In the early 1990s, the American National Institute of Medicine (IOM) was mandated to enquire into the safety of childhood vaccines. At the time, my concern was Hepatitis B, because New Zealand was one of the few countries in the world implementing Hepatitis B vaccination at birth, as well as doing "catch-up" campaigns in children, adolescents and various adult groups. It seemed logical that what had been learned here, should be presented to the National Institute of Medicine. Dr J. Anthony Morris co-wrote the presentation, which will be the subject of Part 2.
The neonatal Hepatitis B vaccine was removed from the schedule and placed with the 6 week shots because "minor side effects could be confused with more serious Ill health." A study of the language is instructive...
On 9th April, 1992, a New Zealand doctor also wrote a presentation to the IOM. The doctor said that in the decades before Hep B was given at birth, their medical practice had never had to use antibiotics in any babies in their care, before the six week check, and first vaccinations. Neither had they seen serious and abnormally prolonged neonatal jaundice, accompanied by blood tests showing significant, abnormal liver enzyme profiles.
After Hepatitis B vaccine at birth was introduced, the practice had more health difficulties with babies, and was prescribing antibiotics in an age group not previously prescribed for. After the Hepatitis B vaccine was removed from the birth schedule, their practice returned to the "pre-hepatitis B" non treatment normal mode, and neonatal jaundice returned to normal limits.
The doctor then went on to say that after the Hepatitis B vaccine was added to the DPT and Polio at six weeks, the practice then experienced a significant rise in intercurrent infections with some babies going on to be caught in a cycle of recurring ear infections, and sometimes bronchitis, which progressed to asthma. The submission commented on the rise of the numbers fo babies constantly coming to the practice with some infection or other, and the doctor offered the opinion that somehow, the Hepatitis B vaccine appeared to cause some form of immune suppression, and therefore the practice had concerns about it's long term safety.
The doctor then wrote to the Ministry of Health asking them to enquire of Merck Sharp and Dohme, to provide the studies looking at the effects of an at-birth Hepatitis B vaccination on neonatal liver function and neonatal immune system function. The Ministry of Health faxed the reply back to the practice, which stated that Merck had performed no studies of the Hepatitis B vaccine on either topic.
That's not particularly surprising, given that at that time, immunologists hadn't yet started studying neonatal immunity, since it hadn't seemed to dawn on the medical research community that there might be a specific difference between adult and neonatal immunity, other than what they saw a baby's defective "inability" to make enough antibodies. The reality is that at the time, no-one had any idea what neonatal immunity was all about.
(If this is your first stop by this blog, please read:
Furthermore, if you read transcripts of FDA vaccine safety meetings, (such as this 2002 meeting) you will soon discover that contrary to the assertions that vaccines are thoroughly tested for safety, the FDA didn't even have suitable animal neonatal models defined in order to do basic research, and still doesn't, 9 years later.
The default study mode is still "mice" which are supposedly the "best comparison" vaccine researchers have with human neonates. As of 2002 the FDA still hadn't got it's head around Aluminium, because they consider that it was "IPSO FACTO - safe".
After all, as IMAC so glibly say, we eat it, don't we? It's only now that some researchers are detailing just how different it is, when you inject aluminium, as opposed to eating it!
Worse than the lack of meaningful study on the effects of vaccines on babies, or aluminium toxicity, is that, vaccine trials www.clinicaltrials.gov have always excluded any baby with any whiff of any potential problem. Which is ironic, when you consider that parents of fragile children will have even more pressure to vaccinate, put on them, than parents of healthy babies. Parents of fragile children are told that these vaccines are even MORE important for their children, and of course they are safe, and of course, reactions are the "coincidental effect".
Yet the mantra continues to be played out on autopilot, that vaccines are the best most extensively tested substances ever administered to humans.
With vaccine testing being this bad, and since we are told that vaccines are tested better than any other drug Big Pharma produces.... perhaps that explains why so many drugs succeed in killing and maiming so many people, and why the FDA is constantly having to take drugs off the market all the time.
In 2009, a study was accepted (then removed), showing what happened when monkeys were given hepatitis B at birth. The restuls were not pretty, and mirrored exactly what is happening across American babies who are getting Hepatitis B at birth.
Parents who believe their children are "coincidentally" vaccine damaged, asked the question why it was that TOTAL vaccine schedules (let alone single vaccines) had never been tested in this manner before. It was no surprise when the study was pilloried from one end of the globe to another - after all, one of the names was none other than that alleged arch-criminal... Dr Andrew Wakefield. So obviously, it was a load of rubbish, right?
This year, a chinese medical study looked at what happens to gene expression and inflammation markers when you administer Hepatitis B vaccine to mice at birth, and showed that the Hepatitis B vaccine significantly altered liver gene expression, indicative of not just "inflammation", but subtoxic adverse effects from the vaccine including subtle liver injury.
Which is presumably why the said doctor had been so alarmed at the abnormal liver function tests, and prolonged jaundice in their practice way back in 1987.
Let's see how long that study STAYS in peer reviewed medical literature. Or maybe the provaccine people are hoping that it won't be noticed amongst all the patsy studies ghost written before hand, to snow storm the issue.
Here's the interesting thing to me. The New Zealand doctor's submission was rejected by the IOM, because they considered it to be of no relevance. There was "no science" to back it up - it was anecdotal.... even though, as the Ministry of Health's fax to the practice admitted, Merck had done no research into the effects on neonatal immunity, or a newborn recipient's liver function.
In 2011, we still have a situation where any country that injects newborn babies with Hepatitis B vaccines, is subjecting those (guineapig) babies to an untested medication.
The WORST part of these guineapig trials, is that because the vaccine has been hailed for decades as the saviour of mankind, and ipso facto safe, no-one is following any of these children to see whether or not the vaccine schedule is causing problems.
Any logical parent, would now ask another question. Has any other vaccine been tested to see what it does to a baby's gene expression? The answer is, "Yes". In 2008, a medical study testing human blood in a laboratory, found that the DPT vaccine caused gene expression associated with asthma and allergy. Another study showed that the longer a parent delayed vaccines, the less likely their child was to get asthma or allergy.
The resounding silence continues.
Has anyone done similar studies looking at the whole schedule as given to babies today, and compared those babies gene expression with children who have never had any vaccines? No. and they won't.
Which is why the nuked monkey study was so important.
In order for a parent to make an informed choice based on science - quite apart from any other conviction - you have to know WHAT question to ask. You can't know which questions to ask, unless you know what the relevant issues are, in order to formulate a logical question.
The medical community isn't going to give parents the sort of information (in this blog) which takes them to the point of starting to ask incisive, logical and important questions, .... which the medical community cannot answer.
The information in this post would raise very logical questions in the minds of ANY parent who primary concerns are, "Will these vaccines given to very young babies, cause the immune system to work in a way which is undesirable?" If those parents ask those questions to "Outreach" nurses aligned to IMAC, they will be told that there are no concerns whatsoever.
The stock answer will be, ".... of course not, and because of these vaccines we no longer see children dying of smallpox, or in calipers after Polio."
In 2011, the questions which most worry parents are, "Why do we see such huge increases in asthma, allergy, chronic diseases and autism?"
I was talking about the Hepatitis B issues with some midwives recently, to get a feel for their thoughts. One of them suddenly said, "It's still a real problem though Hilary. There are still a lot of young first time mothers who are shown to be carriers in the pregnancy blood tests." My first reply was, "Given that the vaccine programme with school catchups started in 1980's, are these carrier mothers vaccinated?"
There was a long silence, then I asked, "Have you asked these women for their vaccination records?"
"No" she replied.
I replied, "Well, don't you think you should? And don't you think that if all these women were vaccinated that you midwives should be asking more questions?" It's very plain to me that midwives don't even want to "go there"... and neither does anyone else.
Parents have believed, and taken it upon faith, that vaccinating their baby with the Hepatitis B vaccine, means they won't catch Hepatitis B, or become a carrier, and that vaccine is safe - and none of the health problems which their children have, are in any way related to the vaccine. Yet no-one has studied it - it's just been taken "on faith" that this would be the result.
On the subject of removing studies because of supposed professional fraud by one of the authors, none of the vaccine pushers like IMAC/Offit et al, have yet emblazoned across their website, the fact that the author of the key provaccine studies which supposedly prove the MMR has nothing to do with autism, is being indicted for far more serious "Fraud" than anything ever tossed Wakefield's way. Thorsen's articles are still much too useful to the vaccine machine, for them to worry about "taint by association".
They assume that so long as they don't talk about it, the provaccine parents won't hear about their hypocrisy.
There is one rule for doctors who threaten the maximum use of vaccines - and silence and protection for those who really do commit intellectual, medical, ethical and fraudulent "crimes", not just against the American CDC, but by proxy, against ALL parents as well.
One thing you can guarantee, is that parents will get no definitive scientific answers to any of the above, any time soon.
to be continued.