GSK's 69 Infanrix Deaths Are Not Explicable As Coincidence
Adverse Events Caused by Infanrix hexa Vaccine Results in 69 Deaths
Dr Puliyel analyzed the data and found that 97% of deaths (65 deaths) following Infanrix hexa , occur in the first 10 days and only 3% (2 deaths) occur in the next 10 days. Had the deaths been coincidental SIDS deaths unrelated to vaccination, the numbers of deaths in the two 10 day periods should have been the same.
The manufacturers of this vaccine GlaxoSmithKline (GSK) disclosed in a confidential report to the Regulatory Authority that about 72 babies died within 20 days of receiving Infanrix hexa. They reported that the deaths of these children were due to Sudden Infant Death Syndrome (SIDS) and Sudden Unexpected Death Syndrome (SUDS) unrelated vaccination. However an Italian Court of Justice Nicola Di Leo ordered that it be made public and is now available on the internet (http://autismoevaccini.files.wordpress.com/2012/12/vaccin-dc3a9cc3a8s.pdf)
Analysis of the data shows that at least 69 out of 72 deaths reported were likely to have been caused by the vaccine.
Infanrix hexa combines vaccines against 6 diseases [namely Diptheria, Tetanus and Acelluar Pertusis (whooping cough), Hepatitis B, inactivated Poliomyelitis and Haemophilus influenza type B] in a single vaccine. The DPT vaccine, Hepatitis B, Hib and injectable Polio have been administered separately in the past. The newer combined vaccine is being promoted on the grounds that it reduces the number of injections given to babies. The safety of the combination is now being questioned.
The manufacturers had reported these sudden and unexpected deaths were not caused by the vaccine but were merely coincidental SIDS deaths. Dr Puliyel analyzed the data and found that 97% of deaths (65 deaths) in the infants below 1 year, occur in the first 10 days and only 3% (2 deaths) occur in the next 10 days. Had the deaths been coincidental SIDS deaths unrelated to vaccination, the numbers of deaths in the two 10 day periods should have been the same.
Dr Puliyel has published his findings on the US National Library of Medicine National Institutes of Health PubMed Commons. This was being done he writes, “to put it up for open review by the scientific community, on account of its urgency, as this is a matter that involves the lives of children and there is a continuing risk to children”.
In some ways this is similar to Pentavalent vaccine combining vaccines against 5 disease ( DPT, Hepatitis B, Hib vaccines) which has caused a large number of deaths in developing countries in Asia. Puliyel notes that these deaths are completely unnecessary as the vaccines could have been given separately, and separately they have a long track record of safety. One hopes that the findings will result in an honest acknowledgement of the harms being done by these combined vaccines.
Recently the CIOMS and WHO altered the way safety of vaccines is evaluated and Puliyel notes that the revised method facilitates misclassification of adverse events following immunization as has happened in this case.
Puliyel also questioned why safety data has to be kept confidential. The GSK report released recently by the Italian Court is dated 16 December 2011. Had it been made public at that time, a large number of unnecessary deaths in 2012, 2013 and 2014 could have been avoided.
There is a momentum for disclosure of drug trial data. It is hoped this will extend to safety data collected under Regulatory Rules
The PubMed Commons article can be accessed here.
We invite you to read more about these deaths at ChildHealhySafety
READ UPDATE 'NOT PUBLISHED IN BRITISH MEDICAL JOURNAL: THE DANGERS AND CONFLICTS OF INFANRIX HEXA'
@BJ, here's a start:
Posted by: Jeannette Bishop | April 21, 2018 at 08:48 PM
Please someone (RFK jr?) have a Vaxed vs Non-Vaxed study accomplished!
There are groups of religious people who do not vaccinate so it should be easy to do the study.
My thoughts are that CDC cannot do the study because it would show the Fraud that Vaccines are and the damage & deaths they cause.
There have to be some good, uncorrupted people who will do this study, so Find Them!
Posted by: BJ | April 21, 2018 at 04:44 PM
CONSUMER ACCESS TO HOMOEOPATHIC
MEDICINES AT RISK!
Make a submission and ask your clients to do the same, to protect homoeopathy and safeguard consumer access to homoeopathic medicines in pharmacies.
There isn’t much time to speak out; responses need to be received by Sunday 23rd July.
On 22 June 2017, a government report - Review of Pharmacy Remuneration & Regulation Interim Report (The King Review) - was released for public consultation. It is recommending that homoeopathic products (e.g. hayfever drops, teething and colic formulas) should not be sold in pharmacies. The report bases this on the flawed National Health and Medical Research Council (NHMRC) Homeopathy Review, which concluded homoeopathic medicines are ineffective. If the King report is approved, it could mean all homoeopathic medicines would be removed from pharmacies around Australia.
This report is the latest in an ongoing agenda to remove homoeopathy as a healthcare choice for Australians. There is real concern that homoeopathy could be the first in a long line of other natural therapies due for this kind of legislation, resulting in the community’s choice of, and access to, other natural therapies becoming difficult in the future. It also means that the manufacture of homoeopathic medicines in Australia is under threat – homoeopaths themselves may not be able to access homoeopathic medicines either.
The Report is open to public submissions
until 11.59pm, 23rd July 2017
How you can object:
Write a submission or answer an online questionnaire - just follow the prompts below.
Share this letter to as many people as you can.
How to make a submission:
Interested parties are invited to make a submission in relation to the reform options outlined in the Interim Report by either:
1. Uploading a written submission to the Review: go to the Department of Health webpage (http://www.health.gov.au/pharmacyreview#Members) and upload your submission via the ‘Department’s Consultation Hub’ (https://consultations.health.gov.au/pbd-pharma…/submissions/), towards the bottom of the page.
2. Providing a short response to one or more of the reform options through an online questionnaire - which also includes a field to add your own comments (see below).
If filling out the questionnaire, you do not need to answer all the questions - just the option relating to homoeopathic products:
(Chapter 3.4: “The Role of Community Pharmacy in Medicine Supply, OPTION 3-4: SALE OF HOMEOPATHIC PRODUCTS”).
you can use these answers with this part of the questionnaire:
Alternatively, if you wish to make a submission, a sample letter is provided below that you can base yours on.
Sample letter here... https://app.box.com/s/1i49tygzbfotq60w99o5825dwr6n7fiq
Points you can use in your own submission at this link... https://app.box.com/s/p3ux9d0tcru7qbnmprrj12sk4tvh0r28
Feel free to forward this information to any of your clients who may be interested in getting involved.
NATIONAL OFFICE: 07 4636 5081, PO BOX 7108, TOOWOOMBA SOUTH, QLD 4350
Phone: 08 8338 2144
Address: PO BOX 209, Glen Osmond SA http://www.health.gov.au/pharmacyreview#Members
Posted by: Alex | July 17, 2017 at 06:30 AM
It is appalling: I am so very sorry.
Posted by: John Stone | February 18, 2015 at 04:00 AM
I'm so very sorry to learn of your loss.
Posted by: Jeannette Bishop | February 17, 2015 at 04:38 PM
Just lost my little boy in december 2014 less than day after he had been vaccinated with Infanrix-Hexa. Apparently, he died of a pneumonia... He was in perfect health... Sorry if my english isn't perfect, it's my second langage.
Posted by: Francis | February 17, 2015 at 03:11 PM
Worth repeating a comment I made in these columns a couple of weeks ago:
Recently I came upon a book given to me years ago when I was too busy to look at it (or thought I was) by the founder of the UK yellow card adverse drug reporting scheme, Bill Inman 'Don't Tell The Patient' published in 1999. The book is almost too laconic but there is a key chapter about how the author in the 1970s had detected a rate of serious adverse reactions to pertussis vaccination above ten times the rate officially admitted, more than 1 in 30,000 cases (something which would have been compounded c.1990 when the accelerated DPT schedule was introduced). Already in the UK in the 1970s there was a huge infra-structure of time-serving committees ready to over-rule and intimidate anyone who called policy on any matter into question. At the end of the chapter, with Inman retiring from the Department of Health in 1980 he is told "You know Bill, you've blown your K", i.e. knighthood, for rocking the boat on pertussis vaccination and for associating early versions of the contraceptive pill with thrombosis. One person ,of course, who didn't blow their "K" in the end was Sir Michael Rutter.
We note also that before journalist Brian Deer got his teeth into Andy Wakefield he had published a smear job on a successful Irish DPT claimant Margaret Best when the British government machine knew perfectly well that there were potentially hundreds of perfectly valid cases pending and children still being injured. It is also a matter of history that when Deer launched his attack on Wakefield he did it with support of Chief Medical Officer, the Prime Minister http://www.bmj.com/content/328/7438/528/rapid-responses and the unrestrained glee of the Department of Health https://childhealthsafety.wordpress.com/. National Health Service websites linked to Deer's.
One of the things to be learnt from Inman's book is that the systems become ever more adept at suppressing anything that conflicts with policy, and therefore the danger to real public interest gets ever greater. Fifty years ago Inman was able to blow the whistle on the early contraceptive pill and thrombosis from within the system: it seems very unlikely today. No matter how bad things gets the machine can deflect controversy and demands more and more sacrifice.
Of course, the great game is pursued by government and the state differently on either side of the pond but with same goals of suppressing knowledge, dissent and above all legal liability.
Posted by: John Stone | January 17, 2015 at 04:56 AM
I was interested to read the documents from Pfizer.Particularly in regards to manifestations of epilepsy / seizures (inclusive of convulsions and febrile seizures) - the Pfizer investigation notes -
13vPnC+Hexavalent vaccine = 73
13vPnC+Other vaccines = 27
13vPnC = 33
Particularly concerning were the following -
Grand mal convulsion = 6 - 2 - 1
Epilepsy = 4 0 2
Petit mal epilepsy = 2 0 1
Status epilepticus = 2 2 0
Atonic seizures = 1 0 0
Partial seizures = 1 0 0
Tonic clonic movements = 1 0 0
Tonic convulsion = 1 1 1
13vPnC+Hexavalent vaccine = 18
13vPnC+Other vaccines = 4
13vPnC = 5
Speaks for itself really.
Posted by: Guest | January 16, 2015 at 09:21 AM
From above article:-
"Puliyel notes that these deaths are completely unnecessary as the vaccines could have been given separately, and separately they have a long track record of safety."
How absurd and dishonest is "they have a long track record of safety."(!)
My generation born 1940 -1950 did not even have "SIDS" or "SUDS" as a death category, though indeed some very rare deaths did occur but had identified causes, usually from infections or birth defects or congenital causes.
The only true analysis or conclusion(s) of SIDS/SUDS deaths can come from vaxed versus unvaccinated - not from this so-called Study
Posted by: david m burd | January 15, 2015 at 09:08 AM
Jenny Allan .... please ,please
Posted by: Scholl | January 15, 2015 at 09:07 AM
The bottom line is that it looks like GSK, Pfizer, the European Medicines Agency, the CDC, other national drug regulatory agencies and health officials in a large number of countries have been sentencing children to death by injection.
The evidence is also clear that the probability is vanishingly small those children would have suffered serious effects of the childhood diseases their parents were assured these "safe" killer vaccines were meant to protect them from.
Posted by: Alessandro | January 15, 2015 at 08:51 AM
This is not just about the one vaccine.
There is much more in the 1271 page GSK document. It records deaths occurring when Prevenar 13 is administered with Infanrix Hexa.
In addition, European Medicines Agency documents published by Initiative Citoyenne show that Prevenar 13 has a much higher rate of adverse reactions when given at the same time as another vaccine. And the adverse reactions are highest with Infanrix Hexa.
Prevenar 13 is widely administered worldwide since its 2009 approval by the European Medicines Agency.
This is Initiative Citoyenne's English Version Press Release: HERE
Newspaper Le Soir published HERE about this.
For the Prevenar 13 documents see:
Posted by: Alessandro | January 15, 2015 at 08:44 AM
Another good one on mercury in vaccines by Dr. Puliyel:
Posted by: introvert | January 15, 2015 at 07:43 AM
Thank you Alessandro - Your comment illustrates the 'smoke and mirrors' attempts to cover up the REAL figures with a load of extraneous rubbish.
The following is from the European Medicines Agency
"How has Infanrix hexa been studied?
Infanrix hexa has been studied in nine studies, involving a total of almost 5,000 infants aged between six weeks and two years. Over 3,000 of the infants received the first course of vaccination with Infanrix hexa. The effects of Infanrix hexa were compared with those of separate vaccines containing the same active substances. The main measure of effectiveness was the production of protective antibodies in the infants.
An additional five studies looked at the effects of a booster vaccination with Infanrix hexa."
I honestly don't think 5000 children was a big enough cohort for vaccine safety or effectiveness studies. These must have been spread very thinly throughout the nine studies quoted, and only 3000 of these children received the first course of vaccination with Infanrix hexa. Apparently these studies were far more concerned with the effectiveness of the vaccine, rather than the safety issues.
Posted by: Jenny Allan | January 15, 2015 at 07:28 AM
Bob, we need effective treatments for well-known long existing childhood diseases.
We already have one. It's called the immune systems they were born with.
Posted by: Barry | January 15, 2015 at 07:04 AM
Mercky-I confess, my miss-spelling of Infanrix was due to ignorance not typos. Thankfully we don't seem to have this horror in the UK -yet-no doubt in the pipeline. How about InfantEX for a name?
Posted by: Jenny Allan | January 15, 2015 at 06:53 AM
See below - GlaxoSmithKline Table 36 - column 1, 2 and 4 show how close all the deaths are to vaccination. The deaths are clustered close to vaccination with much fewer the further in time from vaccination. So showing these are not numbers of deaths normally to be expected in the normal course of events.
But GSK disguised the relationship by listing the cumulative number of deaths.
So where it says 2 days since vaccination GSK instead put the number of deaths 2 days after vaccination, plus the number 1 day and 0 days after vaccination.
So three days after is the number who died three days after vaccination plus all those who died, 0, 1 and 2 days after.
If GSK just published the bare numbers the relationship is much clearer. For infants [column 2]:
16 died the day of vaccination
13 died one day after vaccination
13 died two days after vaccination
8 died three days after vaccination
7 died four days after vaccination
3 died five days after vaccination
0 died six days after vaccination
2 died seven days after vaccination
1 died eight days after vaccination
2 died nine days after vaccination
0 died ten, eleven, twelve, thirteen and fourteen days after vaccination
1 died 15 days after vaccination
1 died 16 days after vaccination
0 died 17, 18 and 19 days after vaccination
This shows just how appalling it is that people hiding behind fake names like Eindeker publish the misinformation they do all over the internet.
Posted by: Alessandro | January 15, 2015 at 05:56 AM
6 diseases [namely Diptheria, Tetanus and Acelluar Pertusis (whooping cough), Hepatitis B, inactivated Poliomyelitis and Haemophilus influenza type B]
Diptheria - never ever heard of anyone getting that ever !
Tetanus - not necessary in Urban environment , and hydogen peroxide on any cut should beat it they say .
Pertusis - the vaccine is mired in controversy , it doesnt work (withdrawn in several sovereign states .
HepB - for children come on ? who are you kidding - blatanty lie
Polio - really - its a another vaccine lie
FluB - only a fool would fall for the flu jab .a damn fool
Posted by: Scholl | January 15, 2015 at 05:32 AM
"instead of providing the citizens of the world SAFE AND EFFICIENT VACCINES."
Bob, we need effective treatments for well-known long existing childhood diseases. The science exists to do it and then children and their parents would not be forced to play Russian Roulette with vaccines pushed by systemically corrupt health departments and organisations, financially supported by the drug industry.
Posted by: Alessandro | January 15, 2015 at 04:57 AM
Here's a little revelation. Jenny Allan refers to "Infantrix" rather than "Infanrix". Now, they couldn't call it "infantrix" could they?
Posted by: Mercky Business | January 15, 2015 at 04:34 AM
Dr Puliyel sites a near 10 year old German study in his PubMed response:-
von Kries R1, Toschke AM, Strassburger K, Kundi M, Kalies H, Nennstiel U, Jorch G, Rosenbauer J, Giani G.
From the Abstract:-
"......Standardised mortality ratios (SMR) for deaths within 1 to 28 days after administration of either of the two hexavalent vaccines in the 1st and 2nd year of life were determined using the respective annual rates for sudden unexpected deaths (SUDs) from the national vital statistics........
For one of the vaccines, Vaccine B, all SMRs were well below one. For the other, Vaccine A, SMRs exceeded one insignificantly on the 1st day after vaccination in the 1st year of life......
These findings based on spontaneous reporting do not prove a causal relationship between vaccination and sudden unexpected deaths. However, they constitute a signal for one of the two hexavalent vaccines which should prompt intensified surveillance for unexpected deaths after vaccination."
This, far more rational study than the Italian one, threw up a 'signal' over one of the hexa vaccines apparently causing larger than expected deaths from SIDS immediately after vaccination. That 'signal' appears to have been ignored by those whose job it is to investigate and act on such concerns.
Posted by: Jenny Allan | January 15, 2015 at 04:11 AM
Jenny Allan and Cia Parker. Re Jenny’s quote from the 1998 Wakefield paper re child four, i.e. the child who received monovalent measles vaccine at 15 months, and subsequently received a dose of measles, mumps, and rubella vaccine at age 4.5 years.
If the child received an effective live measles vaccine at 15 months, and presuming that maternally derived antibodies had waned, it’s likely the child would have been immunised. So the second shot of measles vaccine at age 4.5 years may have been unnecessary and he underwent the risks of revaccination for no benefit.
Wakefield also discusses child four in his book Callous Disregard, see pages 30-32, in which he states: “Child 4 is particularly significant since he represents a possible rechallenge case. Rechallenge is the term used to describe a situation in which symptoms develop after an exposure, and after re-exposure to either the same or a similar factor (e.g., a measles-containing vaccine), there is an obvious recurrence or worsening of those symptoms. This specific set of circumstances is considered by the US Institute of Medicine to be powerful evidence of causation(8) and cannot be dismissed as coincidence. Despite this worrying sequence of events and the progressive deterioration of this little boy, none of this appeared to be of the least concern to anyone other than his parents and some of the doctors at the Royal Free.”
Today many children are being over-vaccinated with the live measles/mumps/rubella vaccine. If children are vaccinated with an effective live measles/mumps/rubella vaccine at an appropriate age, i.e. after maternally derived antibodies have waned, it is my understanding these children are likely to be immune and unlikely to benefit from a second dose of live MMR vaccine. Immunity can be verified via antibody titre testing, but it appears most parents and other individuals are not being informed of this option.
I have recently forwarded a letter challenging the second arbitrary dose of live MMR vaccine, and the lack of information about the option of antibody titre testing to verify immunisation, to Sylvia Mathews Burwell, Secretary of the US Department of Health and Human Services. You can access the letter via this link: http://users.on.net/~peter.hart/Letter_to_Sylvia_Mathews_Burwell_HHS_re_MMR_second_dose.pdf
My other letters about the MMR vaccine 2nd dose are now listed on this webpage: http://over-vaccination.net/letters-challenging-over-vaccination/measlesmumpsrubella-mmr-live-vaccine/
I’ve now brought this matter to the attention of a number of people, including Jonathan Temte, Chair of the US Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices; Paul Offit, vaccine product promoter; Ian Olver and Warwick Anderson of the Australian NHMRC, Steve Hambleton, the previous President of the Australian Medical Association; Terry Nolan, previous Chair of the Australian Technical Advisory Group on Immunisation; Tanya Plibersek, previous Australian Federal Minister for Health; Barbara Loe Fisher, President of the US National Vaccine Center; and others.
I’m appalled at the obstructionism I have encountered, and the reluctance to properly inform people about the option of antibody titre testing to verify immunisation after vaccination with the live MMR vaccine.
There is no question… Parents (and other individuals) should be properly informed of the option of antibody titre testing after the first dose of live MMR vaccine, before arbitrary re-vaccination with the second dose.
There may be some careful people who would prefer to opt for antibody titre testing to verify immunisation after vaccination with an effective live MMR vaccine, rather than have a probably unnecessary revaccination. People should be given this option, even if they have to pay for it themselves. This is intrinsic to our right to bodily autonomy in our liberal society.
Posted by: Elizabeth Hart | January 15, 2015 at 03:45 AM
Sorry I did not realise Whyser's graph was cumulative, not daily totals of deaths following Infantrix, but the same arguments apply. I assume the 'expected daily 55 infant deaths' were calculated from child death records, and included both vaccinated and unvaccinated children and deaths from all causes.
The fact that most deaths following Infantrix took place in the first few days following vaccination IS a matter for concern, and should not be suppressed and dismissed by those vested interests concerned with protecting vaccines, rather than protecting children.
Posted by: Jenny Allan | January 15, 2015 at 03:23 AM
It is far more simple. If 67 deaths were by chance they would be spread across the 20 days. What shows they are caused by the vaccine is they happen much sooner and very close to the time of vaccination.
Look at the figures for within 4 days of the vaccine. 50 of the 67 deaths happened within 4 days of vaccination. And then another 15 between 4 and 10 days making 65 within 10 days. Only two of the 67 deaths happened in the next 10 days.
That can only be the vaccine.
And this also demonstrates scientifically that the anonymous "Eindeker" is posting to spread misinformation and to confuse those who are not so good with numbers.
This part is clearly nonsense "a much more likely explanation is that more children were dying immediately post vaccination before the protective effect of vaccination against infectious disease developed in the week or so post vaccination."
Yep they all died of death from unexplained causes whilst cut down by an infectious disease no one has heard of for which there is no vaccine and leaves no trace or symptoms at autopsy. Well done Eindeker. It just shows how far you people will go to spread confusion.
Posted by: Alessandro | January 15, 2015 at 03:03 AM
Just to give a detailed and I hope HONEST analysis of Eindeker's arguments using the Whyser graph:-
Whyser omitted to include the baseline of expected deaths, but this is easy. Just go to the number 55 on the vertical axis and draw a straight horizontal line across the graph.
This reveals Eindeker's correct observations. For the first 3 days, deaths following Infantrix were BELOW the base line of 55 expected deaths. There were 16 deaths recorded immediately following vaccination, on the first day 20, on the second 40, and the third 50. Eindeker suggests this proves the Infantrix vaccine actually saves lives by protecting from infections, in the few days following vaccinations. Since this is exactly what vaccines are supposed to do, then Eindeker is probably correct in this assumption.
But what are we to make of the 4-20 days following vaccinations, where deaths exceeded the 55 base line? Would Eindeker, and those other persons who dismiss vaccine concerns as nonsense and pseudoscience, be happy for their own children to be protected for a few days from an infection, only to die or be damaged later from adverse effects due to the vaccine? This argument is absolutely CENTRAL to the whole vaccine controversy.
Posted by: Jenny Allan | January 15, 2015 at 03:01 AM
Whyser - Thank you for taking the time to compile a graph of infant SIDS deaths on the 20 days following vaccination with Infantrix. This clearly demonstrates Dr Puliyel's conclusion, i.e. all but 2 of the deaths occurred within the first 8 days following vaccination. As I stated below, it's NOT rocket science, to note this is vastly different from what should be expected, if the vaccine were not implicated in the deaths.
Eindeker can be relied upon to defend any vaccine concerns on these comment threads. (No criticism intended Eindeker, and please keep commenting. These matters are important and NEED to be widely publicised and debated).
However, on accessing the link to the paper, I noted Dr Puliyel's observations were all expressed via the Pub Med comment section, and conclude with the following paragraph:-
"This is being posted on PubMed Commons to put it up for open review by the scientific community, on account of its urgency, as this is a matter that involves the lives of children and there is a continuing risk to children.
As the authors of this article are best qualified to peer review this submission, I am inviting each of the authors firstname.lastname@example.org email@example.com firstname.lastname@example.org email@example.com firstname.lastname@example.org email@example.com firstname.lastname@example.org email@example.com to review it and to post their review on PubMed Commons."
How about it Eindeker? I believe the Pub Med comment section is open to informed debate by the 'scientific community' you claim to be part of, so state your ‘intellectual honesty rather than the nonsense’ , where it can be subject to scrutiny by world scientists on both sides of the argument.
Posted by: Jenny Allan | January 15, 2015 at 01:59 AM
"If the rate of deaths is not associated to the vaccine, we should observe that the amount of deaths in the first 10 days post vaccination should be about the same number of deaths in the next 10 days..."
Why wouldn't it be possible for a vaccine to weaken a child so that death occurs after 10 days instead of only within the first 10 days? What is the scientific basis for the 10 day window?
Posted by: Linda1 | January 14, 2015 at 11:33 PM
Hang on, the figures in this table look fishy. For which population are the numbers of actual and expected SIDS calculated? Because the expected SIDS look wildly inflated. Germany has just under 700,000 live births per year, and the first-year SIDS rate is 0.454/1,000 live births, so the number of SIDS would be a bit over 300 annually, or less than one per day on average. But according to this table, there are 380 SIDS deaths in just one week. If the actual figure is about one per day, then the vaccine is indeed causing a big surge of excess SIDS. And remember that only 30% of German babies received this vaccine, so if they all received it, the death surge would be more than three times higher. It also seems incredible that this vaccine could reduce SIDS by more than 90% in just 19 days, as this table suggests.
Could someone explain what's going on here?
Posted by: JerseyGuy | January 14, 2015 at 11:05 PM
I think you're misunderstanding the table that he used to come to those conclusions.
The expected sudden deaths column is a linear rate of expected deaths that they expect to see, REGARDLESS of cause. They used a rate of 55 deaths per day.
The observed sudden deaths during the observation period was performed post vaccination. What Dr Puliyel is stating is that GlaxoSmithKline observed 69 deaths post vaccination, and that you should pay attention to the number of deaths in the first 10 days post vaccination, and compare it to the next 10 days.
The GSK chart shows that there were 65 deaths observed in the first 10 days post vaccination, and in the following 10 days, only two more deaths occurred. If the rate of deaths is not associated to the vaccine, we should observe that the amount of deaths in the first 10 days post vaccination should be about the same number of deaths in the next 10 days, but this was not the case.
97% of the deaths occurred in the first 10 days post-vaccination over a 20 day observation window. To say that there is not a strong possibility of correlation that the vaccine may be the cause of this would be rather unscientific and should demand investigation.
Here is a quick chart that I made showing the culmulative number of deaths following administration of Infanrix (I don't know if you can post images in the comment section
Posted by: Whyser | January 14, 2015 at 06:04 PM
What a very poor & naïve analysis Dr Puliyel presents. The table he presents on his web site is taken directly from the PSUR report so there is no debate on the figures but it is their interpretation that is so wildly speculative.
The table clearly shows the observed deaths in the period following vaccination are far fewer than would be expected by chance, markedly so in the 0-1 age group, but still the same or fewer in the 1-2 age group. The point is clearly stated in the report and even Dr Puliyel mentions it in his report According to the report the number of sudden death cases reported after vaccination with Infantrix hexa is below the number of cases expected in children in the first year of life. It is equal or below the number of cases expected in children in the 2nd year of life a fact that seems to have escaped the notice of the author "Vaccine Safety" of this article, I wonder how that was overlooked.
Dr Puliyel then postulates that although the death rates are lower in the post vaccination period just look at when they are occurring, in the first few days post vaccination, QED the vaccine is killing children. Well actually NO Dr P, given the number of deaths is much lower than expected at the end of the 20 day period for which data were presented a much more likely explanation is that more children were dying immediately post vaccination before the protective effect of vaccination against infectious disease developed in the week or so post vaccination.
For Vaccine Safety to state Analysis of the data shows that at least 69 out of 72 deaths reported were likely to have been caused by the vaccine is just a total fiction with no supporting evidence, did the author or Dr P actually read the PSUR where the possible causes of Sudden Infant Death were examined? What about the much much lower death rate than expected in the post vaccination period
Come on "Vaccine Safety" show some intellectual honesty rather than the nonsense above, or is this now in the annals of AoA mythology along with the great Kenyan sterilization subterfuge masquerading as a program to prevent neonatal tetanus?
Posted by: Eindeker | January 14, 2015 at 05:24 PM
The validity of Dr. Puliyel's findings regarding post-marketing surveillance depend on the assumption that a death very soon after vaccination will be as likely to be reported as a possible vaccine-related adverse event as a death that did not so closely follow vaccination. How did he support that?
Posted by: ndavis | January 14, 2015 at 05:04 PM
I've been following the SIDS issue for some time and it is always amazing to see how vaccine apologists always dismiss vaccines as possible cause in cases of SIDS, with zero evidence and even in the midst of strong temporal correlation.
Does everyone remember the Tennessee SIDS Incident in 1979? This involved a cluster of SIDS cases related to a single lot of DPT vaccine which led to the manufacturers changing their distribution policies, such that lots would be more widely dispersed, making it harder to make these types of associations? For years vaccine apologists denied this as whacko conspiracy theory, then Dan Olmstead produced the memo that had been leaked to him:
I attended the IOM's so-called "Vaccine Safety Hearing" on SIDS in 2002, it was a complete joke:
Posted by: David Foster | January 14, 2015 at 02:47 PM
Many thanks to Dr. Puliyel for doing this critical analysis and to Age of Autism for making the work available. It is remarkable that a GSK report itself confirms the validity of vaccine-induced Sudden Infant Death Syndrome and vaccine-induced autism. I hope the GSK 1200-page report and Dr. Puliyel's analysis of its data will gain the public attention that they deserve.
Posted by: Mary Holland | January 14, 2015 at 02:42 PM
Revising my strongly-worded earlier comment somewhat...
Perhaps I should have worded my second sentence as follows:
"Those making vaccines, those testing them on humans, those approving them, those recommending them, those selling them, and those administering them, are all guilty at some level of initiating, implementing, and/or perpetuating the great harm and carnage being done by vaccines, some more so than others." However, ignorance, whether real of feigned, in this day and age of abundant information and evidence is not acceptable and can no longer be tolerated.
Another question that needs to be asked is: When did it become okay to kill babies, and then say what killed them didn't, and that it's safe to give to other babies? This can no longer be justified in the names of "public health" and "the greater good." That is utter nonsense, and it's unconscionable.
Lastly, people need to stop believing the propaganda called SIDS, and above, also SUDS. People, including infants, rarely (if at all) drop dead for no reason. Case in point, why don't we have SADS (Sudden Adult Death Syndrome)? Important question to ask yourself. Beware of propaganda shaping our thinking and creating new diagnoses to cover-up what is technically death/homicide by vaccine.
Posted by: Laura Hayes | January 14, 2015 at 02:13 PM
Cia Parker says:-"But we should remember that one of the Lancet Twelve had reacted with autism to just the single measles vaccine."
Not quite Cia -From the 1998 Wakefield et al paper:-
"One child (child four) had received monovalent measles vaccine at 15 months, after which his development slowed (confirmed by professional assessors). No association was made with the vaccine at this time. He received a dose of measles, mumps, and rubella vaccine at age 4•5 years, the day after which his mother described a striking deterioration in his behaviour that she did link with the immunisation."
The Wakefield paper "investigated a consecutive series of children with chronic enterocolitis and regressive developmental disorder". 'Autism spectrum disorders' are mentioned in the discussion part of the paper, but mostly the language is about regression and the loss of previous skills. It is stated P Harvey, a neurologist, did the neurological assessments of the children, and presumably diagnosed autism in some cases. The children were initially referred to the Royal Free for their bowel problems. Paediatric gastroenterologist Professor Walker-Smith was the clinician in charge at the time.
Posted by: Jenny Allan | January 14, 2015 at 01:35 PM
Murder by vaccine. Those making vaccines, those testing them on humans, those approving them, those recommending them, those selling them, and those administering them, are all guilty of murder. Refusal to acknowledge abundant historical data and evidence, blatant and purposeful lying, covert covering up, lack of offering any type of meaningful or accurate informed consent (as if that could even happen due to all of the lies and corruption, and due to our lack of understanding the human immune system), willful ignorance, and prideful arrogance are no excuse, and are all involved in these vaccine murders. It's not that difficult a concept to grasp, these deaths, and so many, many others, constitute murder.
Perhaps we should begin to refer to these vaccine trials, and subsequent vaccinations post-vaccine approvals, as Vaccine Trafficking. Similar to Sex Trafficking victims, Vaccine Trafficking victims are being used, abused, lied to, and harmed for the profit of others, and they are suffering greatly, living decimated lives, and dying.
Sure would be nice if we could garner the critically-needed attention for all of the vaccine injured and vaccine murdered. Only then will this vaccine holocaust be stopped.
Posted by: Laura Hayes | January 14, 2015 at 12:21 PM
So Offit could be construed as correct, the immune system can handle 100,000 vaccines - it handles it by a process of neo-natal self-abortion.
Posted by: Jenny | January 14, 2015 at 11:32 AM
SID and autis is the very tip of this floating ice. Lots more of auto immune and mental illness/drug addictiion below.
Posted by: Benedetta | January 14, 2015 at 11:02 AM
But we should remember that one of the Lancet Twelve had reacted with autism to just the single measles vaccine. It is not that it is safe to give them separately, just that it is less dangerous. But it is still much more dangerous than it would have been just to let the child get the three different diseases naturally.
Posted by: cia parker | January 14, 2015 at 10:36 AM
Just angry at everyone trying to protect the vaccine industry to the point of blindness. Truly saddening.
Posted by: Kevin | January 14, 2015 at 09:05 AM
One can only hope and pray Dr Puliyel is going to achieve a better result than Dr. Wakefield .. who also called for the MMR vaccine to be given in "single doses" rather than combined .. which he found was a contributing factor of serious gastrointestinal problems in children with autism.
Unfortunately, we all know to well .. how big a price that Dr. Wakefield paid for making the very same "common sense" observation that Dr. Puliyel has made.
One also hopes and prays that Dr. Purliyel's "common sense" question asking why "safety data has to be kept confidential" .. observing that had the GSK report dated 16 December 2011 been made public at that time .. a large number of unnecessary deaths in 2012, 2013 and 2014 could have been avoided .. WILL BE ANSWERED .. NOT IN THE SECRETIVE COURT OF PUBLIC HEALTH AGENCIES AND PHARMACEUTICAL COMPANIES .. BUT .. IN THE COURT OF PUBLIC OPINION .. WHERE THE PUBLIC CAN JUDGE FOR THEMSELVES WHY THIS INFORMATION MUST REMAIN SECRET.
In any event .. this type of malicious practice by a global corporation ought not be treated as a simple "mistake" .. because .. it is a deliberate act constituting a CRIME by those involved .. and .. those responsible should pay a heavy price .. including lengthy time in the worst prisons possible.
When is this maddness going to end? It will only end when global regulatory agencies like WHO .. including our own CDC, FDA, HHS, .. are held responsible for their PERSONAL failure to prevent this very type of corporate crime .. instead of providing the citizens of the world SAFE AND EFFICIENT VACCINES.
Until they are all held responsible .. THE BAND PLAYS ON...
Posted by: Bob Moffitt | January 14, 2015 at 06:35 AM
From above article:-
"Puliyel notes that these deaths are completely unnecessary as the vaccines could have been given separately, and separately they have a long track record of safety. One hopes that the findings will result in an honest acknowledgement of the harms being done by these combined vaccines."
Amen to that, and grateful thanks to Dr Puliyel for his observations. It wasn't rocket science to conclude many of those so called SIDS baby deaths were caused by the hexa vaccine, and GSK MUST have known this at the time. But WHERE were the regulators, when this vaccine was licenced to be administered to babies? Surely even ONE baby death should have been rigorously investigated?
Posted by: Jenny Allan | January 14, 2015 at 06:33 AM