Andrew Wakefield on VAERS Analysis
By Andrew Wakefield
Neil Miller’s analysis of the Vaccine Adverse Events Reporting System (VAERS) provides two red flags for vaccine injury that have long been suspected by vaccine safety advocates—associations between first, the number of vaccines administered at the same visit and the risk of hospitalization and death, and second, younger age at the time of the vaccine adverse reaction and a higher risk of hospitalization and death.
Miller’s first real-world finding belies the entirely theoretical proposition—dangerously interpreted as carte blanche to give multiple shots simultaneously—that a child can receive ten to one hundred thousand vaccine antigens at the same time.
His second finding on younger age at vaccination and risk of injury are entirely consistent with the true findings of the CDC’s study that looked at age of first MMR and autism risk. African American boys and children of all races who were developmentally normal to age 12 months (‘isolated’ autism) had a highly significantly increased risk of autism following MMR on schedule (12-18 months) compared with those receiving it later. These facts were deliberately concealed for 14 years by the CDC authors and their superiors.
The second finding is also consistent with the observation that it was younger children who were at greater risk of meningitis with SmithKline Beecham’s dangerous MMR vaccine containing the Urabe AM/9 strain of mumps. The implications for this finding were completely ignored by the authorities.
Miller provides an informative history of the value of the VAERS system in picking up adverse reactions signals, reminding us at the same time of the huge under reporting of adverse reactions by medical personnel and the apparent reluctance by government investigators to link serious adverse reactions to vaccines. The value of VAERS is the red flags that it throws up. It should be used to generate hypotheses that lead to definitive studies and answers that we can believe in. We now know from Dr. William Thompson, the CDC whistleblower, that his agency cannot be trusted to do such studies. Congress has an obligation to act immediately to create an independent vaccine safety agency, completely outside of Health and Human Services and firewalled from pharmaceutical company influence.
Director VAXXED: From Cover-up to Catastrophe
 DeStefano F et al. Pediatrics 2004;113:259-266
 Dourado I et al, Am J Epidemiol. 2000;151:524-530
Another problem with pet food is the increased aluminum content. Dr. Gloria Dodd says it has increased a hundred-fold. And a lot of food is filled with compounds that have way too much estrogenic activity for our pets. Dry food is worse on both counts, but canned food can be bad as well. I don't eat out of cans that don't have BPA free linings, but I can't find dog food in BPA free cans. Maybe my dog might have been able to handle the poor quality food if she had not been vaccine injured. When the vaccine injury is combined with all the toxins in the food, her body has reacted the way you might expect - with autoimmunity.
Posted by: Betty Bona | July 02, 2016 at 07:55 PM
So it's back to trying to make sure that everyone is fully aware of the risks and benefits of the drugs and how likely it is that he will suffer effects from his medical condition or potential condition if he gets a VPD so severe that he is willing to take the risk of the drug.
But the only place to can get that kind of information, is from drug manufacturers. Who are incapable of telling the truth, even if they did actually want to.
So even those who think they are educating themselves, really aren't. And since there is no proof that there is any such thing as a vaccine preventable disease.... what you're advocating for here is still russian roulette.
Posted by: Barry | July 02, 2016 at 10:19 AM
"So it's back to trying to make sure that everyone is fully aware of the risks and benefits of the drugs"
Without question. This requires comprehensive long-term and short-term safety testing, both with the drug in isolation and in combination with other potentially toxic substances. Otherwise, we have no way of determining risks and benefits of the 'drug'. This applies to what are ordinarily considered 'drugs', vaccines, megadose supra-physiological vitamin and mineral supplements, non-ionizing radiation, and other wonders of modern technology. Given that we only test a small fraction of the safety parameter space of the above substances, we are basically playing Russian Roulette every time we get a vaccine, take a drug or a high-dose supra-physiological supplement, or make a call on our cell phone. We need to make sure these 'substances' are absolutely necessary before using them, since we know next to nothing about their safety!
Posted by: Ronald Kostoff | June 30, 2016 at 07:33 PM
I just got this from Dr. Lisa Pierson's website. I think it's important to see that even a very holistic vet says that, while vaccines can cause kidney disease, cancer, and many other awful conditions, that, she says, panleukopenia (feline distemper) is so dangerous that it is essential to vaccinate kittens: only twice, at nine and sixteen weeks. And she talks about how dangerous dry food diets are for cats. My neighbor got two kittens over ten years ago, and both immediately got the respiratory diseases included in the three-in-one vaccine Dr. Pierson recommends. She had to take them to the vet several times, give them drugs and syringe-feed them for a couple of weeks before they recovered. Many kittens die of these diseases. I would say cautious vaccination is the key, recognizing that the reactions can be very severe, but the diseases are not infrequent and they are often deadly in very young animals. Just don't get the whole panoply, don't get the feline leukemia vaccine, and don't give yearly boosters. Just the puppy and kitten vaccines twice, then at least two rabies a year apart after six months, and then use your judgment.
"Many cats suffer each day because of the water-depleted diets (read: any dry kibble) that humans insist on feeding to them. Out of all of the subjects discussed on my website, urinary tract health - especially urethral obstructions - is the subject that I am most passionate about.
And while urethral obstructions cause tremendous pain and suffering and can result in death if the bladder ruptures, cystitis (bladder inflammation) is also extremely painful. Many of these cats, understandably, develop litter box aversions secondary to associating the litter box with their pain. This results in house soiling and cases of abuse when the poor cat is punished.
If I could have the reader of my website leave with one word firmly imprinted in their mind it would be "water". If your cat is on a properly hydrated diet of 100% canned food - and no dry food - you stand a very good chance of never needing to read this webpage.
Note that I said "water" - not "crystals" or "urine pH" - or any of the expensive, low-quality, "prescription diets" often recommended by veterinarians.
Always keep in mind that water flowing through the urinary tract system is the most important factor in keeping it healthy. That said, please do not make the mistake that so many people make when they state "but my cat drinks plenty of water!"
A cat's normal prey is ~70% water. Canned food is ~78% water. Dry food is ~5-10% water. Cats have a low thirst drive and they do not make up the deficit at the water bowl. They are designed to get water with their food."
"The first section of this paper discusses the detrimental impact of dietary carbohydrates on the blood glucose balance and insulin response of cats as a species - with pre-diabetic and diabetic patients being especially susceptible to the negative effects of high carbohydrate diets.
However, if your cat is receiving insulin and you switch to a low carb diet - without lowering the insulin dosage - you will be putting your cat at significant risk for a hypoglycemic crisis. This is discussed under the STOP sign section below.
I receive many emails each week asking for food recommendations for diabetic cats. Answers:
1) NO DRY FOOD but see Tips for Transitioning Dry Food Addicts to Canned Food if you are dealing with a dry food addict. All cats can be transitioned to an appropriate diet (no dry food) if the owner is patient enough."
Vaccinate kittens with FVRCP twice starting at 8-9 weeks of age with the second, and final kitten vaccine, administered when the kitten is no younger than 16 weeks of age."
Most people are familiar with the abbreviation 'FVRCP' which stands for Feline Viral Rhinotracheitis (herpes), Calici, Panleukopenia. FVRCP is a combination vaccine that includes 3 out of the 5 vaccines that will be discussed on this webpage.
This vaccine can either be modified live (all ML vaccines are non-adjuvanted) or killed (adjuvanted). The route of delivery can be either injectable or intranasal.
In general, only use a modified live (NON-adjuvanted) - never a killed (adjuvanted) - FVRCP vaccine, with injectable (not intranasal) being the preferred route of administration in most, but not all, instances.
Herpes and calici: These are the upper respiratory viruses that can cause watery/swollen/ulcerated eyes (mainly herpes), sneezing, nasal congestion, and oral ulcerations. The severity of illness ranges from very mild to severe but the mortality rate is very low.
Unfortunately, as is true for the 'common cold' in humans, there is no 100% effective vaccine for herpes and calici in the cat. One reason is that these viruses mutate (change) frequently and there are many different strains. The vaccine will not prevent infection but will, hopefully, lessen the severity of clinical signs.
Panleukopenia: This is a highly contagious virus that infects the intestines causing severe bloody diarrhea and vomiting. This disease has a very high mortality rate.
Do not let your kitten or cat go unprotected from panleukopenia. This virus can cause a very cruel death.
Posted by: cia parker | June 30, 2016 at 10:54 AM
I was thinking last night: every drug has adverse effects, some very serious or fatal. Vaccines are a drug. No amount of testing on any drug is ever going to be able to make them absolutely safe for everyone. So it's back to trying to make sure that everyone is fully aware of the risks and benefits of the drugs and how likely it is that he will suffer effects from his medical condition or potential condition if he gets a VPD so severe that he is willing to take the risk of the drug.
Posted by: cia parker | June 30, 2016 at 10:40 AM
I think both the vaccines and the dry food can cause kidney disease and diabetes in cats. Cats are just not made for a diet with ANY carbs, and giving them dry food, which ALWAYS has a lot of carbs first deprives them of the high level of protein they need, second floods their systems with sugar when the carbs are broken down by a digestive system in no way designed to handle them, and third because they lack the water the cat needs. His prey has blood and stuff to provide fluid, as does canned food, but dry food does not.
There was NO diabetes in cats until about 1970 when it first became common to feed cats dry food. And then diabetes first appeared in cats and is epidemic now.
It's like with human vaccines, there are risks and benefits. Distemper is a bad, bad disease in either puppies or kittens, and usually kills them if they get it. Distemper in both cats and dogs is very rare now because of the vaccine program. I would recommend that a kitten get two of the three-way distemper-chlamydia-calicivirus combo, once at nine weeks and once at sixteen weeks. Rabies at six months, no mercury. For a puppy one distemper at nine weeks, one parvo at twelve weeks, second distemper at fifteen weeks, second parvo at eighteen weeks. Though parvo is the more dangerous threat, the maternal antibodies prevent immunity from taking hold until an older age than is true for distemper. Then rabies at six months. For both dogs and cats a second rabies shot a year after the first, then every three years or titer to determine if antibodies are still present (they probably will be, and protection should be lifelong after the two shots). And just like with people, some animals will have serious or fatal reactions even to those few puppy or kitten vaccines, but any animals that ever go out of the house are enough at risk that I think getting those few vaccines is nearly always going to be safe and is warranted. Purevax makes unadjuvanted vaccines for both dogs and cats: again, safer, but nothing is going to be absolutely safe.
Posted by: cia parker | June 30, 2016 at 10:36 AM
"Have you ever seen anyone even ask who invented the MMR?"
Yes; for example, the New York Times asked and answered that question (http://www.nytimes.com/2013/05/07/health/maurice-hilleman-mmr-vaccines-forgotten-hero.html?_r=0). For the NYT, Maurice Hilleman is the MMR vaccine's 'forgotten hero'! Hilleman died in 2005, but if he were alive today, he would probably argue the benefits outweighed the costs. What else would you expect the inventor to say?
Posted by: Ronald Kostoff | June 29, 2016 at 12:20 PM
Elizabeth Miller is one of the people responsible for oversight. In my opinion there are many events where officials should have behaved differently. They are part of the chain and should be held accountable. This is not to say there are not other links in the chain. I was highlignting the fact that a top of official was saying something misleading, foolhardy and dangerous - like many others of her class. In fact British officials have been much more inclined to fall explicitly behind the Offit doctrine (which is not merely conjecture but wrong) than US officials. What I am saying is that there is no core scientific principle behind vaccine science, and that Offit's paper is an erroneous fall-back position for people like Miller (E), Salisbury and Donaldson. Even she really knows it and comes out with the weak formula "strong arguments" while loading evermore toxic junk into our children.
Posted by: John Stone | June 29, 2016 at 08:30 AM
"You could say that it was the publishing industry which produced Elizabeth Miller's opinion, but it would not deal with her responsibility for policy."
I'm not saying that the people writing the misleading articles or the companies producing harmful products should not be held accountable. Certainly, they should. What I am saying is that after some point in time, those responsible for oversight should be held equally accountable, if not more so. The former are doing what I would expect: saying whatever is necessary to defend their product, no matter how harmful. The latter are not doing what I would hope: filtering out the propaganda so the public gets to see the truth.
I'll ask the same question again: name the high level officials in the CDC (and their British counterpart) with responsibility for vaccine safety whose words you would trust without question? If you can't, then what new information have you revealed by pinpointing their misleading statements?
Posted by: Ronald Kostoff | June 29, 2016 at 07:37 AM
So, the point is that if the journals are willing to publish what is outright propaganda, they are effectively not doing their job as gatekeepers providing quality control and oversight.
Have you ever seen anyone even ask who invented the MMR?
You would think by now, that someone should have at least asked that question. And been at least little curious what that person(s) has to say, about accusations that their invention is disabling children
Posted by: Barry | June 29, 2016 at 07:14 AM
Cia, you say: "being truthful demands recognizing that a few people percentage-wise have died of usually harmless diseases like measles, mumps, and chickenpox. It would not be right to take these vaccines off the market and out of the range of parents' choices. Then the unusual death of the child who dies of chickenpox or whatever would be on the head of those banning the vaccines, in the case that that parent would otherwise have gotten the vaccine for his child."
I respectfully disagree for five reasons. 1) ALL vaccines come with degrees of contaminants that may seriously harm the infant/child. 2) No vaccine is 100% efficacious, far from it - and then will require many more toxic boosters thereafter. 3) Every vaccine shot has potential for causing permanent disabilities from its many excipients. 4) Actually, I submit the parents are almost always to blame if their child develops permanent injury (or death) from incurring the child illnesses BECAUSE they (the parents) have failed to provide proper (and well known) nourishment, thus a malnourished child who is indeed vulnerable. 5) IF vaccines are available, many parents WILL vaccinate BECAUSE they trust the Medical System and vaccines, merely because the vaccines are available and for so many it's their human nature "to trust Authority."
This is one helluva Mother of All Messes our dogmatic Medical Authorities have created.
Posted by: david m burd | June 29, 2016 at 07:02 AM
It can't be wrong to point out that Prof Miller is supposed to be a leading British vaccine research scientist, reporting to out Joint Committtee on Vaccination and Immunisation for the last 30 years or so. It is not wrong to point out that such a stupid article should never have been published but it was published because she was held to be a significant opinion. It is actually more than odd that she is listed as the sole author of the article when it is actually in the form of an interview with/profile of her, but we are not told by whom. You could equally argue however that Obama isn't responsible for Obamacare, but he is - he may not be solely responsible but he is responsible. Individuals should be held responsible for their parts in things. You could say that it was the publishing industry which produced Elizabeth Miller's opinion, but it would not deal with her responsibility for policy.
Posted by: John Stone | June 29, 2016 at 06:46 AM
"Why blame her? Because she said things and is responsible for them, and she has been up there saying these things and covering up for the British Government and the WHO for as long as Coleen Boyle...... Miller has a responsibility for trialling the safety of products used in the NHS so it should be pointed out on every possible occasion that she is spouting drivel."
Let's look at the issue through the other end of the telescope. Can you name the high level officials in the CDC (and their British counterpart) with responsibility for vaccine safety whose words you would trust without question? And, if as I suspect, you can't name anyone, don't you think the journals recognize the intrinsic bias as well. So, the point is that if the journals are willing to publish what is outright propaganda, they are effectively not doing their job as gatekeepers providing quality control and oversight.
That's the problem, John. The journals are not doing their oversight function, just as the Congress is not doing its oversight function. In both cases, they do what I would call deliberate negative oversight. Congress passes laws like the 1986 Vaccine Act and the Telecommunications Act that ease the way for the foxes to get into the chicken coop. The journals actively publish (some) articles and interviews they know are technically invalid to provide the topic and the author(s) an aura of credibility.
I go into the game assuming every company/industry will do whatever is necessary to make a buck, no matter who is harmed, and I assume their spokesmen and hired guns will say whatever is necessary to justify their actions. It is somewhat redundant to point this out; what's new? The real problem is the lack of oversight, or deliberate negative oversight, that Congress and the (dis)regulatory agencies provide. It stems from their being bought and owned by these companies.
The same analogy can be applied to the journals. I expect a certain fraction of authors to submit self-serving crap to the journals. If the journals were doing the job they were supposed to do, they would supply the oversight to eliminate these types of papers. But, that's wishful thinking on my part.
Posted by: Ronald Kostoff | June 29, 2016 at 06:08 AM
Nice to see you writing here, Dr. Wakefield.
Posted by: Twyla | June 29, 2016 at 04:20 AM
At Benedetta and ASD,
Yes dr. W. Thompson was involved in thimerosal studies conducted at CDC, which "proved" that this known neurotoxin is completely safe for infants. This shows extent of his and CDC fraud.
Posted by: no-vac | June 29, 2016 at 03:49 AM
What is Dr. Wakefield's opinion of MTHFR screenings?
Has he published any articles on the matter, or does he have best reference? In his opinion would a negative MTHFR clear the way for vaccination?
Sorry, I know it's way off topic, but have been devouring vaxxed q&a's and still don't know his opinion?
Posted by: annie | June 29, 2016 at 12:55 AM
VAERS. The insanity is that the reports pile up and pile up, irregardless of whether there is under-reporting or not. Signaling, or anecdote. It doesn't matter because it never results in any action.
Find e-coli on one piece of spinach and all hell breaks loose. The restaurant is shut down, the farm is shut down, people are fined, practices are changed and the victims are glorified survivors.
In a sane world, the early VAERS reports should have "signaled" the utter insanity of a vaccine industry.
This insanity perfectly illustrates the old adage, "The death of one child is a tragedy. The death of thousands is just a statistic."
Posted by: Cynthia Cournoyer | June 29, 2016 at 12:01 AM
Lisa and Cia: I found out the hard way with our previous two cats. One lived ten years, and the other fifteen. I'm pretty sure it was mainly the food (kibble), but they were pound kitties, so they had all the vaccines, and the pound neuters cats when they're still kittens. I decided with our current two brothers (now six and a half), that I would make high-quality food for them (Dr. Karen Becker's protocol), and since they came not from the pound they've never had any shots and never will. They are amazingly healthy, lean and muscular, mild-mannered and friendly. They come when I call them! Sweethearts they are. Wellness is probably the best commercial cat food; occasionally I buy it when necessary.
Posted by: Gary Ogden | June 28, 2016 at 08:07 PM
I'll never understand how people can be aware that vaccines are hurting children, and somehow conclude that the vaccine 'schedule' is the problem.
Injecting poisons into babies is insanity.
Injecting less poisons at once, or waiting until that baby is a little older before injecting them ….. is no less insane.
Vaccines are the problem. And complete avoidance of them, is the only real way to be protected from them.
Posted by: Barry | June 28, 2016 at 06:14 PM
Actually, it is Lisa Pierson's site that is now linking kidney disease to the distemper vaccine. She must have updated it since you last visited it. And there is a recently published study that definitely links the distemper vaccine to kidney disease in cats. The top two causes of kidney disease in cats, in fact, were the distemper vaccine and tooth decay. The vets have tried to blame this leading cause of death in cats on dry food. In fact, dry food and carbs have nothing to do with it -- except to the extent that whatever food they eat may contribute to tooth decay. The biggest factor is the vaccine, which was manufactured with cat kidney cells. Some cats that get the vaccine develop an autoimmune disease (nephrititis) whereby their body cannot distinguish between their own kidney cells and that which was in the vaccine, and thus starts attacking its own kidney. It is actually very straight-forward.
We spent thousands of dollars in vet bills on our very slow dying cat. We also gave he subcue fluids for a year. Not to mention all the heartbreak. Since this is, in fact, the number one killer of cats, it seems to me that we should easily be able to form a class action against Merck -- provided that the 1986 law did not also shield them from liability for pet injuries.
Posted by: Lisa | June 28, 2016 at 05:03 PM
I don't think all vaccines should be banned, and it would be impossible to do absolutely satisfactory testing on any of them. Everyone should do a lot of research before getting any vaccine, and then make their choice. There should absolutely be no mandates. No vaccine is 100% effective, and the acellular pertussis vaccine and the flu vaccine are close to worthless. I think, though, that most vaccines are effective for most people: they can all disable or kill, and everyone must be aware of that. But many people have been prevented from dying by the tetanus and diphtheria vaccines, and from being crippled or even killed by the polio vaccines. Many have been saved from dying of meningitis by the meningitis vaccines (although they have so many dangers that I would recommend breastfeeding, avoidance of large daycares, and homeopathic prophylaxis instead of the dangerous vaccines, but would respect the parent's choice). And from dying of other VPDs too, vaccines which I definitely wouldn't recommend, but being truthful demands recognizing that a few people percentage-wise have died of usually harmless diseases like measles, mumps, and chickenpox. It would not be right to take these vaccines off the market and out of the range of parents' choices. Then the unusual death of the child who dies of chickenpox or whatever would be on the head of those banning the vaccines, in the case that that parent would otherwise have gotten the vaccine for his child.
The only reasonable, fair answer is to provide parents with the information they need to make an informed choice, and then let them make it.
Posted by: cia parker | June 28, 2016 at 04:39 PM
I doubt you could sue Merck because you don't have proof that it was the vaccine which caused your cat's death. My cat Felicio had gotten yearly vaccines until I got him when he was four: I got him one distemper vaccine when he was ten (the most effective and long-lasting vaccine for any species), then no more. I got him rabies shots every three years until he was fifteen, and then stopped. He died at nearly 21 with oral cancer and kidney failure: I had been giving him sub-Q fluid infusions for three years at the time he died. I have wondered if the vaccines caused his kidney failure. I don't know. It's also true that according to Dr. Lisa Pierson (Catinfo.org) and other modern, holistic vets, dry food is the major cause of kidney disease and diabetes in cats: the carbs in it are just like flooding your cat's system with sugar every few hours, and it's dry so the cat doesn't get the fluid he needs for healthy kidney function even if he has water available to drink. I read last week that all cats eventually develop kidney failure. They say even canned Frisky's and 9 Lives (but NO gravy flavors because they're pure carbs) are great foods for cats, although they recommend homemade, raw, pure meat diets if you can provide it (I can't). I give our current cat one small can of Wellness chicken or turkey with one small can of Fancy Feast chicken/tuna.
You could report the incident to Merck, but I'm sure you wouldn't prevail in a lawsuit.
Posted by: cia parker | June 28, 2016 at 04:20 PM
Why blame her? Because she said things and is responsible for them, and she has been up there saying these things and covering up for the British Government and the WHO for as long as Coleen Boyle.
There is a narrative of deception. You can go on about money and power and all the studies you've crunched, but what's the big deal about that?
Offit's theory is preposterous, dangerous (not just some academic conjecture) and I pointed out that it had been disproven by the Aaby paper. You could say it was inherently false because many vaccines are individually hazardous, and you can read that in their inserts.
Finally, Miller has a responsibility for trialling the safety of products used in the NHS so it should be pointed out on every possible occasion that she is spouting drivel.
Posted by: John Stone | June 28, 2016 at 04:09 PM
Another good source for understanding the massive failure of VAERS is Dr Suzanne Humphries' autobiography, Rising from the Dead, where she talks about her experiences with vaccines causing kidney failure, which seems to be a common occurrence. Yet she was one of the few doctors reporting it, to the point that the CDC called her to ask why she was reporting so many. In reality, the others were seeing them, just not aware of the relationship, or not aware they should report them.
Posted by: Tim Lundeen | June 28, 2016 at 03:24 PM
Not a lawyer here, so this isn't legal advice, just a lay mans guess; I'm guessing the official "value" in dollars of a cat is minimal; maybe $60 top for a non pedigree. I have always wondered if that was why vets were more willing to acknowledge vaccine injury; the risks following a lawsuit are so much less?
By the way vaccinosis is acknowledged as a problem by some vets for cats; and best practice now has the rabies vaccine given in one of the legs, because of the risk for cancer later at the injection site.
Apparently a leg is easier to amputate if it gets cancer. Scary but true.
Probably easier to see the connection in shorter lived mammals, also.
We lost our malamute to his first rabies shot; he got cancer soon after. We had lived before in a place that did not need rabies shots, and he was fine for years. We later spoke to a sled dog owner who said that malamutes often have bad reactions to rabies.
Good luck with your kitten. I hope she recovers.
Posted by: Hera | June 28, 2016 at 03:22 PM
Your comments help to prove the point that NO pharmaceuticals should be given to healthy subjects under the for-profit guise of "preventative health" as there is no just cause.
Why inject and infect a healthy person, KNOWING that some, and most likely all to varying degrees, will be irreversibly harmed (can't get vaccines out once they have been allowed in), artificially altered in ways that only time will reveal, made dependent for life, and/or prematurely killed?
Vaccines are barbaric, unproven as safe, effective or needed, and proven dangerous and deadly. Yet we as a nation continue to stand by while they are mandated in ever-increasing numbers for ever-increasing numbers of people because why??? Yet we as a supposedly free people continue to fight for the right to beg like slaves or animals for vaccine exemptions instead of saying UP YOURS to vaccine mandates because why???
Time to stop the madness. Ban mandates. Place an immediate moratorium on vaccinations. Prosecute vaccine criminals. Focus efforts on the numerous proven and risk-free ways to protect, maintain, and enhance health.
Oh yeah, that will mean an immediate moratorium on a bunch of other health-destroying things our criminal government regulators and unethical, immoral, and imbecilic elected officials have approved and allowed.
We are living in the most toxic of times. Will we survive is the question. As of now, we are not surviving well at all.
Posted by: Laura Hayes | June 28, 2016 at 02:48 PM
I am glad to read that your new kitten is feeling better. Re suing Merck for causing the death of your other cat - I'm not sure if they have liability protection, but even if you could file suit, I think your damages would be limited to the purchase price of the cat. Someone please correct me if I'm wrong, but it is my understanding that pets are possessions under the law and liability for damages is limited to their monetary worth.
Posted by: Linda1 | June 28, 2016 at 02:44 PM
"It is particularly absurd of Elizabeth Miller to prattle like this (and then publish her rubbish in a peer review journal)."
Why blame her? Papers covering the full spectrum of quality are continually submitted to the so-called 'good' journals. It is the responsibility of the journal to peer-review the article for accuracy and credibility, and separate the wheat from the chaff.
I read both the interview and the cited Offit paper. Offit has propounded a theory not yet validated by experiment. Simple as that! Until such a theory has been validated, or invalidated, one should not go forward with massive implementation programs.
By the way, Offit actually said: "then each infant would have the theoretical capacity to respond to about 10000 vaccines at any one time". Does that mean 10000 this month, 10000 next month, and so on? He discusses the ability of the immune system to replenish billions of lymphocytes each day! What's the total limit over, say, a decade? Seems they could cover all the ~320,000 potential zoonotic viruses I mentioned previously, as a starter. Then, on to bacterial vaccines. The sky's the limit!!!
Posted by: Ronald Kostoff | June 28, 2016 at 01:58 PM
I posted this week that I just adopted a rescue kitten and was very worried because at 11 weeks he already had received two "distemper" vaccines as well as several aggressive de-wormings and flea treatments, and he was having diarrhea every day.
He seems to be slowly on the mend, thank goodness. But in the past week as I did some research on the vaccine of which he has already received two doses -- a combination shot called FRCP -- I realized that the kidney disease my recently deceased cat suffered from for four long years before succumbing to her horrible death was most likely the direct result of having received multiple doses of this vaccine before we adopted her. I'm wondering: Can I sue Merck for my cat's death? Do the vaccine makers have protection from lawsuits involving vaccine injury to animals, or does the law apply just to humans? I am dead serious. I would like to know whether I can sue for this?
Posted by: Lisa | June 28, 2016 at 01:39 PM
"The proper studies needed to be done BEFORE any vaccine, not to mention scores of them, given in random and myriad unstudied, dangerous combinations, was ever licensed...not after."
If we applied that philosophy to ANY new substance, including vaccines, NOTHING would ever get licensed in any realistic time-frame. For example, if one of the criteria for 'safety' was the avoidance of late-life illnesses, like e.g. Alzheimer's Disease, we would need tracking of individuals who received the unlicensed substances for ~seventy or eighty years before 'safety' could be ascertained! Animal studies would not be sufficient, since humans don't always respond like animals.
If we want to ascertain safety of combinations, then for e.g. vaccines, we can't restrict ourselves to combinations of vaccines only (a difficult enough combinatorial problem), but we would have to include vaccines in combination with ALL potentially toxic substances. There is no way we could perform the requisite number of such tests. At best, we're stuck with some highly watered-down version of 'safety' testing for any substance, including vaccines, emphasizing very short term testing for humans and perhaps moderate or longer term for small animals. Not a pleasant thought!
Posted by: Ronald Kostoff | June 28, 2016 at 01:13 PM
It is important to note that it is the usual bureaucratic game of rubber-stamping false or misleading claims. Back in 2012 I placed a comment in BMJ Rapid Responses targetted at Profs Salisbury and Offit underneath Peter Aaby's article 'Vaccine programmes must consider their effect on general resistance'
It was simply my point that the Aaby article disproved the Offit doctrine, whatever else it did. It was not merely a preposterous proposition, the BMJ article offered an indirect refutation of it. It is particularly absurd of Elizabeth Miller to prattle like this (and then publish her rubbish in a peer review journal). The is surely making herself look idiotic.
Posted by: John Stone | June 28, 2016 at 01:11 PM
Dear Andrew Wakefield, M.D.
My wife and I met you "on the road" with the "Vaxxed" film in Orlando, FL. Great turnout, and as you know, the film stayed in Orlando for almost the whole month of June(!)
I appreciate your persistence greatly. I have first-hand knowledge of how dangerous it is to give vaccines to people who are in fragile health. (Neonatalogists know this particularly, because premature infants VERY often crash and die after receiving vaccines in the NICU. There are plenty of studies showing this, but neonatologists ignore, twist, or sweep the findings under the rug.)
Here's a prime example: http://www.medpagetoday.com/pediatrics/vaccines/51877
(the authors admit that more sepsis, intubation, and death occurred after vaccination in preemies, but then say there's no need to change the schedule! Unbelievable!)
As I mentioned during the post-film Q&A, my own brother died 4 days after receiving the flu shot. (He got it Friday, March 6, 2009, and collapsed and died Tuesday morning March 10, 2009.) Not in great health as a diabetic, he just couldn't take another insult. The shot pushed him over the cliff.
Like many people, I didn't put two-and-two together about this fatal reaction until years later. I then read about Archie Kalokerinos, MD and his work with the Australian aboriginal people. Poor, malnourished, and with poor immune health, they "just dropped dead" when the Health Department came around with their flu vaccine campaign. Vulnerable! Read the quote yourself: (with link)
"Perhaps the most infamous connection was when I was working up in the Gulf country of Australia and Cape York in 1976 and I observed in some Aboriginal communities where the Health department came around and vaccinated them against a particular brand of flu, that a lot of them just dropped dead shortly after receiving the vaccine.And I went to Alman, with a man who was in his early twenties and I flew the bodies across to Cairns at the coast where the autopsies were performed, and apparently they had had heart attacks. And I had some further experiences in Townshall, a few weeks later, particularly with diabetics. Now it was strange that I was the only doctor in the whole of bloody Australia that recognised this combination of events, and yet it was happening all over Australia. But this is fairly typical of my work really that other doctors for some reason seemed to go around with their heads in the sand…
So if you're in fragile health, be careful! Younger aged infant, preemie, fragile diabetic, frail elderly, et. al. that flu shot could very well be the last shot of your life.
Posted by: Joe | June 28, 2016 at 12:10 PM
"DO YOUR PART for Vaccine Safety - Report to Vaers".
Who is the intended audience of this message? What are they saying?
Turn yourself over for this treatment and be sure to let us know how it goes?
Shouldn't they know what's going to happen? Should they need so much feedback for a class of drugs that is recommended/mandated for the entire population? Is it the public's responsibility to see to the safety of vaccines? That seems to be the message: 'If you don't tell us, we won't know and you, the public, have shirked your responsibility to do your part for vaccine safety'.
I don't think so.
Posted by: Linda1 | June 28, 2016 at 11:32 AM
"Note that Paul Offit's 10,000 vaccine doctrine was still being cited by one of Publich Health England's leading vaccine "safety" scientist, Elizabeth Miller, as the basis for indefinitely extending the schedule"
Offit's suggestion of 10,000 or 100,000 vaccines is setting the stage for the long-term vaccine strategy of the pharmaceutical industry. There are two obvious applications for vaccines: biowarfare defense and defense against naturally transmitted zoonotic agents. Now, what is the potential market for biowarfare agent and other viral/bacterial vaccines?
There are three general classes of biowarfare agents: bacteria, viruses, toxins (http://cid.oxfordjournals.org/content/30/6/843.full). Let's focus on viruses. It has been estimated that there are at least 320,000 viruses that infect mammals (http://mbio.asm.org/content/4/5/e00598-13), with the potential of being transmitted from animals to humans (zoonoses, like the SARS pandemic).
Now, not all of these can be used as biowarfare agents; certain properties are required, such as transmissibility and pathogenicity. The problem is that we have not characterized these properties for most of the 320,000 viruses mentioned above, and therefore we don't know how many could be used as potential biowarfare agents. Additionally, we don't know how many viruses are serious threats from natural transmission. The CDC/USDA identifies about a hundred (https://extranet.fhcrc.org/EN/sections/ehs/hamm/chap5/section10.html).
To 'protect' against diseases from these agents, vaccines are being developed either for post-exposure or for pre-exposure administration. It takes years to develop and test a vaccine, and, whether for pre-or post-exposure administration, would require large amounts of vaccine to be available in case of a pandemic, however caused. In other words, large amounts of each vaccine would have to be stockpiled even for post-exposure administration, since the window for 'effectiveness' closes rapidly.
So, we are talking about a vaccine market of unimaginable proportions! It seems to me we are in the initial phases of a 'conditioning' program to accept the validity of vaccines, using childhood vaccinations as a testbed. The more we are led to believe vaccines are necessary and beneficial, with minimal harm, the more vaccines we will receive. It is no different from our being 'conditioned' to accept myriad wireless devices. The more we are led to believe these devices are harmless, the more are being placed on the market (e.g., the Internet of Things).
With each additional vaccine, our resistance to acceptance decreases. Given the potential large number of viral threats, we could probably be persuaded to take THOUSANDS of vaccines for pre-exposure 'protection', or stockpile THOUSANDS of vaccines for post-exposure amelioration. So, statements in the Press about ten thousand vaccines being possible to administer, while being made to sound ludicrous, may in fact portend what we have in store for the future. I suspect that's the real game: once our 'conditioning' is complete, then the vaccine spigot can be fully opened, and we will be immunized against every virus that poses any sort of realistic threat.
Safety; forget it! There's no way the safety of this many potential combinations could ever be tested. We're not even testing for safety of the (relative to the above) modest number of vaccines administered today in the short-term (read the inserts that state no testing for carcinogenicity or mutagenicity, among other adverse events), and doing nothing for the long-term.
Posted by: Ronald Kostoff | June 28, 2016 at 11:19 AM
Note that Paul Offit's 10,000 vaccine doctrine was still being cited by one of Publich Health England's leading vaccine "safety" scientist, Elizabeth Miller, as the basis for indefinitely extending the schedule:
Posted by: John Stone | June 28, 2016 at 10:45 AM
"Miller provides an informative history of the value of the VAERS system in picking up adverse reactions signals, reminding us at the same time of the huge under reporting of adverse reactions by medical personnel and the apparent reluctance by government investigators to link serious adverse reactions to vaccines"
Any passive surveillance system (like VAERS) involves a large number of steps from the initial insult (e.g., vaccination) to the final database entry. There is a large potential for bias and/or non-reporting at each step. The final results for these types of passive surveillance databases are underestimated by at least one order of magnitude. In addition, the VAERS approach is heavily biased toward short-term adverse events. The longer the time between insult and adverse event, the less likely is the connection to be made by the afflicted or the medical practitioner, and the less likely will be the reporting of such a linkage. In sum, we have a system that grossly under-reports short-term adverse events, and essentially neglects long-term adverse events.
"We now know from Dr. William Thompson, the CDC whistleblower, that his agency cannot be trusted to do such studies. Congress has an obligation to act immediately to create an independent vaccine safety agency, completely outside of Health and Human Services and firewalled from pharmaceutical company influence."
Your statement contains the implicit assumption that there is some future Agency that could be created and trusted to do such studies. How is that possible? Congress would have to create and fund such an Agency, and the President, possibly along with Congressional confirmation, would appoint the members of the agency. Given that Congress and the President are fully owned by Big Pharma (as well as the Courts who are appointed by the President and confirmed by the Senate), how will this Agency get staffed by people who would be independent and firewalled? It would provide the illusion of independence without the substance of independence.
And, by the way, I don't see CDC as any more or less trustworthy than any other Federal agency. All the Executive Agencies are tentacles emanating from the same octopus!
Posted by: Ronald Kostoff | June 28, 2016 at 10:39 AM
The proper studies needed to be done BEFORE any vaccine, not to mention scores of them, given in random and myriad unstudied, dangerous combinations, was ever licensed...not after.
The purposeful denial of and refusal to report, investigate, and alert the public about legions of extremely serious adverse vaccine reactions and vaccine-induced deaths must be criminally pursued. The criminal offenses go back decades and not one of these immoral and heartless bastards should go unpunished.
The solutions to put an immediate end to this immoral, inhumane, and ravaging vaccine holocaust are twofold:
Ban vaccine mandates, and all medical mandates, FOREVER.
Institute an immediate moratorium on all vaccines. Not one has ever been properly studied or been proven safe, efficacious, or needed...not one. Let that sink in.
The drugging of healthy people must stop. The notion that health comes through a needle, pill, or Rx must be laid to rest. That notion is killing us...literally...prematurely ending lives...and making them sickly, disabled, and less productive, fulfilling, and independent in the interim.
I will continue to state that our rhetoric must become stronger, clearer, and much more demanding. This begging for vaccine exemptions like slaves or animals must end!
A widespread rebellion against Big Pharma, Big Food, Big Chem, and our corrupt, abusive, and freedom-and-rights-stripping elected officials and government regulators must occur soon. There isn't a second to waste.
Posted by: Laura Hayes | June 28, 2016 at 10:28 AM
YEs, I too would like to know the bibliography of Dr. William Thompson.
Posted by: Benedetta | June 28, 2016 at 10:06 AM
Question that is a tiny bit off topic............. How long has Dr. William Thompson been with the CDC? Does his tenure extend back before Simpsonwood? Is there a chance he was at Simpsonwood, or was involved with the Verstratan study? Just curious.
Posted by: ASDfatherPA | June 28, 2016 at 09:24 AM
I don't know;
Maybe little infants with their whole life ahead of them, vaccine injuries are worse and more apparent.
However; We were all discussing just last night about my in-laws left this world in the 60s but was sick since their late 40s. They got a flu vaccine every year of their life.
We discussed how; I took them to the doctor the last 7 years of their life, and watched them get the flu shots and I did wonder at how they could handle those flu shots, but they really were not. I was thinking the only vaccine reaction was the immediate running a high temperature and having a seizure; the obvious - hit you in the face reaction.
Most are stealthy.
Posted by: Benedetta | June 28, 2016 at 07:55 AM
Andy, good to see us vindicated on these issues. I wonder what's happening with your less-famous censored study, "Delayed Acquisition of Neonatal Reflexes in newborn Primates receiving a Thimerosal-containing Hepatitis B Vaccine." I hope you are making a movie about SIDS.
Posted by: Dan Burns | June 28, 2016 at 07:10 AM