interesting to consider if the recently published research which indicates some vaccines might support the evolution of more virulent viruses(6) may also have implications for non-viral vaccines such as pertussis.)

Certainly repeated revaccinations/’boosters’ must be a very lucrative profit centre for vaccine manufacturers, can we look forward to this occurring with other vaccine products too? The HPV vaccines for instance? That’s another very dodgy aluminium-adjuvanted vaccine being pressed upon children, 3 doses of bioCSL/Merck’s Gardasil HPV vaccine product for example, or 2 doses of GSK’s Cervarix.

And now GSK has the world’s children in its sights for its questionable aluminium adjuvanted Bexsero meningococcal B vaccine, for the rare disease of meningococcal B.

How many more lucrative vaccine products are in the pipeline?

Children are being grossly over-vaccinated and nobody in authority has the courage to blow the whistle on this exploitation.

Again, we need *independent* experts in infectious diseases who are capable of objectively considering the possibility of ‘unintended consequences’ with the over-use of vaccine products, similar to the over-use of antibiotics and the rise of superbugs. Where are they?

References:

1. Product Information - Bexsero Multicomponent Meningococcal group B Vaccine (recombinant, adsorbed): https://www.ebs.tga.gov.au/ebs/picmi/picmirepository.nsf/pdf?OpenAgent=&id=CP-2013-PI-02131-1&d=2016010616114622412
2. At its meeting in November 2014, the PBAC recommended including an 18 month ‘booster’ dose of GSK Infanrix combination diphtheria, tetanus and acellular pertussis vaccine on the National Immunisation Program Schedule. November 2014 – Positive Recommendations. Recommendations made by the PBAC November 2014: http://www.pbs.gov.au/info/industry/listing/elements/pbac-meetings/pbac-outcomes/2014-11
3. The Sanofi-aventis TRIPACEL vaccine was approved for the NIP by the PBAC in 2015. July 2015 – Positive Recommendations. Recommendations made by the PBAC July 2015: http://www.pbs.gov.au/info/industry/listing/elements/pbac-meetings/pbac-outcomes/pbac-outcomes-2015-07
4. See Octavia, S. et al. Newly Emerging Clones of Bordetella pertussis Carrying prn2 and ptxP3 Alleles Implicated in Australian Pertussis Epidemic in 2008-2010. JID 2012:205 (15 April). Brief Report: http://jid.oxfordjournals.org/content/early/2012/03/14/infdis.jis178.full.pdf+html and Sharp rise in cases of new strain of whooping cough. UNSW Australia Newsroom, 21 March 2012: https://newsroom.unsw.edu.au/news/health/sharp-rise-cases-new-strain-whooping-cough Also see Safarchi A et al. Pertactin negative Bordetella pertussis demonstrates higher fitness under vaccine selection pressure in a mixed infection model. Vaccine. 2015 Oct 2. pii: S0264-410X(15)01340-7 (Epub ahead of print): http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26432908 and Anna M Acosta et al. Tdap Vaccine Effectiveness in Adolescents During the 2012 Washington State Pertussis Epidemic. Pediatrics April 2015: http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/content/early/2015/04/28/peds.2014-3358?variant=abstract&sso=1&sso_redirect_count=1&nfstatus=401&nftoken=00000000-0000-0000-0000-000000000000&nfstatusdescription=ERROR%3a+No+local+token and Bart MJ et al. Global population structure and evolution of Bordetella pertussis and their relationship with vaccination. MBio. 2014 Apr 22;5(2): http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24757216 and Octavia S et al. Insight into evolution of Bordetella pertussis from comparative genomic analysis: evidence of vaccine-driven selection. Mol Biol Evol. 2011 Jan;28(1):707-15. Epub 2010 Sep 10: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20833694 and Lam C et al. Selection of emergence of pertussis toxin promoter ptxP3 allele in the evolution of Bordetella pertussis. Infect Genet Evol. 2012 Mar;12(2):492-5. Epub 2012 Jan 24: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22293463
5. See for example FDA study helps provide an understanding of rising rates of whooping cough and response to vaccination. FDA News Release, 27 November 2013: http://www.fda.gov/NewsEvents/Newsroom/PressAnnouncements/ucm376937.htm and Jason M Warfel et al. Acellular pertussis vaccines protect against disease but fail to prevent infection and transmission in a nonhuman primate model. PNAS, 22 October 2013: http://www.pnas.org/content/111/2/787.full.pdf Also see Martin SW et al Pertactin-negative Bordetella pertussis strains: evidence for a possible selective advantage. Clin Infect Dis. 2015 Jan 15;60(2):2223-7. Epub 2014 Oct 9: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25301209 and Stacey W Martin et al. Pertactin-Negative Bordetella pertussis Strains: Evidence for a Possible Selective Advantage. Clin Infect Dis. (2015) 60 (2): 223-227. First published online: October 9, 2014: http://cid.oxfordjournals.org/content/60/2/223.long
6. See Some Vaccines Support Evolution of More-Virulent Viruses. PennState Science, 27 July 2015: http://science.psu.edu/news-and-events/2015-news/Read7-2015 and Leaky vaccine promote the transmission of more virulent virus. Center for Infectious Disease Dynamics. Penn State: http://www.cidd.psu.edu/research/synopses/leaky-vaccines-promote-the-transmission-of-more-virulent-virus The study referred to in this articles is: Andrew F. Read et al. Imperfect Vaccination Can Enhance the Transmission of Highly Virulent Pathogens. PLOS Biology, July 27 2015: http://journals.plos.org/plosbiology/article?id=10.1371/journal.pbio.1002198

John Stone

Joel

First of all I would like to commend anyone who thinks we are being driven off topic (and why would you want to do that?). Dr Salisbury said on BBC television in 2004 in relation to reassuring viewers about the MMR:

"The immune system of a baby has got huge spare capacity to deal with challenge. If we didn't, the human race wouldn't survive. But let's look specifically at vaccine. This has been studied carefully. A baby's immune system could actually tolerate perfectly well 1,000 vaccines".

And he told me in his email which I published in my earlier article that he was quoting Offit should there be any doubt. It is quite clear that he was trying to re-assure parents about the safety of administering multiple vaccines and actually it is quite clear that that was what Offit was doing. Our British health officials cite Offit but actually Offit cites a 1990 paper by Cohn and Langman - I can't download the Cohn and Langman paper so the context of that and how Offit adapted it for his purposes is unclear. It does not look like a paper on vaccination at all. However, in the interview linked to by Angus below we see Offit breazily telling an audience in 2008 that an infant could happily withstand 100,000 vaccines a day (yes, every day). I see very little alternative to the view that that is exactly what he meant, crazy though the proposition is. Maybe he should have spoken more carefully if he did not want to be misunderstood.

Georg Elser

John I think your scoop (on JCVI corruption and effectively criminal "insider" dealing) has really rattled Pollard's cage . That phrase has a nice ring to it .

Ok john , everything I say is too strong for you , and yes I stray off topic . "conflict of interest" then .
But this term implies a minor infraction , and that integrity hasn't strayed very much , and that this is some minor matter . But to me this is HUGE .
Its defrauding the taxpayer for Pollards(et al)own benefit .

<40 cases of severe meningitis outcomes per year does not warrant a global mass immunisation drive .
And I'm hearing reports of severe side effects , severe headaches , headaches that last for 4 months and counting.

Jim Thompson

Dear Dr. Harrison,

Your recent document attacks Age of Autism and certain contributors. Your opinion is your right. But regarding this specific Age of Autism article, there is a serious concern about the conflict of interest when individuals with ties to industry or academia special interests are involved in the approval of vaccines for millions of children.

Please look at what Richard Feynman said in his address to the Cal Tech graduates (1974). Richard Feynman’s words, 42 years later, still apply to the questionable integrity of the science of vaccine safety:

“It is very dangerous to have such a policy in teaching--to teach students only how to get certain results, rather than how to do an experiment with scientific integrity. So I have just one wish for you--the good luck to be somewhere where you are free to maintain the kind of integrity I have described, and where you do not feel forced by a need to maintain your position in the organization, or financial support, or so on, to lose your integrity. May you have that freedom.” See http://www.lhup.edu/~dsimanek/cargocul.htm

In that regard, how might one find out if is there currently any money taken from the vaccine industry by Every Child by Two? Since we all share the responsibility to help protect all children, including all those injured and all those at risk of injury or death from future vaccine “side effects,” then I respectfully request that you recognize the right of opinions of the contributors and commenters here on Age of Autism.

Elizabeth Hart

Re Paul Offit and his flippant '100,000' reference, i.e. "...Offit set off a flurry of angry postings when he said that a baby's immune system could handle as many as 10,000 vaccines. Then he upped the ante, saying it was probably "closer to 100,000"".

Quoted from this article: Stomping through a medical minefield. Published in Newsweek in November 2008. The article is currently accessible via this link: http://archive.indianexpress.com/news/stomping-through-a-medical-minefield/386116/0

Joel A. Harrison, PhD, MPH

@stopthenonsense

You write: "Mr. Harrison--I think you are entirely missing the point. Offit's assertion that a child could "theoretically" handle 10,000 (maybe it was originally 100,000?) antigens is in itself a disingenuous and misleading statement because the antigens are not all that is in any vaccine. It seems to many here, who do very clearly understand what he was saying, is that his wording (and those who quote him) is intentionally misleading!"

I guess you either didn't read what I wrote or didn't understand. Neither Offit nor anyone else would ever really intend that anyone should get 10,000 or 100,000 vaccines. As I made clear, even if one, as suggested by Hera put 20 vaccines in one 2 ml shot, it would take 500 shots and 1 liter for the 10,000 and 5,000 shots and 10 liters for the 100,000. Do you really think one could pump into a child or even an adult 10 liters of fluid with 5,000 needles at once or even over a short time period?

No, you don't understand his intention, you project your own sick mind onto him because only a really sick mind would even consider such an insane idea.

This is one of the key problems with antivaccinationists that you can't focus on possible realistic scenarios but need to go off the deep end with such absolutely absurd claims.

Joel A. Harrison, PhD, MPH

@david m burd

You writer: My generation is the same as yours, the healthiest ever, raised in the 1940's. without any vaccines and with good nutrition. You and I may live another 25 healthful years, as long as we reject the poisoning by flu and pneumonia and other such vaccines. Otherwise let's raise our glasses to a healthful toast!"

As most of my generation, I received the smallpox vaccine as a toddler as well as tetanus and diphtheria. In 1955 I was the first generation to receive the polio vaccine, three shots altogether. When I went to Europe for the summer after graduating college, I got the smallpox, polio, and a bunch of other shots before my journey. I still have the little yellow booklet that they registered all the shots in; but it is in my safe deposit box. One of these days I'll check all the shots I got. Then I got a job working for the US Navy teaching aboard ships undergraduate courses and, as I wrote in another comment, got around 10 shots in less than an hour, including the third time I got the smallpox vaccine. Since then I have gotten the flu shot every year and every shot available. I have even got the polysaccharide meningococcus vaccine then the conjugate meningococcus vaccine and then the MenB for the one strain not covered by the previous meningococcus vaccines. And for the past two years I got the high dose flu zone vaccine. In fact, when i read the clinical trials, I insisted my health plan get it.

I am almost a lifetime vegetarian, mostly, 99% vegan, never smoked, only sampled a little alcohol when young, don't eat sweets, walk about 2 miles a day and go to a gym every day where I alternate between swimming 50 laps and weightlifting followed by half hour on stationary bikes, altogether minimum of 1 hr 45 minutes of some type of exercise daily.

I have some arthritis and a few other problems that come with age; but, I am in better shape than many 20 years younger than I am and I will continue to get every possible vaccine.

david m burd

@Joel Harrison, PhD MPH

It isn't hard. My generation is the same as yours, the healthiest ever, raised in the 1940's. without any vaccines and with good nutrition.

You and I may live another 25 healthful years, as long as we reject the poisoning by flu and pneumonia and other such vaccines. Otherwise let's raise our glasses to a healthful toast!

Stop the nonsense

Mr. Harrison--I think you are entirely missing the point. Offit's assertion that a child could "theoretically" handle 10,000 (maybe it was originally 100,000?) antigens is in itself a disingenuous and misleading statement because the antigens are not all that is in any vaccine. It seems to many here, who do very clearly understand what he was saying, is that his wording (and those who quote him) is intentionally misleading!

The pro-vaccinationists use his "theoretical" idea as "evidence" that current vaccinating practices are safe and are really no where near "over-dosing" children. Yet in reality, there is no solid evidence that we aren't already over-dosing our kids with too many adjuvants and excipients and preservatives and whatever all else is actually in vaccines in addition to the antigens.

Where is the evidence that exposure to an injected antigen (especially with all the associated other ingredients) is at all comparable to exposure to microbes on the skin, digestive tract, or via inhalation? All those systems have evolved over millions of years to cope with exposure to microbes. It seems to me that our bodies are much less well equipped to deal with microbes that get into our blood via cuts, insect bites, -- or injections. If you have knowledge of clear, carefully conducted studies that refute this impression, please provide citations.

Offit's theoretical "antigen" exposure tolerance is theoretical only. And it is, as you yourself admit, is certainly not evidence that anyone (adult or child) could tolerate injection of 10,000 vaccines at once. Yet it is repeated ad nauseum as if it were actually evidence that we are not exposing our children to more vaccines than they are able to safely handle. So when you accuse people here of mis-using Offit's "theoretical statement," you ought to look long and hard at, and similarly harshly criticize, the use of his statement by people on your side of the fence.

The argument over the safety and efficacy of the current vaccine schedule is not ever going to be settled until an honest, open study comparing the health and development of never-vaccinated with fully-vaccinated children is completed. The kids are already out there. Why, exactly, is it that your side of the argument totally refuses to do the one study that could actually provide solid evidence, one way or the other, about whether or not the current vaccine schedule is helping or harming children?

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.)