POP QUIZ - Pull Quotes from US News Magazine
By DAVID KIRBY
For more than a year now, in my talks, slide presentations, and interviews, I have been discussing the possibility that there may be a subset of genetically susceptible children who simply cannot handle the overstimulation of our rather crowded “one size fits all” vaccine schedule.
I have suggested trying to screen out children who might be most vulnerable to vaccine injury – including autism, in the case of Hannah Poling and countless others like her – and devising a separate vaccine schedule for them. The goal is to get them immunized, but on a less intensive timetable.
Below are comments from health experts and medical journalist on this very subject. Virtually any one of these statements could have been made by me at one of my talks. But they weren’t. Can you try to guess who said these quotes? (Answers below) They were all (yes) “cherry picked” from a major vaccine series just out in US News and World Report:
Vaccines Get New Scrutiny: (HERE)
A Parents' Guide to Managing Vaccinations: (HERE)
A Government Call for Vaccine Research (HERE)
Here are the quotes:
1) “The government is acknowledging that, at the moment, science doesn't know much about how many shots a kid can safely get at once and which children will be harmed.”
2) "If we can show that individuals of a certain genetic profile have a greater propensity for developing adverse events, we may want to screen everyone prior to vaccination.”
3) "These (vaccine) trials simply aren't big enough to detect rare events that only come to light after 1 million or more doses are distributed.”
4) “Research on the capacity of the young immune system to handle a sudden and concentrated exposure to the less benign antigens in vaccines needs further investigation, particularly with the flood of new vaccines on the horizon.”
5) “The amount of mercury in one shot is very small, but scientists don't know how long it stays in a child's brain or whether it can accumulate over time.”
6) “The CDC recommendations aren't set in stone; the agency advises doctors to ‘explore acceptable options,’ if that's what parents prefer.”
7) "We'd like to know (before vaccinating) if there are particular markers that signal undetectable diseases like a subclinical mitochrondrial disorder.”
8) “(We) recommend against vaccinating a child with moderate to severe illness; the definition of ‘moderate to severe’ depends on the doctor but usually includes a fever, hacking cough, diarrhea, or other acute symptoms.”
9) “It may be wise to delay vaccines if your child has a minor cold or stomach bug.”
10) “(We) propose comparisons of the immunologic and physiologic effects of different combinations of vaccines administered on different schedules.”
11) “The one-size-fits-all vaccine schedule has served the public well but has yet to be tested for optimal efficacy and safety.”
ANSWERS:
1) Deborah Kotz, Senior Editor, Health Section, US News Magazine
2) Dr. Anthony Fauci, Director, National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases,
3) Dr. John Iskander, Associate Director for Immunization Safety, CDC
4) Dr. Bernadine Healy, Medical Editor, US News, Former Director of NIH
5) Dr. Tom Burbacher, Professor at the University of Washington (Source: US News)
6) Deborah Kotz, Senior Editor, Health Section, US News Magazine
7) Dr. Anthony Fauci, Director, National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases,
8) American Academy of Pediatrics (Source: US News)
9) Robert Naviaux, Associate Professor of Medicine and Pediatrics at the University of California-San Diego School of Medicine
10) National Institutes of Health (Source: US News)
11) Dr. Bernadine Healy, Medical Editor, US News, Former Director of NIH
David Kirby is author of Evidence of Harm, a contributor to Age of Autism and a founding contributor to Huffington Post.
Will the end of our long trail come in this way?- with the mainstream doctors saying what we said all along and having everyone believe that they are to be credited with figuring things out? That is my expectation. They will say what we have told them for 10 or more years and they will do it without batting an eye. You can also expect more delaying tactics- for example an emphasis on "vaccines" in general in order to distract and delay focus on the criminal and despicable use of mercury in medical products.
Posted by: Cherry Sperlin Misra | December 12, 2008 at 02:13 PM
“It may be wise to delay vaccines if your child has a minor cold or stomach bug.”
9) Robert Naviaux, Associate Professor of Medicine and Pediatrics at the University of California-San Diego School of Medicine
Anything else you got up your sleeve doc? Is this the best you can do? Ever heard of the immune system response to antigens wherein the pathogen injected into the bloodstream directly, bypassing the natural lines of defense, can cause extreme harm to the individual's ability to combat disease. Its called the humoral response as opposed to a cell-mediated immune response. Did you know that to effectively combat disease, both of these arms are needed? And yet, all that you can come up with is this lame statement about delaying vaccines for minor colds. And what about an underlying mito dysfunction susceptibility? Will that feature somewhere in the equation or is it easier to pretend that it does not exist because you say its hard to measure. Or you can but don't really want to?
Either say what needs to be said forcefully, definitely, or say nothing at all. Quit dancing around the problem. Far too many lives are being lost each day. What in the world are you waiting for?
Posted by: Anything else you want to say Dr. Naviaux? | December 11, 2008 at 11:27 PM
the door seems to be more than cracking. In Canada the chair of Public Health just said at a very recent vaccine conference that we sh0ouold have some type of vaccine compensation program in Canada. Things are happening and they're happening right NOW!
Posted by: jen | December 11, 2008 at 08:16 PM
Holy cow, does anyone know what prompted this? Some of these quotes from the likes of Caplan and Fauci are incredible. Could this somehow be related to the forthcoming findings by the Special Masters?
Posted by: Cindy Keenan | December 11, 2008 at 05:04 PM
OMG - the door is cracking! For this to appear in a mainstream puplication (US news & world report) is fantastic. Maybe more people will think we're not crazy alien seekers. Heck, my mother alone might, since its in a reputable publication!
Thank you Dr. Healy - keep talking and writing!!!
Posted by: diane | December 11, 2008 at 04:53 PM
Gee, Arthur Caplan, you're really going out on a bioethical limb there. "[T]aking a risk when the goal is prevention" is "less tolerable." Basically Caplan is admitting that he tolerates the continued vaccine injury to children.
A few years back an interesting article about Caplan's financial conflicts of interest was written by an ethicist from the University of Minnesota -- the former employer of Caplan. Ethics, my gluteus maximi.
Posted by: nhokkanen | December 11, 2008 at 04:46 PM
Wow! Is that just on-line, or will those articles be in the magazines on newstands?
Posted by: Jack | December 11, 2008 at 03:43 PM
Here's another good one from the USN&WR article:
"It's one thing to take a risk [with a medication] if you actually have a disease, but taking a risk when the goal is prevention of a very rare disease is less tolerable," says Arthur Caplan, director of the Center for Bioethics at the University of Pennsylvania.
Posted by: Twyla | December 11, 2008 at 03:19 PM
Wow. Maybe we're no longer on the fringe. Are our very sensible valid concerns entering the mainstream?
Posted by: Twyla | December 11, 2008 at 03:05 PM