BN,

I read what Dr. Paul Thomas said about Hib disease and the Hib vaccine in The Vaccine-Friendly Plan, p. 126, and it was interesting. On 125 he says: "Physicians my age and older remember too well the hospitals full of children with meningitis, the airway emergencies with epiglottitis, and the miracle that the Hib vaccine was when it was introduced in 1985. We saw this disease virtually disappear in a few short years. The unknown is whether these serious illnesses would return if we stopped this vaccine. I suspect they would, as the bacteria are alive and well in the noses of adults and older children today." And "Postvaccine follow-up studies have shown a 71% decrease in Hib disease in under five-year-old from 1989 to 1991, and an 82% decrease in Hib meningitis between 1985 and 1991. The vaccine alone is believed to have prevented more than ten thousand cases of meningitis. In 2011 in the US, there were only fourteen cases of serious Hib disease a year, and fewer than 250 non-type B or unknown types of Haemophilus influenzae invasive disease respectively.

As I mentioned in the introduction, this vaccine was introduced during my training in the late 1980s, and we saw an immediate significant drop in the numbers of children with meningitis and serious Haemophilus infections like epiglottitis and sepsis. A child with suspected epiglottitis who was often drooling and unable to swallow would be rushed to the OR, where X-rays were taken and the airway stabilized by intubation. Once a weekly occurrence, epiglottitis is a condition basically unfamiliar to younger doctors who have trained since the vaccine was introduced. Had you walked the floors of Valley Med Center or Fresno Children's Hospital before then, you would have seen several young children with seere meningitis, many of whom would not be neurologically normal if they survived the infection. These are infections of the past, a testament to a successful vaccine."

I think that rather than say that all vaccines are so dangerous that they should never be used, it would be more pro-child to say that you need to consider the question a little more. So in 2016, when the book was published, there were only 250 cases of non-type B or unknown types of invasive disease by this bacterium. I don't know how many of them may have represented serotype replacement and how many would have occurred anyway, even without the vaccine, but it is a small number, and only cases, not deaths, so that I think it shows that serotype replacement has not been a problem in the US in the thirty years that the vaccine has been given. (I saw in Halvorsen's book that there seems to have been some serotype replacement in Brazil, and it's just something to be aware of.)

So this means that something like 10,000 cases of meningitis have been prevented by this vaccine, and in many of those cases, death would have ensued, probably between one and two thousand deaths. So after becoming aware that the vaccine does have some potentially severe side effects, and that breastfed children cared for at home are at low risk for the disease, what should the parent do? There is no doubt that the vaccine is very effective in preventing Hib disease. So what would the reasoning be to say No, even though my seven-month old baby is in daycare, I don't want him to get the Hib vaccine, because....

I'll bet that if the Hib series were the only vaccine series the child got until after the age of two or three (or ever), there would be few adverse reactions. Would the desire to avoid tampering with the microbiome be a strong enough reason to just let one in two hundred babies (the rate in 1985) get Hib disease, with around half either dying or being disabled by it? Shouldn't everyone take and defend a rational stance, even if it included saying that yes, they think it would be better to let children die from a VPD rather than prevent it with a vaccine? Maybe you do think that preserving the microbiome is important enough to warrant a certain number of deaths, for the benefit of the majority. But shouldn't you recognize it, spell it out, and not act as though 100% vaccine refusal would be the healthiest choice with optimal outcomes for all children, that in no case would they have done better to get one or more of the vaccines?

BN,

I have the book by Viera Scheibner and will try to find it. I found this at Vaccine Choice Canada, which mentions her in its article on Hib disease and vaccine. I also read a book by Dr. Richard Halvorsen, a British pediatrician famous for his book and Baby Jabs program, in which he offers single vaccines, often imported from Europe. He said that unlike in the US, pneumococcal disease (Prevnar) killed more babies than Hib disease before the vaccines. As it says below. Notice that this vaccine-critical site recognizes that the Hib vaccine is very effective and has almost eliminated Hib disease. The article said that babies in the first three months don't get Hib disease, but later says what I thought, that babies in the first six months of life are protected by their mothers' antibodies. Fatal Hib meningitis most often occurs between six and twelve months old, after the placental immunity fades. In the US, pneumococcal disease was more common than Hib disease, but less dangerous (the reverse of the UK), and while it could kill, it usually did not. But it's more tampering with the microflora.

The article thinks that the main reason for the tremendous increase in Hib disease after 1942 was because of the introduction of the DPT in 1948 (and many got the individual vaccines before that). I would agree. All vaccines, but certainly the DPT, depress immune function for around a month after the vaccine, allowing infectious diseases to take hold which otherwise would not have. And then antibiotic resistance forty years later led to the tremendous increase in deaths from Hib disease.

It might be that if people stopped giving any form of the pertussis vaccine and didn't get the DT series until after two, even three, years old, (and the other vaccines either, except maybe Hib, maybe Prevnar), then that might solve that aspect of the problem, but it would take years of careful study to find out. In the meantime, I'd say that everyone should care for babies at home, not put them in daycare, and should breastfeed them until self-weaning, at least two years, but self-weaning might not occur for five years. And for those who are able to do it, those measures would prevent most Hib disease and other kinds of meningitis. But most are not able to do it, and I think they need to be aware of both the benefits and risks of the vaccines, and the dangers of the diseases.

I'm not trying to paint a rosy picture, but I think it's important to keep the main picture in mind.

https://vaccinechoicecanada.com/specific-vaccines/haemophilus-influenza-b-hib-the-disease-the-vaccine/
The vaccine is generally 95% effective (length not determined). In Since the Hib vaccine has been introduced, Hib meningitis has decreased 95%, but meningitis rates have not decreased overall. More are now caused by pneumococcal bacteria which has moved in to fill the void left by the absence of the Hib organism which normally resides in the human respiratory tract without causing disease.

John,
My hayfever disappeared, and it was only in retrospect that I realized it had been caused by LOCAL ANAESTHETICS received at the dentist. I drew up a chart of my life and saw that when I was getting frequent dental treatment I got hayfever that year, and when I hadn't been to the dentist for a while the hayfever was less, until it finally disappeared. Of course, if you tell that to the dentist they don't like it, probably because, as Dr. Andy Cutler wrote, dental mercury fillings cause allergy to local anaesthetics. I think we can pretty much blame it all on the dentists!

BN,

Do you have references? The first Hib vaccine in 1985 was only to be given to children 18 months old or older, which was usually out of the danger range of the infection. The new vaccine released in 1988 was given starting at two months old, three doses, two, four, and six months old. In 2000, when my daughter was a baby, they were giving a booster at twelve to fifteen months old, but I don't know if it were a new measure or not. I have an old book by Dr. Neustaedter from 1990, I'll have to read what he says about it. I let my daughter get the first three doses, and then after reading about it in Mothering magazine, refused the booster dose. They still don't give any more doses than that, and the disease is rarely dangerous over the age of 18 months or so. My daughter didn't seem to react to it, but if I had it to do over again, I wouldn't let her get it: she was breastfed and not in daycare.

And you need a reference for Hib's still occurring, but being called something else. Dr. Bob Sears in The Vaccine Book says that at the time of writing, only 25 children a year were hospitalized with Hib infections, he doesn't say how many of them died. He says elsewhere that in the '80s, there were 20,000 serious cases a year (mild cases were universal). They thought that serotype replacement was going to be a problem, as it has been with the HPV and Pneumococcal vaccines, but so far in the US it has not become a problem.

Hepatitis-B, Hib disease, pneumococcal meningitis, meningococcal meningitis, and polio are reportable diseases, unlike all the other VPDs, so lab tests are always run when they are suspected, and the lab is required by law to report them even if the doctor doesn't. I just don't believe that the medical establishment has a reason to mount a large-scale scam to either make these diseases look more common or rarer than they really are. If they're rare, they can say it's thanks to the vaccines. If they become common, they can say they need to add a booster or something and get everyone revaxxed.

Hib disease had become a moderate-sized killer disease by the mid-'80s. Some think it was a mistake to give a vaccine to wipe out a microbe which was ubiquitous and had a role to play in our microflora, but could be very dangerous if for unknown reasons it was able to become invasive and enter other systems. I don't have the wisdom to rule on that one. And I recognize that the vaccine started the peanut allergy epidemic, has contributed to the increase in juvenile diabetes, etc. On the other hand, one in 200 babies with a severe case of it was enough that it would concern me if it were still the case, and one on a thousand dying of it. And a large percentage who survived had blindness, deafness, mental retardation, or language delays and aberrant language development (like autism).

I would permit parents to choose the vaccine if after learning about the facts which I just outlined, they thought it was a good idea. I looked it up, and although one in fifty children now with peanut allergy is a lot, it's caused by the Hib vaccine, and it would be a terrible condition to deal with, there are only a small number of deaths every year from it, a lot fewer than deaths from Hib disease used to be. I would also encourage women to breastfeed until self-weaning, at least two years, and not to put babies in daycare. And consider the meningitis nosodes.

There aren't many vaccines I think are even worth considering, but the Hib vaccine is one of them for babies who have to be in daycare. Even though it makes me anxious to alter the microbiome, it makes me more anxious to look at the numbers of previously healthy children who fell very sick with Hib disease very suddenly and sometimes died of it, even with state of the art medical care and antibiotic treatment. Also the DT series after two or three years old, and the polio series if it came back here (otherwise, not).

How about the right to choose not to get an injection of this shit?

"A team of scientists used a highly sensitive technology—an Environmental Scanning Electron Microscope equipped with an x-ray microprobe—to scan for solid contaminants in 44 samples of 30 vaccines. The researchers reported their results in the International Journal of Vaccines and Vaccination. They found widespread contamination by toxic aluminum salts, red blood cells of unknown origin and inorganic, foreign particle debris in aggregates, clusters and independent particulates. The composition of those clusters, the researchers observe, are consistent with 'burnt waste.'

Further analyses of those particles revealed them to be 'non-biocompatible and bio-persistent foreign bodies' composed of lead, stainless steel, chromium, tungsten, nickel, iron, zirconium, hafnium, strontium, antimony and other metals. The investigators also identified some particles embedded in a biological substrate, probably proteins, endotoxins and residues of bacteria. The researchers found contamination in 43 of the 44 vaccine samples tested. The authors stated that these contaminants should not be present in any vaccine, and that their presence was not declared by the manufacturers. Ironically, the one sample that came back clean was a veterinary vaccine....Gatti told me that she contacted Sanofi Pasteur, a manufacturer of one of the contaminated vaccines. The company’s only reaction was to dismiss her findings as impossible."

https://childrenshealthdefense.org/news/metals-debris-found-in-vaccine-supply/

John,
I do think that asthma was rare until recently, when it is now very common. In the sixties I only knew of two people with asthma, one was a middle aged woman (who lived to a ripe old age) the other a class mate, who sadly died, though he clearly had other disabilities as well. Shingles was rare enough to be commented on if someone of the older generation got it. Very glad to hear your asthma is no more - perhaps you could write an article telling us how you achieved that!

No sure where you grew up John, but I never heard of asthma until I was well into my 20's. Also, I never heard of shingles or peanut allergies until early in the the 2000's. And I never even knew that children COULD get illnesses like diabetes and arthritis, until early in this past decade.

I think if you explore the demographic of illness since 1986, you'll find that it has grown everywhere. But one of the biggest growth sectors, has been in the area of pediatrics.

I was well into my teens before I ever heard of asthma. I first heard about shingles when I was 22 - I remember that exactly because the director Peter Brook had it and it was unusual enough to be mentioned in the newspaper. That same year I learned of lupus when a famous author, Flannery O'Connor, died of it. Peanut butter sandwiches were a lunchbox staple and diabetes was for old people when I was a kid. Won't say exactly when that was, but I can tell you that I had exactly 5 childhood vaccines: the DPT plus two boosters, all by the age of 10 and then never again. Today I'm healthier than most people I know in their 20's and 30's - even the athletic ones. And far from feeling smug about it, I find it sad and depressing.

I don't think we're talking about a healthy unvaccinated child being a danger if he's not incubating a VPD, the problem is what happens if he IS infected and about to come down with symptoms of measles, mumps, pertussis, or meningitis. He might very well transmit it to an immunocompromised person, even before he has any symptoms. I think we need to acknowledge that and look at the options. My daughter went to school with a religious exemption to vaccines, but I had to agree that in an outbreak of a VPD, she would stay home for some period of time. She never had to do so. Maybe all unvaxxed children should be compelled to just stay home during an outbreak, whatever the reason was that they didn't get a vaccine.

Of course it's true that vaccines don't always work, but I think everyone knows that going in. No one should be compelled to get any vaccine, that's non-negotiable. The ball needs to be shifted to the court of the immunocompromised. They should get the nosodes, which are harmless even to them, as far as I know, unlike vaccines. They should take vitamins C, A, and D in appropriate doses. It's not the case that generally-healthy children can get vaccines with no risk: it's more a question of genetic predisposition than anything else.

And while mortality from most VPDs had plummeted before the vaccines were introduced, that wasn't the case for diphtheria, polio, or meningitis. At least disability and mortality remained fairly high. Tetanus is another question. Rates of Hib disease and mortality from it reached their highest rates in the '80s, decades after antibiotics had been able to save most lives when meningitis occurred (antibiotic resistance). But it still meant one in 200 babies was getting a severe case of it and one in a thousand died of it. Not a lot, but still worth considering, especially if it's your child. And certainly not a reason in itself to get the vaccine, but still something to consider.

Five years ago, in the EV-68 outbreak across the US, when I called my daughter in sick with a severe cough, the receptionist said that a lot of kids were out sick with it, but it was those with asthma who were having the most serious problems. Across the country, that was the case: most of those hospitalized with it and those who died of it usually had asthma, now at an all-time high of one in nine American children (if not more).

Again, no one should be compelled to take any vaccine: it might kill or disable anyone who does so, so that's it, where there's a risk, there must be a choice. But I think that rather than deny that our choices have any impact on other children, especially the immunocompromised so common today (because of vaccine reactions), we need to say what we think we should do to protect these children.

Bob,

I agree! But, as well, ALL of those other products are subject to liability. It is in the best interest of the manufacturers to ensure the safety of their product, as they can be sued for any malfeasance associated with it (either design, production, safety studies, and proper instructions to consumers). NONE of that exists for vaccines! To make an analogy about things we apply externally being mandated to what we are forced to have injected internally is amazingly short-sided!

This stuff has to come crashing down at some point under the weight of its own contradictions. You would think so, anyway.

I'm always struck, when reading the comments on these articles, how many of the "pro vaccine" brigade clearly have no knowledge of the subject of the present vaccine schedule, indicating that they themselves are not even parents! There are two such in this instance. Replying to another writer whose baby was injured at two months, he says, how could any doctor vaccinate a two-month old baby? Another asks, are you not going to vaccinate your kids against smallpox? Who are these people? We need to be more than a little skeptical.