Donald Trump, who promoted the debunked conspiracy theory that vaccines cause autism during his presidential campaign, asked a fellow skeptic of the scientific consensus on the issue, Robert Kennedy Jr., to chair a commission on “vaccine safety and scientific integrity” during a meeting at Trump Tower on Tuesday.
Kennedy, who recently accused the Centers for Disease Control of orchestrating a “cover up of the vaccine-autism connection,” and scolds the media for “undue reverence for the CDC” told reporters after the meeting that “President-elect Trump was very thoughtful on the issue,” and that he had agreed to lead the commission.
Robert Kennedy Jr. says he accepted Trump request to chair commission on "vaccine safety and scientific integrity" https://t.co/LodAcjrHIS
— Robert Mackey (@RobertMackey) January 10, 2017
“President-elect Trump has some doubts about the current vaccine policies and he has questions about it,” Kennedy said. “He says his opinion doesn’t matter, but the science does matter and we ought to be reading the science and we ought to be debating the science.”
“Everybody ought to be able to be assured that the vaccines that we have — he’s very pro-vaccine, as am I — but that they’re as safe as they possibly can be,” Kennedy added.
Kennedy’s activism on the issue is well-known. He launched a new advocacy group, the World Mercury Project, in November with a fundraising pitch in which he likened vaccinating children to “assault and battery — it’s child abuse, in some cases, it’s even worse.”
“This is a holocaust, what this is doing to our country,” Kennedy said in 2015, during an unsuccessful fight to block the passage of a new law in California that eliminated exemptions for “personal belief” from mandatory childhood vaccinations.
Dr. Richard Pan, a pediatrician who represents Sacramento in the California Senate, rejected Kennedy’s comments at the time. “I think it is dangerous that he is spreading misinformation about something that’s very important for public health,” Pan told the Sacramento Bee after Kennedy invited state legislators to an anti-vaccine documentary. “Autism rates have continued to rise even though we are not using thimerosal in vaccines for children,” Pan noted. “We still haven’t figured out exactly what causes autism. We do know it’s not vaccines,” he said.
Pan was among the many people to express dismay on Tuesday that Trump plans to use the power of the presidency to advance Kennedy’s anti-science agenda.
@danmericaCNN Make America Sick Again #MASA #VaccinesWork #SimplyScience #Health4All
— Dr. Richard Pan (@DrPanMD) January 10, 2017
Appointing RFK Jr. to head vaccine safety panel is like appointing David Duke to head panel on race relations. Disgusting & irresponsible.
— Seth Mnookin (@sethmnookin) January 10, 2017
Will admit I'm surprised Trump picked RFK Jr over Jenny McCarthy to head the Dept of Anti-Vaxxer Idiocy. https://t.co/y6FCnjKmGX
— Jeffrey Liszt (@psephologist) January 10, 2017
Lucky for RFK Jr, “worst commission joined by a guy named Robert Kennedy” is a high bar pic.twitter.com/zH9vUypNzS
— Dave Weigel (@daveweigel) January 10, 2017
The inevitable trajectory: Trump promotes anti-vax nonsense. Breitbart & Infowars politicize. Wakefield goes on Hannity. Same old vortex.
— Jason Fagone (@jfagone) January 10, 2017
Before entering the political arena, Trump had made it plain on Twitter that he was convinced that vaccines cause autism, despite the fact that the medical study that first suggested a link in 1998 was formally retracted in 2004 by the Lancet, the British medical journal where the research was published.
Massive combined inoculations to small children is the cause for big increase in autism….
— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) August 23, 2012
Lots of autism and vaccine response. Stop these massive doses immediately. Go back to single, spread out shots! What do we have to lose.
— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) October 22, 2012
If I were President I would push for proper vaccinations but would not allow one time massive shots that a small child cannot take – AUTISM.
— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) March 27, 2014
I am being proven right about massive vaccinations—the doctors lied. Save our children & their future.
— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) September 3, 2014
Trump held fast to his erroneous belief despite being corrected by Dr. Ben Carson during a Republican primary debate in 2015.
Asked during that televised exchange if Trump should stop saying that vaccines cause autism, Carson said, “I think he’s an intelligent man and will make the correct decision after getting the real facts.” Trump then described anecdotal evidence which, he said, showed that there was a link.
When Carson replied by saying, “the fact of the matter is: we have extremely well-documented proof that there’s no autism associated with vaccinations,” Trump shook his head in vigorous disagreement.
A Pew Research Center survey conducted in 2014 found that majorities of Democrats (76 percent), Republicans (65 percent) and independents (65 percent) said that vaccines should be required. Still, sizable minorities, including 34 percent of Republicans and 22 percent of Democrats, told Pew that parents should be able to decide whether or not to have their children vaccinated.
As the Boston Globe’s STAT news site reported in November, Trump’s election energized anti-vaccine activists, including Andrew Wakefield, the leader of the movement who met with the candidate in August during a fundraiser in Florida.
Trump meets Wakefield… https://t.co/D2EWxq8jt4 #PostTruth #EvidenceMatters #VaccinesAreSafe #VaccinesWork #MMR pic.twitter.com/aywi7Dm6zJ
— BSI South Wales (@ImmunoSW) November 18, 2016
Wakefield was stripped of his medical license by the General Medical Council of Britain in 2010 for ethical violations in his work on the retracted study that first linked the vaccine against measles, mumps, and rubella with autism. The council found that Wakefield had failed to disclose that he had received funds from lawyers who were mounting a case against vaccine manufacturers.
As Susan Dominus explained in the New York Times Magazine in 2011, “the British Medical Journal concluded that the research was not just unethically financed but also ‘fraudulent’ (that timelines were misrepresented, for example, to suggest direct culpability of the vaccine).”
Wakefield told STAT that he and a group of anti-vaccine activists spent nearly an hour with Trump in August. “I found him to be extremely interested, genuinely interested, and open-minded on this issue, so that was enormously refreshing,” Wakefield said.
Update | 7:05 p.m.:
After news of the appointment was widely criticized, Hope Hicks, a spokeswoman for Trump, said in a statement he had not yet decided for certain if he would form a presidential commissioned on the issue.
“The president-elect is exploring the possibility of forming a commission on Autism, which affects so many families; however no decisions have been made at this time,” Hicks said.
Top photo: Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. waited for the elevator in Trump Tower on Tuesday before meeting with President-elect Donald Trump.
Another example of over-vaccination is arbitrary revaccination with the second dose of live measles, mumps and rubella (MMR) vaccine. If the vaccine is as effective as claimed by the manufacturers, most individuals should be immune after the first dose. The second dose is given to cover the small proportion of individuals who might not respond to the first dose. I argue that parents (and other individuals) should be given the option of an antibody titre test to check for immunity before the arbitrary second dose. I provide more detail below.
Currently the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices recommends that children in the United States receive two doses of live measles/mumps/rubella (MMR) vaccines at 12-15 months and 4-6 years.[1] As a result of the ACIP’s ‘recommendation’, two MMR vaccine doses are mandated in many US states.[2]
However, according to the Merck M-M-R II Information Sheet, it appears most seronegative children are likely to be immune after one dose of effective live MMR vaccine.[3,4,5]
I suggest the blanket ‘recommendation’ for two doses of live MMR vaccine by the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices, and subsequent government mandates, contravenes the Authorizing Legislation of the US National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program, Sec. 300aa-26[6], as relevant information about the option of antibody titre testing is not being provided to citizens in most jurisdictions before revaccination with the second dose of live MMR vaccine. As a result, many likely already immune children are being unnecessarily over-vaccinated with the second dose of live MMR vaccine.
It is notable that in the state of New Jersey in the United States, the health department provides information on antibody titre testing. The Antibody Titer Law (Holly’s Law)[7] allows parents to seek testing to determine a child’s immunity to measles, mumps and rubella before receiving the second dose of MMR vaccine. The law was enacted in response to the death of five year old Holly Marie Stavola who died of encephalopathy which she developed seven days after receiving her second dose of MMR vaccine. Holly’s family campaigned for this law, wishing they had known about the option of the antibody titre test before Holly’s arbitrary revaccination with the second dose of live MMR vaccine.[8]
This information about the option of antibody titre testing to verify immunisation after live MMR vaccination should be available to all citizens, not just those in the state of New Jersey. All parents should be informed of the reportedly high seroconversion rates after live MMR vaccination at the appropriate age, i.e. after maternally derived antibodies have waned. All parents should be properly informed about the risks and benefits of individual vaccine products.
References:
1. Recommended Immunization Schedules for Persons Aged 0 Through 18 Years, United States, 2016.
2. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. School and Childcare Vaccination Surveys. School Vaccination Requirements, Exemptions & Web links.
3. According to the Information Sheet for Merck’s M-M-R II (Measles, Mumps, and Rubella Virus Vaccine Live) “clinical studies of 284 triple seronegative children, 11 months to 7 years of age, demonstrated that M-M-R II is highly immunogenic and generally well tolerated. In these studies, a single injection of the vaccine induced measles hemagglutination-inhibition (HI) antibodies in 95%, mumps neutralizing antibodies in 96%, and rubella HI antibodies in 99% of susceptible persons.” Merck Sharp & Dohme Corp., a subsidiary of Merck & Co., Inc. M-M-R® II. (Measles, Mumps, and Rubella Virus Vaccine Live). Information Sheet. 9912202.
4. No reference to published details of the “clinical studies of 284 triple seronegative children” is provided in Merck’s M-M-R II Information Sheet. However, the ACIP report on MMR vaccination appears to support Merck’s information re the high seroconversion rate after primary vaccination, particularly in regards to the measles and rubella components of the MMR vaccine, (although there appears to be some ambiguity about the effectiveness of the mumps component of the MMR vaccine): Prevention of Measles, Rubella, Congenital Rubella Syndrome, and Mumps, 2013. Summary Recommendations of the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP). Centers for Disease Control and Prevention Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report. Vol. 62, No.4. June 14, 2013. (See pp 7-11.)
5. Op cit. The Merck M-M-R II Information Sheet also notes: “…a small percentage (1-5%) of vaccinees may fail to seroconvert after the primary dose”. It is my understanding that failure to seroconvert after vaccination with the primary dose is most likely due to interference of maternally derived antibodies, i.e. if the child is vaccinated at an age before maternally derived antibodies have waned. Other reasons could be problems with the effectiveness of the vaccine product that results in vaccine failure, or that the individual is a poor responder.
6. Antibody Titer Law – Information for Parents. (Holly’s Law) (NJSA 26:2N-8-11), passed on January 14, 2004, concerns vaccination of children with the Measles, Mumps, Rubella (MMR) vaccine. The law allows parents to seek testing to determine a child’s immunity to measles, mumps, and rubella, before receiving the second dose of the vaccine. This brochure has been prepared by the New Jersey Department of Health and Senior Services to assist parents in making the decisions related to the MMR vaccine and the test
7. Sec. 300aa-26. Vaccine information. National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program
8. HopeFromHolly. Providing NJ physicians and Parents with more knowledge about childhood vaccines.
The US Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS) database contains reports of children of four years and over who have experienced adverse events after vaccination with the MMR vaccine.
As it is likely many of these children had already been vaccinated with an MMR vaccine at 12-15 months of age, it is likely they were already immune and they underwent revaccination for no benefit (that is if the Merck M-M-R II vaccine product is as effective as claimed, a matter which is currently the subject of lawsuits in the US in regards to the mumps virus component of the vaccine[1,2,3,4,5]).
It is also notable that reports of adults suffering adverse events after MMR vaccination are recorded in the VAERS database, which again raises the question whether these people were offered the option of antibody titre testing before MMR vaccination.
References:
1. Whistleblowers accuse Merck of withholding info on mumps vaccine. FiercePharma, 11 June 2015.
2. Merck is accused of stonewalling over effectiveness of mumps vaccine. The Wall Street Journal, 8 June 2015
3. Lawsuits claiming Merck lied about mumps vaccine efficacy headed to trial. FiercePharma, 9 September 2014.
4. Judge: Merck must fight claims that it lied about mumps vaccine benefits. FiercePharma, 9 September 2014.
5. Class says Merck lied about mumps vaccine. Courthouse News Service, 27 June 2012.
Oh dear, The Intercept didn’t just validate I-wrote-a-massive-hagiography-of-the-NY-Times-to-couch-apologism-for-the-paper’s-firing-of-WMD-doubters Seth Mnookin as a source, did they?
The publication talks about “Deep State” on the one hand, then quotes this generation’s Claire Sterling. It was not surprising when Mnookin turned his apologist tactics to the issue of state medical mandates. His gimmick appears to be revoicing undemocratic policies in a progressive tone so that corporatist Dems can avail of them. Not surprising since his uncle, Robert Mnookin, has been using his post at Harvard to lobby for a preemptive invasion of Iran and a cousin pens apologism for familial DNA gathering. It’s a trolling dynasty.
And Richard Pan? It takes only a 15 second search to discover Pan is on the industry payroll and is pushing for radical interventions in support of state mandates.
The Intercept has also criticized how Obama bequeathed Trump with massive and dangerous executive powers. Yet I remember back when Scahill exposed Scooter Libby’s vaccine mandate obsession as part and parcel with that administration’s assault on civil rights and a Trojan horse. If forcing the entire population to get anthrax shots sounded like a bad idea under the Bush administration, why would it be a good idea under any other?
Mandates are a civil rights issue and science can be bought, so I think more rigorous reporting than this is required to address the subject. The arguments and sources here are as questionable as those exposed in other, better coverage of lobbying and legislative meddling by the pesticide and chemical industries. I’m disappointed. Please pick a lane.
Robert, here’s a link to the current ‘recommended’ vaccination schedule for children in the United States: https://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/schedules/downloads/child/0-18yrs-child-combined-schedule.pdf
Keep in mind while this vaccination schedule is ‘recommended’ by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP), in practice, many of these vaccines are ‘required’ (i.e. mandated) by US state governments.[1] (Parents are also under pressure to have those vaccines not mandated by most state governments for their children, e.g. HPV vaccination.)
Have a close look at this children’s vaccination schedule. Look at the number of multivalent (i.e. combination vaccines), and also revaccinations, i.e. so-called ‘boosters’.
Break down the multivalent shots, add up the individual doses. There’s a lot of doses of vaccine here.
Here also is a link to the ‘recommended’ US adult immunisation schedule: https://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/schedules/downloads/adult/adult-combined-schedule.pdf
And here’s the link to the CDC Vaccine Price List: https://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/programs/vfc/awardees/vaccine-management/price-list/
The particular vaccines I’m interested in at the moment are the second arbitrary dose of the live measles, mumps and rubella (MMR) vaccine (as most seronegative individuals are likely to be immune after the first dose of this multivalent vaccine, if it is effective as claimed by the manufacturers); the multiple repeat shots containing diphtheria, tetanus and pertussis components; HPV vaccines (as I’ve already started to outline here); and annual flu vaccination. I’m interested in some other vaccine products too, e.g. varicella/chickenpox, pneumococcal and meningococcal.
Again, just have a look at these schedules and consider the ‘vaccine load’ that is now ‘recommended’ for children and adults in the United States (and elsewhere).
Would the readers on this forum all be willing to roll up their sleeves and have all these vaccines on the children’s (and adults’) vaccination schedule? I’m 57 years old, and I had nothing like this number of vaccines when I was a child.
Also consider the growing global vaccines market this constitutes for the pharmaceutical industry. See for example this Markets and Markets report which states: “The global vaccines market is expected to reach USD 48.03 Billion by 2021 from USD 32.24 Billion in 2016 at a CGAR of 8.3% from 2016 to 2021. The major factor driving the growth of this market are high prevalence of diseases, rising government and nongovernment funding for vaccine development, increasing investments by companies, and increasing focus on immunization programs.”[2]
There are many more novel vaccine products in the pipeline, e.g. vaccines for chlamydia and herpes simplex virus (HSV).
My concern is with over-vaccination, this is what I’m investigating and challenging. Even some cautious doctors are worried about this, and brave enough to challenge the status quo. As I transcribed from the video in your article Robert, Ben Carson says: “But it is true that we are probably giving way too many, in too short a period of time. And a lot of paediatricians now recognise that.”
Dr Carson also says: “And I think our cutting down on the number and the proximity in which those are done, and I think that’s appropriate…” So, Dr Carson appears to support “our cutting down on the number and the proximity in which those are done…” Rand Paul also says: “My kids had all of their vaccines, and even if the science doesn’t say bunching them up is a problem, I ought to have the right to spread my vaccines out a little bit, at the very least.”
I’m questioning the quality of the ‘science’ behind vaccine products. Much of it is funded by vaccine manufacturers, and published by often conflicted academics behind the paywalls of the journal industry, which is also on this lucrative gravy train. It is wrong that much of the literature supposedly justifying the use of vaccine products, and influential on international vaccination policy, is not open access, i.e. freely accessible to citizens for scrutiny.
As far as ‘rights’ go, citizens/parents in the US have very little ‘rights’ in regards to vaccination. They are effectively bullied into accepting the state government vaccination mandates, i.e. inhibited from giving free ‘informed consent’ to the medical intervention of vaccination.
Of course, most people probably think it’s a no-brainer to have children vaccinated, and prevent disease. But the situation is much more complicated than that… There are problems emerging with vaccines now, e.g. the measles, mumps and rubella (MMR) multivalent vaccine, and the diphtheria, tetanus and pertussis multivalent vaccine, and also the HPV vaccines. I will post more on this later if I’m allowed to continue posting here.
Read your post with interest. My husband is an MD and my son has autism. He has looked at the EEG of my son and the EEG of an adult with a past history of meningitis…they look the same. His theory is that it may not be the vaccines per se, but as you suggest, the large number given at one time that may cause a overwhelming inflammatory response that mimics meningitis. More research and study must be conducted.
References for my comment above:
1. SchoolVaxView School Vaccination Requirements and Exemptions. This website provides the facility to check state vaccination requirement for US states.
2. Vaccines Market worth 48.03 Billion USD by 2021. Markets and Markets.
Sometimes vaccines do cause autism. That is a well established fact.
Autism and the Immune System
http://thinkingmomsrevolution.com/autism-immune-system/
Vaccines Cause Autism – Part 1: Immune Activation and Autism
http://thinkingmomsrevolution.com/vaccines-cause-autism-part-1-immune-activation-autism/
Vaccines Cause Autism – Part 2: Interleukin-6 and Autism
http://thinkingmomsrevolution.com/vaccines-cause-autism-part-2-interleukin-6-autism/
Vaccines Cause Autism – Part 3: Immune Activation Causes Autism in Monkeys
http://thinkingmomsrevolution.com/vaccines-cause-autism-part-3-immune-activation-causes-autism-monkeys/
Vaccines Cause Autism – Part 4: Postnatal Immune Activation
http://thinkingmomsrevolution.com/vaccines-cause-autism-part-4-postnatal-immune-activation/
Vaccines Cause Autism – Part 5: Vaccines and Immune Activation
http://thinkingmomsrevolution.com/vaccines-cause-autism-part-5-vaccines-immune-activation/
How many billions has the US Gov paid out to vaccine victims?
Is there not one topic on which the author might knowledgeably contribute to a conversation, rather than sensationalized finger-pointing? My fear is Mackey’s only area of expertise is taking screenshots of other idiots’ Twitter rantings.
Big pharma again doing its evil work with false docs and data. Shame on them and I hope Trump goes ahead with the commision.
The connection between Autism and vaccination, if there is one, has not been debunked. One man’s research has – Wakefield. Also there is a dearth of research on safety in infants due to ethical concerns. Because of that, all we have to judge safety is the outcome experienced by millions. There is a very small, but very vocal and steadfast group of parents who believe there children developed symptoms of Autism after receiving vaccination. This has to count for something.
Robert Mackey, in your article you say Dr Ben Carson corrected Donald Trump on the subject of autism and vaccines.
I suggest you should have provided more context for Dr Carson’s statement. I have transcribed this from the video embedded in your article above:
Video around 0.20
Ben Carson: Vaccines are very important, certain ones. The ones that would prevent death or crippling. There are others, there are a multitude of vaccines, which probably don’t fit in that category, and there should be some discretion in those cases. But you know a lot of this is pushed by Big Government, and I think that’s one of the things that people so vehemently want to get rid of, Big Government…
Video around 2.43
Ben Carson: …we have extremely well documented proof that there’s no autism associated with vaccinations. But it is true that we are probably giving way too many, in too short a period of time. And a lot of paediatricians now recognise that. And I think our cutting down on the number and the proximity in which those are done, and I think that’s appropriate…
Donald Trump: …And that’s all I’m saying Jake, that’s all I’m saying…
Ben Carson was castigated in the US media for his sensible statements warning about “the multitude of vaccines”.
See for example Michael Miller’s article on The Washington Post website: “The GOP’s dangerous ‘debate’ on vaccines and austism”: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/morning-mix/wp/2015/09/17/the-gops-dangerous-debate-on-vaccines-and-autism/?utm_term=.ddcb141ebcde
The video embedded in Miller’s article also includes footage of Rand Paul, who said: “So I’m all for vaccines, but I’m also for freedom. I’m also a little concerned about how they’re bunched up. My kids had all of their vaccines, and even if the science doesn’t say bunching them up is a problem, I ought to have the right to spread my vaccines out a little bit, at the very least.”
The statements by Ben Carson and Rand Paul indicate a cautious attitude towards vaccination that should be replicated across the medical profession.
There are serious issues in regards to ‘informed consent’ before vaccination that need to be addressed, as I suggest most doctors are failing in this regard.
It also seems the US media has been well and truly captured by the vaccine industry.
The US media appears to act as a gatekeeper for the vaccine industry, as can be seen again in the apparently universal disparagement of Robert Kennedy Jr and Trump’s proposed commission on vaccine safety and scientific integrity.
Citizens in our liberal democracies are being badly served by a biased media which is failing to provide investigative journalism on matters of public interest, such as vaccination policy.
Citizens are having to do this work ourselves, as can be seen by my comments here.
At least I’ve been able to post my comments here, I’m often censored elsewhere, or mobbed by trolls trying to derail discussion. I’ll see how long my comments remain up.
There is a way for a parent to be responsible here.
See what countries with outstanding childhood health initiatives and outcomes are doing. See what their vaccine schedules are. Start with Sweden, Norway, Denmark, France. Take that information, and devise a schedule, perhaps with the vaccines even more spread out.
That’s what I would do. But my child would get every vaccine, eventually. On the current recommended schedule in the US? No.
In this article Dr Richard Pan is quoted as saying: “We still haven’t figured out exactly what causes autism. We do know it’s not vaccines”
If they don’t know what’s causing autism, how can they possibly rule anything out? This is not logical or open-minded.
Of course it is logical.
You may not have solved a crime but you can eliminate a number of suspects.
Then you focus on the remaining suspects.
I understand what you mean about any drug and the uniqueness of individual biological systems. But in that light, one can never be absolutely certain that in one child out of 100 million, a vaccine didn’t trigger autism. Then again, it could gave been a case of pertussis that triggered autism.
I think we will understand these differences one day, but it will require mapping everyone’s genes, and will always involve some measure of statistical reasoning.
Just the other day I was amazed by how many centenarian twins died more than 5 years apart. It is mysterious.
I don’t agree Sonja. It depends on who is defining the suspects. And I suspect there is much ‘undone science’ in this area.
Certainly I suggest we should be very careful about the number of vaccinations and revaccinations given to children.
At the current time gross over-vaccination is occurring and this must be challenged.
There are also problems emerging with vaccines, and this is being covered up by ‘the authorities’. I will post some examples later, if I am allowed to continue to post here.
“I don’t agree Sonja.”
Then you have not thought this through very clearly.
We do not know what causes lung cancer. Epidemiological studies have clearly shown it is linked to smoking cigarettes.
“And I suspect there is much ‘undone science’ in this area. ”
Do you have any actual evidence to support this?
Other than conspiracy theories I mean.
So ‘David’, are you going to tell me that epidemiological studies have clearly shown that autism is not linked to vaccines? It’s all in the ‘peer-reviewed literature’?
Personally, the autism issue is not my area. My specific area of interest is challenging over-vaccination, and the lack of ‘valid consent’ before vaccination. As I responded to Sonja, I suggest we should be very careful about the number of vaccinations and revaccinations given to children. And it appears others agree with me, e.g. Ben Carson.
For example, I’m interested in novel VLP HPV vaccination and its questionable fast-tracked implementation around the world.
‘David’, who are you exactly? Are you an ‘expert in vaccination’? Are you qualified to respond to the detailed comments I have left on this comments thread? Can you provide details of your expertise, your position etc? Certainly it would be very useful to have some identifiable ‘vaccination experts’ respond to citizens’ queries about vaccination policy and practice for a change, rather than unknown quantities hiding behind pseudonyms…
‘David’, do you think it is ethical to fast-track the novel VLP HPV vaccine products Gardasil and Cervarix around the world without actually knowing how many doses are required? (See my previous comments on HPV vaccination.) Pick a number, why not three? Do you think it is ethical to use mass populations of children as guinea pigs, without their and their parents’ ‘informed consent’?
Do you think it is ethical for vaccine promoters, who earn royalties from these products, to promote their products with advertorials with titles such as “Catch cancer? No thanks, I’d rather have a shot!”[1], and misinform people about the risks of disease?
For example, in an article on the Australian website ‘The Conversation’, the co-inventor of the HPV vaccines, Professor Ian Frazer, definitively states cervical cancer “kills over 250,000 women world wide every year” and describes cervical cancer as the “second most common cause of cancer death in women”, but provides no evidence to support these statements.
Professor Frazer’s alarmist definitive annual 250,000 death rate (which is actually an estimate[2]) is not relevant to Australian girls and women. Published statistics indicate that an estimated 245 deaths were attributed to cancer of the cervix in Australia in 2014.[3] And cervical cancer is listed as 19th on a list of the estimated 20 most common causes of death from cancers for females in Australia in 2010[4] and 2014[5], which is at odds with Professor Frazer’s statement that cervical cancer is the “second most common cause of cancer death in women”, this isn’t relevant to Australian girls and women at all.
What do you think ‘David’? Is it ethical to beat up the risks of disease to promote novel and experimental vaccine products?
References:
1. Ian Frazer. Catch cancer? No thanks, I’d rather have a shot! The Conversation, 10 July 2012.
2. The WHO website on human papillomavirus (HPV) and cervical cancer (updated June 2016) states: “Of the estimated more than 270,000 deaths from cervical cancer every year, more than 85% of these occur in less developed regions”. And I have become very suspicious about estimates and the way they are used.
3. See page xiii, Estimated mortality from cancer in 2014. Cancer in Australia: An overview 2014.
4. See page xi, Mortality from cancer in 2010. Cancer in Australia: An overview 2012. Australian Institute of Health and Welfare.
5. See page xiii, Estimated mortality from cancer in 2014. Cancer in Australia: An overview 2014.
Yes, “Elizabeth”; decades worth of verified, reproducible studies conducted by dozens if not hundreds of researchers across the globe. You can add all the scare quotes you like, that is the reality.
My point was very simple. It is possible to state that vaccines do not cause autism, though we do not have a cause, just as it is possible to say smoking causes cancer though we cannot say who will and will not develop cancer as a result of smoking.
It is neither logical, nor open minded to say otherwise based on the available data.
As the rest of your comment is just a tangent, I won’t bother with it.
Before you make a decision on this issue, please listen to this presentation by Robert F Kennedy Jr. at the Commonwealth Club on April 7, 2015. The topic is “Thimerosal: Let the Science Speak”.
It covers studies showing the danger, flaws in studies claiming no danger, and outlines how the profit motive and exemption from public criminal charges for the drug industry promotes the use of dangerous vaccines.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NCcI5mJKfZ8
It is easy to laugh at people who think some cases of autism may be triggered by vaccines. I have instead been crying for the last 17 years since I watched this happen to my own child. He was 18 months old and progressing as normal. Then he was given 3 shots on the same day. He became ill with a high fever of around 103 for 3 days. After recovering he was never the same. He lost all his language and did not resume speaking until almost age 4. I am not saying that the shots caused the autism directly, but possibly my son had a genetic disposition that was triggered by the shots. I will never know for sure. I am skeptical and my next child had all of his shots but I spaced them out more so that he only had one at a time with at least 4 months in between. I wonder if Trump knows someone that has had a similar experience and this is why he is also skeptical. Again, it is easy to make fun of vaccine skeptics, it is heartbreaking to see this happen to your child. I am not anti-vaccine but I do think we give to many shots to soon.
Kristina, very sorry to hear what you and your son have gone through. Thank you for taking the time to talk about it with all of us and share your story. As heartbreaking it is to hear I imagine it is even more painful for you to discuss it.
I empathize with you, but I still have to say be careful not to jump to conclusions. The well-publicized idea is that the vaccines could have caused the fever somehow, some kind of unrecognized neurological condition akin to Guillain-Barre that somehow causes autism. But people can’t find the evidence for that. There are other possibilities worth considering — for example, the kid caught a cold in the doctor’s office. Maybe it was something like enterovirus D68 which may or may not have anything to do with the polio-like acute flaccid myelitis in rare unlucky cases, and somehow damaged tissue in the CNS. Almost certainly not that either, but I don’t know. But suppose it happened to be right: if people react to this by spacing out the vaccinations, the kids make more doctor visits and catch more colds….
Your case is important, it is meaningful, and it might shed light on what causes autism. But don’t let other people herd you into one explanation without thinking a lot about the alternatives.
P.S. As a kid I was actually diagnosed with autism myself, back in the 70s when the criteria were pretty strict, but when I was sent off to the school for unusual kids I did well and skipped a grade coming back, and skipped more later. I don’t think we paid any attention to that diagnosis by the time I was nine or so. Since I came down with gout later on, my guess is this was purine autism, but that was never tested. Anyway, autism really can more or less “go away” as you get older; you’re always a little different I suppose, but so’s everybody. Don’t be surprised if things go strangely, sometimes for worse, sometimes for better.
Kristina, I ‘m very sorry to hear about your son’s adverse experience after vaccination. Was this reported to the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS)?
You say at around 18 months of age your son was given three shots on the same day. Can you remember which vaccines he had?
A reminder folks: Some children with autism were never vaccinated, and many showed symptoms before being vaccinated. The conclusion to draw here is pretty obvious.
Judging by how many vaccine truthers there are in this comment section ,we’re fucked lol . You should be more trustful of the doctors and less trustful of the lawyers you morons.
I was once pre-med at university. The students I knew were all very ethical, but not infallible, and certainly not any smarter than any other group of students. More to the point, it is vaccine safety and research that is in question I think. As a former researcher in immunology, I have my doubts that all questions regarding safety have been answered simply because one man lied in his research. That happens a lot in research people are beginning to find.
If you think that the science on vaccines is definitive, you’re mistaken. Robert Kennedy is NOT anti-vaccine either. He’s pro-vaccine safety.
Trump is right on this one appointment. There are serious concerns with vaccines and it is really ugly to go after him on this appointment.
Children around the world are being given three doses of the novel VLP HPV vaccine products Cervarix and Gardasil.
In regards to the three dose HPV vaccine regimen, I recently contacted Professor Diane Harper, an author of the study re the bivalent HPV vaccine (i.e. Cervarix), published in The Lancet in 2004[1], to ask her if titres were measured after individual doses or after all three doses in that study.
I was surprised when Professor Harper responded that “The titers were measured one month after the third dose.”[2]
Professor Harper’s response indicates that titres were not measured after each individual dose.
So it appears it was not proven that three doses of Cervarix HPV vaccine were required.
In her email response to me, Professor Harper said: “The need for long-term protection drove the fear that three doses would be needed. As we learned one dose of cervarix provides high titers as well and has proven efficacy. It is unfortunate that the WHO would not recommend one dose of cervarix worldwide.”
In regards to Professor Harper’s statement “As we learned one dose of cervarix provides high titers…”, another study re Cervarix, published in 2013[3] states: “Antibody levels following one-dose remained stable from month 6 through month 48. Results raise the possibility that even a single dose of HPV VLPs will induce long-term protection.” This study was followed up with further analysis in 2015[4] which also indicates there is no evidence to support the three dose Cervarix HPV vaccine regimen.
It is shocking to discover there was no evidence to support the three dose HPV vaccine regimen.
HPV vaccination has been fast-tracked around the world. Children are being given three doses of novel, turbo-charged aluminium-adjuvanted VLP HPV vaccines which produce unnaturally high titres, i.e. HPV vaccination induces antibody titres that are 80- to 100-fold higher than those observed following natural infection, which seems to be a very unnatural response.[5,6]
Scientists such as Professor Harper admit “the mechanism of immunogenicity from a scientific perspective is poorly understood”.[7] Children are being used as guinea pigs in a massive international experiment – is this ethical? What are the implications here in regards to informed consent?
While the studies I have referred to are about the Cervarix HPV vaccine, this leads to questions about the Gardasil HPV vaccine – what is the evidence supporting vaccination with three doses of the Gardasil HPV vaccine product?
Were three doses of HPV vaccines suggested to justify the cost of these vaccine products?
As for Professor Harper’s suggestion that Cervarix “has proven efficacy”, as far as I am aware, there is as yet no independent and objective systematic review of the efficacy of HPV vaccination in preventing cervical cancer, i.e. untainted by pharma influence or bias.
I suggest the public is being misled about the promoted ‘efficacy’ of globally fast-tracked HPV vaccination. At this time we have no idea of the long-term effects of this very questionable medical intervention, particularly if the risks will outweigh the touted benefits.
In my opinion the benefits of HPV vaccination are being over-hyped, and children and their parents are being grossly misinformed about HPV vaccination. At this time there is no independent and objective analysis validating HPV vaccination, and no scientific basis for the three dose regimen.
This is a massive international scandal.
References:
1. Diane M Harper et al. Efficacy of a bivalent L1 virus-like particle vaccine in prevention of infection with human papillomavirus types 16 and 18 in young women: a randomised controlled trial. Lancet. Vol. 364. November 13 2004.
2. Email response from Diane Harper, 11 December 2016.
3. Mahboobeh Safaeian et al. Durable Antibody Responses Following One Dose of the Bivalent Human Papillomavirus L1 Virus-Like Particle Vaccine in the Costa Rica Vaccine Trial. Cancer Prev Res; 6(11) November 2013.
4. Aimee R Kriemer et al. Efficacy of fewer than three doses of an HPV-16/18 AS04-adjuvanted vaccine: combined analysis of data from the Costa Rica Vaccine and PATRICIA trials. The Lancet Oncology Vol 16, July 2015.
5. Ian H Frazer. Measuring serum antibody to human papillomavirus following infection or vaccination. Gynecologic Oncology 118 (2010) S8-S11.
6. Diane M Harper et al. Efficacy of a bivalent L1 virus-like particle vaccine in prevention of infection with human papillomavirus types 16 and 18 in young women: a randomised controlled trial. Lancet, 2004; 364: 1757-65.
7. Diane M Harper. Prophylactic human papillomavirus vaccines to prevent cervical cancer: review of the Phase II and III trials. Therapy (2008) 5(3), 313-324.
As mentioned in my previous comment, at this time there is no independent and objective analysis validating HPV vaccination, and apparently no scientific basis for the three dose regimen, certainly not for Cervarix. (I have contacted HPV vaccine co-inventor Professor Ian Frazer to question the evidence base for three doses of Gardasil HPV vaccines. We have had some email correspondence on this matter and I am currently considering his responses.)
I suggest the public is being misled about the promoted ‘efficacy’ of globally fast-tracked HPV vaccination. At this time we have no idea of the long-term effects of this very questionable novel medical intervention, particularly if the risks will outweigh the touted benefits.
I also suggest there is much fear-mongering about HPV and cancer. Misinformation about HPV and cancer risk abounds, much of it emanating from the so-called ‘scientific’ community.
For example, in an article promoting HPV vaccination[1], HPV vaccine entrepreneur Professor Ian Frazer definitively states cervical cancer “kills over 250,000 women world wide every year” and describes cervical cancer as the “second most common cause of cancer death in women”, but provides no evidence to support these statements.
The use of these alarming statistics is highly questionable in countries where the risk of cervical cancer is very low.
Professor Frazer’s alarmist annual 250,000 death rate is not relevant to Australian girls and women. Published statistics indicate that an estimated 245 deaths were attributed to cancer of the cervix in Australia in 2014.[2]
The risk of cervical cancer has been steadily decreasing in Australia. Between 1982 and 2014 cervical cancer was one of the cancers showing the greatest percentage-point decrease in incidence, from 14.2 to 7.0 per 100,000.[3] In the same period, the age standardised mortality rate of cervical cancer decreased from 5.2 to 1.8 per 100,000.[4]
Cervical cancer is listed as 19th on a list of the estimated 20 most common causes of death from cancers for females in 2010[5] and 2014[6], which is at odds with Professor Frazer’s statement that cervical cancer is the “second most common cause of cancer death in women”.
Even a report on HPV vaccination in Australia acknowledges the low risk of cancer, saying “Australia has one of the lowest rates of incidence and mortality from cervical cancer in the world.[7] In 2008, there were 9 cases of cervical cancer per 100,000 women of all ages, and in 2007, the age-standardised mortality rate from cervical cancer was 2 deaths per 100,000.[8] These are the lowest rates observed to date. Cervical cancer in Australia now occurs predominantly in unscreened or under-screened women.”[9]
Which raises the question – why did Australia implement mass HPV vaccination in 2007 when the disease threat was low, screening would still have to take place, and the long-term effects of HPV vaccination were unknown?
This expensive initiative also took funding away from other pressing medical problems. For example Gardasil vaccination of boys and girls in 2013/2014 cost over $97 million[10], a very questionable expenditure, but a lucrative windfall for bioCSL, Professor Ian Frazer[11], and the University of Queensland.[12] These parties benefit from royalties from the sale of HPV vaccines in developed countries.
In regards to HPV, the Australian Government’s National Cervical Screening Program webpage notes “Most HPV infections clear up by themselves without causing any problems” and “It is important to remember that most women who have HPV, clear the virus and do not go on to develop cervical abnormalities or cervical cancer”.[13]
Professor Frazer even acknowledges the low risk of cancer himself in his article promoting HPV vaccination on The Conversation website. In his advertorial, “Catch cancer? No thanks, I’d rather have a shot!” he says: “Through sexual activity, most of us will get infected with the genital papillomaviruses that can cause cancer. Fortunately, most of us get rid of them between 12 months to five years later without even knowing we’ve had the infection. Even if the infection persists, only a few individuals accumulate enough genetic mistakes in the virus-infected cell for these to acquire the properties of cancer cells.”
Professor Frazer admits only “a few individuals accumulate enough genetic mistakes in the virus-infected cell for these to acquire the properties of cancer cells”.
Given the admitted low risk associated with HPV and cancer, I question whether it is justifiable to compel millions of children to be repeatedly vaccinated with novel, turbo-charged aluminium-adjuvanted VLP HPV vaccines.
Who knows what interference with the natural progression of generally benign HPV may throw up in future, with the global fast-tracking of the still experimental VLP HPV vaccines. There is much scope here for ‘unintended consequences’, and the current generation of children and young people are the unsuspecting guinea pigs.
Parents and children are not being properly informed about still experimental HPV vaccination, their right to ‘informed consent’ is being denied.
References:
1. Ian Frazer. Catch cancer? No thanks, I’d rather have a shot! The Conversation, 10 July 2012.
2. See page xiii, Estimated mortality from cancer in 2014. Cancer in Australia: An overview 2014.
3. See page 20, Cancer in Australia: An overview 2014.
4. See page 52, Cancer in Australia: An overview 2014.
5. See page xi, Mortality from cancer in 2010. Cancer in Australia: An overview 2012. Australian Institute of Health and Welfare.
6. See page xiii, Estimated mortality from cancer in 2014. Cancer in Australia: An overview 2014.
7. International Agency for Research on Cancer. CANCERMondial. 2012. (Accessed 11 July 2012). As quoted in NCIRS Evaluation of the National Human Papillomavirus Vaccination Program. Final Report. 28 August 2014.
8. Australian Institute of Health and Welfare (AIHW). Cervical screening in Australia 2009-2010. Cancer series no. 67. Cat. no. CAN 63. Canberra: AIHW; 2012. As quoted in NCIRS Evaluation of the National Human Papillomavirus Vaccination Program. Final Report. 28 August 2014.
9. NCIRS Evaluation of the National Human Papillomavirus Vaccination Program. Final Report. 28 August 2014.
10. The National HPV Vaccination Program is a school-based program provided under the National Immunisation Program (NIP). Vaccinations provided under the NIP are free for eligible cohorts. The current contract with bioCSL for supply of Gardasil for the National HPV Vaccination Program is for both the male and female programs for 2013 and 2014, at a total cost of $97,678,540.96 (GST Inclusive). Senate Community Affairs Committee. Answers to Estimates Questions on Notice. Health and Ageing Portfolio. Additional Estimates 13 & 15 February 2013. Question: E13-172.
11. “Ian Frazer as co-inventor of the technology enabling the HPV vaccines receives royalties from their sale in the developed world.” Disclosure statement on Ian Frazer’s article “Catch cancer? No thanks, I’d rather have a shot!” The Conversation, 10 July 2012.
12. “The Merck vaccine, Gardasil, was commercially released in 2006. Under the licensing arrangements, milestone and royalty payments from the sale of the Merck and GSK vaccines will be payable to UniQuest and will ultimately flow back to UQ (University of Queensland) and the researchers (Ian Frazer).” Group of Eight Australia. Module 4: Intellectual property and commercialisation. Case Study: Gardasil – an example of university licensing.
13. About the human papillomavirus (HPV) and cervical cancer. Australian Government National Cervical Cancer Screening Program. Webpage accessed 13 December 2016.
Further to my previous comments, in a review paper published in 2010, co-inventor of the HPV vaccines, Ian Frazer, states: “HPV immunization induces peak geometric mean antibody titers that are 80- to 100-fold higher than those observed following natural infection [19]. Furthermore, after 18 months, mean vaccine-induced antibody titers remain 10- to 16-fold higher than those recorded with natural infection [19], and these levels appear to be preserved over time, suggesting that immunization may provide long-term protection against infection…” (See page S9.)
HPV ‘immunization’ inducing antibody titres that are 80- to 100-fold higher than those observed following natural infection seems to be a very unnatural response.
Is this a good thing? Does anybody know?
Frazer’s review paper is titled Measuring serum antibody to human papillomavirus following infection or vaccination, published in Gynecologic Oncology 118 (2010) S8-S11, and funded by Merck & Co. Inc. His reference for his high antibody titre comment is a paper by Diane M Harper et al – Efficacy of a bivalent L1 virus-like particle vaccine in prevention of infection with human papillomavirus types 16 and 18 in young women: a randomised controlled trial, published in The Lancet, Vol 364 November 13, 2004, and funded and co-ordinated by GlaxoSmithKline Biologicals.
In their paper Harper et al state: “Geometric mean titres for vaccine-induced antibodies to HPV antibodies were over 80 and 100 times greater than those seen in natural infections with HPV-18 and HPV-16, respectively. Vaccine-induced titres remained substantially raised at 18 months, and were still 10-16 times higher than those seen in women with natural HPV-16 or HPV-18 infections, respectively.” (See page 1763.)
And on page 1764: “We have shown that the HPV-16/18 virus-like particle vaccine adjuvanted with AS04 induces a level of antibody production against HPV-16/18 that is much higher than that induced by natural infection. Previous work has shown that combinations of the adjuvants MPL and aluminium salts induce an enhanced immune response compared with antigen alone or adjuvanted with only aluminium, at both the humoral and cellular level. These findings suggest that the immune responses induced in vaccinated women may provide a longer duration of protection than the protective effects induced by natural HPV infection; however, a protective antibody level has not been established nor is there sufficient data currently available to estimate the duration of vaccine-induced protection.”
Should we be concerned that HPV vaccines produce antibodies over 80 and 100 times greater than those seen in natural infections with HPV-18 and HPV-16 respectively, and which remain substantially raised months after vaccination?
Again, does anybody know?
Your comments are extremely well researched and eloquent. It is true that people should not go from rejecting anti-vaxxer nonsense to accepting every vaccine uncritically. I bet you could whip up a batch of vaccine from, say, cross-linked rabbit acetylcholine receptors that would have just amazing results, not in a good way. There is a reason why vaccines should be tested for safety as well as efficacy.
That said, the problem with Trump is that he’s not taking an enlightened stance here. He’s not saying to look whether three shots are necessary, but parroting stupidity about MMR and autism. He’s not saying (as I would) that the principles behind the Nuremberg Code demand we not impose vaccination by force, but we should encourage it in every way including of course making all the shots free.
I think we should site-license all the patents and other bullshit medical “intellectual property” exclusivity arrangements for the entire U.S., and if the companies won’t offer a fair price we compel licensing in the public interest like India – which is no more an abuse of eminent domain than what some homeowners suffer every day in the U.S. Every citizen, every visitor should get free vaccines on demand, and even folks who just walk up to the border and ask for a shot should be offered them at cost. By doing so, we can have the “herd immunity” without putting unconstitutional regulations on citizens that make them feel like farm animals. But Trump wouldn’t touch that kind of single-payer health care with a ten foot pole.
I haven’t looked into this very far, but I think a “TLDR” version of your comment is that according to http://www.thelancet.com/journals/lanonc/article/PIIS1470-2045(15)00047-9/abstract , one and two doses appear to be roughly as effective as three. Since the FDA is only supposed to license “safe and effective” drugs, it would appear that the last two doses should not be licensed, since they don’t have a proven benefit. Looking at PubMed, I see several studies and recommendations that agree at least that the last dose is unnecessary.
We have long known that the smooth and orderly exercise of laboratory science and responsible practice of medicine have been badly distorted by the gamesmanship of regulatory rackets. A company submits a certain protocol, and has to make its experimental protocol with whatever they can do to try to be sure a vaccine works. Any later refinement is made to be very expensive. The result is indeed not optimal for the public, and things could be done better. Even so, I can’t ignore the reality that a lot of women are not getting dreadful news from their test results – I don’t want to reject this vaccine altogether. At first approximation, it is still a mundane miracle.
As mentioned in my previous comment, in regards to HPV ‘immunisation’ inducing antibody titres that are 80- to 100- fold higher than those observed following natural infection, HPV vaccine co-inventor Ian Frazer (2010)[1] cites a paper by Diane Harper et al regarding the bivalent HPV vaccine (2004)[2], i.e. presumably Cervarix. (This study was funded and coordinated by GlaxoSmithKline Bioglogicals.)
It appears Frazer generalises about high antibody titres after HPV vaccination, i.e. Gardasil and Cervarix, from Harper et al’s paper about Cervarix.[2]
In a later review paper (2008)[3], Diane Harper refers to high antibody titres after both vaccines, i.e. “the peak response to vaccination was robustly 100-200-fold higher than natural infection titers for both vaccines in neutralizing type-specific antibody titers for both HPV 16 and 18″, although in a later paper (2009)[4] Harper says peak titre after Gardasil vaccination is 104-fold higher than natural infection for HPV 16, and 27-fold higher than natural infection titres for HPV 18.
In essence though, it appears HPV vaccination with both vaccines creates a much higher antibody response than natural infection, and from my layperson’s perspective I wonder if there is any downside to this unnatural response?
In her 2008[3] review paper, Harper also states: “Despite both vaccines having a 100% seroconversion 1 month after three doses of vaccine, the mechanism of immunogenicity from a scientific perspective is poorly understood. The measure of antibody induction by geometric mean titers (GMTs) is dependent on the assay system used, and is not comparable between HPV types within one manufacturer or for identical HPV types between manufacturers.”
It is concerning that the novel virus-like particle (VLP) vaccine products Gardasil and Cervarix have been fast-tracked globally, when “the mechanism of immunogenicity from a scientific perspective is poorly understood”.
In her 2008[3] review paper, Harper states: “…both vaccines contain a proprietary adjuvant system to improve the immunologic response to the VLP antigens. The adjuvant system, AS04, in Cervarix contains both an aluminium salt and a toll-like receptor-4 agonist (monophosphoryl lipid A); the adjuvant system in Gardasil contains an aluminium salt called aluminium hydroxyphosphate sulfate. Clinical trials in humans show that the HPV 16/18 VLPs adjuvanted with AS04 induce a significantly greater initial antibody response than do the HPV16/18 VLPs adjuvanted with aluminium hydroxide alone, and this superior response continues for at least 4 years…Experiments in mice show that the Merck proprietary amorphous aluminium hydroxyphosphate sulfate used in Gardasil induces a greater initial antibody response to HPV16 VLPs than does the aluminium hydroxide adjuvant alone…”
A VacZine Analytics press release titled “GSK and Cervarix – is AS04 a double edged sword?” (2007)[5] says the novel adjuvant AS04 contained in Cervarix “is a combination of standard aluminium hydroxide and the new component, monophospholipid A (MPL). MPL is a derivative of the lipid A molecule found in gram-negative bacteria and is considered one of the most potent immune system stimulants known”.
Merck’s proprietary amorphous aluminium hydroxyphosphate sulfate used in Gardasil also appears to be more potent than aluminium hydroxide adjuvant alone.[3]
Harper says the purpose of the adjuvant “is to prolong the immune response for as long as possible with the smallest amount of antigen (VLP) possible”.[4]
Again, I register my concern that the novel Gardasil and Cervarix VLP HPV vaccine products have been fast-tracked around the world, particularly as “the mechanism of immunogenicity from a scientific perspective is poorly understood”.
If children and their parents were properly informed of the unnaturally high antibody titre induced by both the novel aluminium adjuvanted Gardasil and Cervarix vaccine products, and that scientists such as Diane Harper admit the mechanism of immunogenicity of these products is poorly understood from a scientific perspective, I wonder if they would consent to this still experimental medical intervention?
References:
1. Ian H Frazer. Measuring serum antibody to human papillomavirus following infection or vaccination. Gynecologic Oncology 118 (2010) S8-S11.
2. Diane M Harper et al. Efficacy of a bivalent L1 virus-like particle vaccine in prevention of infection with human papillomavirus types 16 and 18 in young women: a randomised controlled trial. Lancet, 2004; 364: 1757-65.
3. Diane M Harper. Prophylactic human papillomavirus vaccines to prevent cervical cancer: review of the Phase II and III trials. Therapy (2008) 5(3), 313-324.
4. Diane M Harper. Currently Approved Prophylactic HPV Vaccines. Expert Rev Vaccines. 2009; 8 (12): 1663-1679).
5. GSK and Cervarix – is AS04 a double edged sword? Press Release. VacZine Analytics. Posted online 19 Dec 2007.
Further to my previous comments, on 12 December 2016 I forwarded an email including Professor Harper’s responses to me about HPV vaccination to Dr Tom Jefferson and Professor Peter Gøtzsche in relation to their complaint over maladministration at the European Medicines Agency (EMA) related to the safety of the HPV vaccines. (Correspondence re their complaint is currently published on the Nordic Cochrane website, see their Research webpage: http://nordic.cochrane.org/research-highlights )
I also forwarded a copy of this email to Professor Harper, and on 13 December 2016 she responded: “Elizabeth – my comment Cervarix has proven efficacy in a single dose against incident HPV infection and incident CIN3 – not against cancer – just be clear about what my intents in my statement referred to. I agree that there is no evidence of cancers prevented – especially the head and neck cancers gardasil9 is being touted to prevent in boys.”
As Professor Harper acknowledges “there is no evidence of cancers prevented”.
Commentary published in The Lancet in 2011 also notes “A demonstrable reduction of the burden of cervical cancer – the main goal of HPV vaccines – will take several decades”.[1]
This is not the message being presented to the public, which instead receives biased propaganda promoting HPV vaccination from the likes of Public Health England which states: “The UK programme has already contributed to preventing future deaths from cervical cancer. We expect it to eventually prevent hundreds of cancer deaths every year.”[2]
References:
1. Mona Saraiya, Susan Hariri (Centers for Disease Control and Prevention). HPV vaccine effect: is the glass half full or half empty? The Lancet. Vol. 377. June 18, 2011.
2. Factsheet for Health Professionals: Human papillomavirus (HPV) vaccination and Cervical Cancer – Addressing the myths.
In my comments regarding HPV vaccination on this thread, I have provided an example of an independent citizen, i.e. me, scrutinising so-called peer-reviewed papers.
It is remarkable that I, a mere layperson, discovered there was no evidence to support the three doses of HPV vaccines being imposed on children. Why didn’t a ‘peer-reviewer’ query this and flag the ethical issues e.g. over-use of vaccine products and lack of informed consent?
Similarly, I took notice of the fact that HPV ‘immunization’ is reported to induce antibody titres that are many fold higher than natural infection, and queried if this unnatural response was ‘a good thing’?
Again, it is remarkable that a ‘peer-reviewer’ did not query this.
And these vaccine products have been fast-tracked around the world, and even scientists such as Professor Diane Harper admit “the mechanism of immunogenicity from a scientific perspective is poorly understood”[1] and that “there is no evidence of cancers prevented”[2].
Fast-tracked HPV vaccination is a massive international scandal and there must be an inquiry into this now.
Reference:
1. Diane M Harper. Prophylactic human papillomavirus vaccines to prevent cervical cancer: review of the Phase II and III trials. Therapy (2008) 5(3), 313-324.
2. Email from Professor Diane Harper to Elizabeth Hart, 13 December 2016..
An initial hindrance worth pointing out for others is that “monophospholipid A” is a fairly uncommon synonym for “monophosphoryl lipid A”, which pulls up a lot more on PubMed, starting with this 1982 paper: http://www.jbc.org/content/257/19/11808.long Although this is a chemical that would now be synthetic, it is a component of salmonella. The idea of adjuvanting an HPV vaccine with it is certainly not natural; I suppose you might say the body is tricked into thinking that HPV is more serious than it looks. But of course, by causing cancer, HPV *is* more serious than it looks; I’ll call it a stratagem of war.
Now as for how much the initial antibody titer exceeds the natural level (bearing in mind that it usually drops to undetectable within two years), what concerns me most is what is the titer in absolute terms? I think it’s a bit troublesome to access the paper (I prefer not to fire up Sci-Hub from here) – my assumption is that a little damn wart on your body isn’t going to produce the kind of antibody level you see from someone with the smallpox, and so the natural titer is not going to be all that high. But I don’t know that and presumably you do, so enlighten us.
‘Wnt’, here’s part of a comment I posted previously: “HPV ‘immunization’ inducing antibody titres that are 80- to 100-fold higher than those observed following natural infection seems to be a very unnatural response. Is this a good thing? Does anybody know?”[1]
Are you qualified to answer this question ‘Wnt’, i.e. is there any downside to the unnaturally high antibody titre induced by novel VLP HPV vaccination, particularly after multiple doses?
Also, scientists involved with HPV vaccination studies such as Professor Diane Harper admit “the mechanism of immunogenicity from a scientific perspective is poorly understood”[2] and that “there is no evidence of cancers prevented”[3].
‘Wnt’, given these uncertainties do you think it appropriate that novel VLP HPV vaccination has been fast-tracked around the world? Do you think it ethical that parents and children are not properly informed before this medical intervention?
References:
1. Comment posted January 13 2017, 12:23 a.m.
2. Diane M Harper. Prophylactic human papillomavirus vaccines to prevent cervical cancer: review of the Phase II and III trials. Therapy (2008) 5(3), 313-324.
3. Email from Professor Diane Harper to Elizabeth Hart, 13 December 2016.
The journal industry is publishing material behind paywalls which is impacting on international vaccination policy. Much of this material is conflicted by industry-funding and academic vaccine ideologues, resulting in biased material which should not be relied upon for vaccination policy. As of yet we have no independent and objective review of HPV vaccination, and yet the implementation of novel VLP HPV vaccine products has been fast-tracked around the world.
An article published in the UK Daily Mail in June 2015[1] about girls suffering adverse experiences after HPV vaccination includes illuminating comments from epidemiologist Dr Tom Jefferson, who is one of the signatories on the complaint to the European Medicines Authority (EMA) over maladministration at the EMA related to safety of the HPV vaccines.
The article reports Dr Jefferson “is highly critical of the drug company funded clinical trial data that is used to justify the use of mass vaccination” and he adds “that pharmaceutical companies may hide negative results deep in their trials data and hugely inflate the benefits”.
Dr Jefferson says: “The HPV vaccine’s benefits have been hyped and the harms hardly investigated…The reason for introducing vaccination against HPV was to prevent cancer…but there is no clinical evidence to prove it will do that. We have to tread a very careful line, weighing the potential benefits and harms that a vaccine may cause. With HPV, the harms have not been properly studied…It is extremely difficult to publish anything against HPV vaccination. Vaccines have become like a religion. They are not something you question. If you do, you are seen as being an anti-vaccine extremist. The authorities do not want to hear ‘side-effect'”. (I suggest Dr Jefferson’s comments are relevant to both the Gardasil and Cervarix HPV vaccines.)
A fundamental problem with HPV vaccination is the lack of informed consent before this medical intervention, i.e. children and parents are not being informed about the many uncertainties about the novel VLP HPV vaccine products – children are being used as unknowing guinea pigs in this massive international vaccine trial.
Reference:
1. Just how safe is the cervical cancer jab? More and more families say their daughters suffered devastating side-effects from the HPV vaccine and experts are worried too. Daily Mail, 3 June 2015.
I’m glad someone is finally going to look into vaccine safety after years of corruption and idiocy has blocked it.
There is no question that vaccines can cause permanent brain damage. The question is about the rates at which it occurs. Since Autism has no known cause or even agreed upon symptoms this fake news website’s claim that there is no possible connection is ridiculous.
There seems to be general consensus growing that at the least they should be spaced out more and given to older children
My vet says not to vaccinate my dog with Parvovirus vaccine every single year. She said, do it once every three years to lessen the chance of problems… My cat got a sarcoma from the leukemia vaccine. This my vet said, was most likely due to the adjuvant in the vaccine. Why should we give tens of vaccines to tiny babies over several months? I am now a retired healthcare professional. I am pro-vaccine, on the whole. But there are questions and suppressing those questions is wrong.
Wikipedia has an article on vaccine-associated sarcoma, but perhaps this is more interesting: https://www.quora.com/Why-does-rabies-vaccine-cause-sarcoma-in-cats-but-not-human It appears that YES, injections of vaccines in cats carry a 1/10000 to 1/100000 risk of a deadly malignant cancer. Oddly, so do injections of some non-vaccine drugs. AFAICT this is a genuine difference between humans and cats — it is frustratingly true that animal models don’t always faithfully tell us what causes (or cures!) human cancer. I have not given this the kind of look it deserves, but I would not jump to conclusions about humans that seem, from all evidence, not to be the case. ~~~~
I agree with you. We should not jump to conclusions and animal models do not always correlate to human ones. Nevertheless, I mentioned this because I think it interesting that vets are concerned with vaccine-caused problems (not necessarily all cancer-related) and yet, we insist on giving tiny babies tens of shots over several months when their immune systems are immature. It is something to really think about.
‘M.L.’, my own interest in vaccination stemmed from companion animal vaccination, i.e. in 2008 one of my dogs became very ill and was put down after what I subsequently discovered was unnecessary annual revaccination with a combination of ‘live’ and inactivated vaccine products.
(Unnecessary) annual revaccination of pets appears to be a useful profit centre for veterinarians and the vaccine industry.
I was stunned to discover that over-vaccination of pets was a very controversial subject, and that experts in the area had been urging a reduction of vaccination of pets to minimise the risk of adverse reactions to vaccine products.
Needless to say I was appalled the veterinarian I had paid for his professional advice had not informed me about the controversy surrounding over-vaccination of pets, and that he misled me into unnecessary and potentially harmful medical interventions for my pets. (Goodness knows what parents will think when they discover doctors have been coercing them to over-vaccinate their children, at the behest of the CDC and other international government bodies.)
Along with another pet owner who had also lost her dog in similar circumstances, Bea Mies, I started investigating and campaigning against over-vaccination of pets, undertaking much correspondence with government ‘regulators’ of vaccines in Australia, the UK and US, domestic and international veterinary associations and academics etc. For more background see my webpage Over-vaccination of pets – an unethical practice: https://over-vaccination.net/questionable-vaccines/pet-vax/ (This page may be a little out of date as I’m concentrating on human vaccination now. However, scroll down the page and you will see an extensive list of hyperlinks to my documents on this subject.)
My experience in investigating over-vaccination of pets is informing my investigation into lucrative over-vaccination of people.
It is now taken as a given that ‘vaccination is good’, ‘vaccination is safe’, ‘you can’t have too many vaccines’.
Paul Offit, Chief of the Division of Infectious Diseases and the Director of the Vaccine Education Center at the Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia, is famous for his flippant remark that a baby’s immune system could handle as many as 10,000 vaccines, and upping the ante by saying it was probably “closer to 100,000”.[1]
Paediatrician Paul Offit’s cavalier attitude contrasts quite markedly with the more considered opinion of Ronald Schultz, who was Professor and Chair of the Department of Pathobiological Sciences, University of Wisconsin-Madison, and an expert in companion animal vaccines.
While Professor Schultz acknowledges that “vaccination should be considered an important medical practice” he also cautions on the over-use of vaccines: “I tell practitioners that vaccines are drugs, albeit biological drugs. I remind them that they would not consider it good medicine to give an unnecessary pharmaceutical drug on a recurring basis. I think it is even worse to give a vaccine, or biological drug, that isn’t necessary. The possible adverse consequences of a vaccine generally far outweigh the adverse consequences of a pharmaceutical drug. A pharmaceutical drug is usually much more restricted in its action. However, each time we stimulate an immune response, we have to look at the effect on all body systems—not only on antibody responses or cell-mediated immunity, but also on interactions with the endocrine system and the nervous system.”[2]
There are interesting comparisons to be made between companion animal vaccination and human vaccination. For instance, veterinary academics and veterinarians have raised concern about over-vaccination of companion animals and its possible connection with immune-mediated hemolytic anemia, thrombocytopenia, polyarthritis, atopy, chronic allergies, asthma etc.[3]
Are there lessons here for human vaccination? For example, could there be a possible connection with over-vaccination and allergies, which have been reported to have hit “epidemic proportions“[4,5,6,7,8] in Australia, and other health problems in humans? While it may be difficult to prove a connection, surely it would be prudent to reduce unnecessary vaccination to avoid any risk?
International dog and cat vaccination guidelines warn that we should decrease companion animal vaccination, i.e. “we should aim to reduce the ‘vaccine load’ on individual animals in order to minimize the potential for adverse reactions to vaccine products and reduce the time and financial burden on clients and veterinarians of unjustified veterinary medical procedures”.[9]
So we’re being warned to decrease vaccination of dogs and cats, meanwhile vaccination of humans is increasing at a startling rate!
(While these animal vaccination guidelines are compromised in that they are industry-funded and convoluted, they are nevertheless a groundbreaking initiative, with their concept of categorising ‘core’, ‘non-core’ and ‘not recommended’ vaccines.)
Professor Schultz is a co-author of the companion animal vaccination guidelines, which acknowledge that “there is gross under-reporting of vaccine-associated adverse events, because of the passive nature of reporting schemes, which impedes knowledge of the ongoing safety of these products”.[10]
Similarly there is recognition that there is gross under-reporting of adverse events in human medicine. Australia’s Therapeutic Goods Administration (TGA) website notes: “It is generally acknowledged that adverse events are under-reported around the world, with estimates that 90-50% of adverse events are not reported to regulators.”[11]
With the increasing number of human vaccines coming onto the market, it’s time to adopt the cautious attitude exhibited by experts in animal vaccination, and critically consider the worth of individual vaccines, and the potentially deleterious consequences of over-vaccinating humans with a multitude of vaccine products throughout life.
References:
[1] Stomping Through a Medical Minefield. Newsweek Magazine, 24 October 2008. Also published in The Indian Express 16 November 2008.
[2] Titer Testing And Vaccination: A New Look at Traditional Practices. A Roundtable Discussion. Veterinary Healthcare Communications, 2002.
[3] Ibid.
[4] Child allergy rates at ‘epidemic proportions’. Sydney Morning Herald, 9 March 2010.
[5] Chain reaction – In less than a generation, food allergies in children – some of them potentially fatal – have reached epidemic levels. GoodWeekend, 23 July 2011.
[6] Kemp, AS, Mullins, RJ, Weiner, JM. The allergy epidemic: what is the Australian response? Medical Journal of Australia. Vol. 185, No. 4, 21 August 2006.
[7] Food Allergy. The Health Report, ABC Radio National, 30 May 2011.
[8] HealthNuts Research Update 2011. Murdoch Children’s Research Institute.
[9] MJ, Horzinek, MC, Schultz RD. Guidelines for the Vaccination of Dogs and Cats. Journal of Small Animal Practice. Vol. 57, January 2016.
[10] Ibid.
[11] TGA website: New web service helps consumer reporting of ‘side effects’.
First thing that I noticed, other than the fact the the Press apparently let Trump’s rant (warranted or not) supersede the supposed reason for the presser, which was ostensibly – or so we thought – his plans for “divestment” or his ridiculous notion of handing the business over to his sons in a trust. The blind leading the blind leading the blind.
Second thing that I noticed is the first question by Hallie involved four questions, to which he either answered two or one. Did you (1)? Did anyone? (2) Before? (3) During? (4).
Oh, boy, it’s going to be a LONG time between his inauguration – I can’t believe I’m saying that – and the first hearings about impeachment.
Assholes -.
While the anti-Trump hysteria is epidemic for which no vaccine exists, ..save the now nearly impossible acknowledgement by these same astute and righteously indignant critics of human character that Hillary Clinton is the chameleon engineer of a grossly self-enriching and politically usurping empowerment campaign involving an elite cast of corrupted co-conspitators spanning every facet of foreign policy in ethical and moral violations so egregious that most decent humans simply can not imagine nor accept how hideous and expansive the conspiracy actually has become, nor can they sense or admit their own complicit, weary abandonment of all objective critical examination.
They’re conditioned, as J88 above, to channel all of their critical focus and anger on the unlikely electoral success of a man regarded at best by them as huckster of self-absorbed mass media promotion enabled by grotesquely gilded trappings of economic privilege, celebrity and unreserved ego, ..while their heroine is so unfairly maligned by accusations too terrible to even seriously consider possible.
That’s the tragicomedy of this election. The glaring misdirection orchestrated by compromised mass media, so evident as to gag one laughing at their willful abandonment of all journalistic principles, ..only to realize that the country is descending into division so impervious to healing as to render our future unable to generate resistance to the wholly engineered war being foisted on an increasingly bewildered and distracted USSA population.
Distraction after diversion in unrelenting assault of orchestrated disinformation. The program that disables critical judgment is, in this age of supreme irony, the very same one that sells us a woman so entangled in corruption of every description that our reason is just blown out of the water by the media facilitated superficial notion of its pure absurdity.
The same’s been done here with this propaganda piece so friendly to the medical and pharmaceutical establishment. Twins of supreme financial power and political corruption that makes even the energy lobbyists blush in admiration. Do we really need more explanation of the vast human resources sucked by these greediest of executive face-hugging monstrosities?
Just ask yourself why a completely credible research physician would undertake a campaign when persuaded by parents of post-vaccinated children suddenly afflicted with crippling autism to investigate its causality, and suffer predictable blow-back by the most affluent and organized commercial lobby in the world?
Then ask why, if his evidence is so easily discredited, the hysterical campaign of suppressing every modest attempt to put his case before the public? Then ask yourself, in all honesty, if you’ve even seen the associated documentary: Vaxxed,
and why you have not if the issue is so grave, so profoundly important to the afflicted, to the future of this nation? Why is the censorship campaign so heavy-handed blatant that a film festival with one principal celebrity organizer parent of an autistic child isn’t even allowed to present it by overt political pressure?
It’s the same reasons that so many will lambast clownish Trump and give a truly despicable criminal Clinton a complete pass in concerns of corruption. It’s the same reason that free speech is now threatened in a nation so quick to brag about freedom and ‘progress’, while we descend in a frenzy of irrationality and war preparation persuaded by a global assassin peace prize president into a third world war. Brave New World of failed attempt at human liberation.
The global master of weapon sales and economic enslavement wants your acquiescence on all questions of authority by all corporate interests and we’re too fucking stupid and glazed by our own arrogance and ignorance to see it for exactly what it is.
Here’s a hint: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BO4zw_dJScM&list=PLcgk8FfGnzkxDSYW-3gqzNBVxJVE2a9Hh&index=10
Oh, come now, we can’t have an impeachment of the Commander in Chief in the middle of a war! Especially not when Iran is trouncing us so thoroughly…
I don’t really have any issue with this. He may be a very good person to head up safety as he will see for himself. I’m all for vaccinations but there have been digesting examples in the past of using people as test subjects, even as recent as the 1990s in LA ghettos. Nothing wrong with keeping vaccines safe.
Then get someone whose opinion isn’t bought to lead it.
WoW!! When Ben Carson, MD. even admits vaccines are not responsible for Autism, Houston we have a problem…being an advocate or devoted to uncovering injustice, corruption and dishonesty does not make you an expert nor a medical doctor regardless of what your last name is. While I find that the Kennedys often use their money and influence to promote good, this time he is just wrong. And 99.9 % of the medical community around the world (check out African children before and after immunization) agree they work with very limited side effects if any at all. For Trump and Kennedy to bring this all up again is a disgrace.
This is a good thing. Kennedy is right about the CDC–there is a revolving door there which corrupts.
Also, and I have been saying this for years. This is not a fight between “science” and “quacks” (although certainly there are charlatans in the alt med scene) but rather a fight between Pharma and honest science uncorrupted by Pharma’s money, which is everywhere.
“honest science”? where is this being practiced?
This article could have been cut and pasted from WaPo. How about some original reporting instead of echoing the echo chamber. Thanks.
Kennedy is one of the most respected environmental lawyers of our time. If he says there is a connection, then I believe him.
I also checked the CDC website which lists vaccine schedules for babies beginning at two months of age. One shot contain multiple vaccines and children can get three different shots at one time (as many as 9 vaccinations at once). And this continues for years. I would think that a baby’s developing systems could be overwhelmed by so much.
When certain Christian groups were lining up to back Trump, I suggested that they would be more comfortable worshipping Huitzlopochtli and Tlaloc. In truth though, while with Trump’s torture policy the first was obvious enough, I wasn’t sure how he would pull through for the second. Now I know.
Parents, bring your casualties! Measles, whooping cough, tetanus and all manner of incurable diseases — bring them down to the public square! We need only the artists to carve the greenstone coffers! I forecast rain, rain, storms and more rain, perhaps mixed in with a bit of wet snow; you need not continue your drought precautions. The kids have this handled.
There is no justice for those damaged by vaccines, just a government kangaroo court. Big Pharma could literally put poison in the vaccines and get away with it the way the law is written.
If vaccines are so safe and effective, lets get rid of Big Pharma’s immunity from jury trials.
More recent science indicates that vaccines DO cause autism, among other neurological conditions. Start here—a compilation of 128 studies exploring the connection: https://www.scribd.com/doc/220807175/128-Research-Papers-Supporting-the-Vaccine-Autism-Link
This article by Mackey is the exact type of writing that Glen Greenwald rails against the Washington Post and the New York Times for on other topics, like the allegations of Russian Hacking for Instance. There is a CDC Whistleblower at the CDC who reports data manipulation and destruction in the 2004 Publication that the CDC often cites to “debunk” that association between MMR and autism. Moreover, there are many scientists and physicians coming forward with credible concerns about the safety and efficacy of vaccines. Dr. Suzanne Humphreys and Dr. Sherri Tenpenny come to mind. Their voices have been suppressed. In California, there is an organization gaining membership called Physicians for Informed Consent. So the their is more to the story, the research is very complex and cannot be summarized in to a vaccine good/bad or “thumbs up/thumbs down”. Mackey please do better research moving forward and get more sides of the story. There is a reason why highly educated people are opting out of vaccines and its not because its “trendy.” No one would oppose a preventive intervention unless they have concerns about safety and efficacy. And not all “approved” information is necessarily true.
Citing an article that was written by a pediatrician who currently works for an university that relies upon Federal research money for its own vaccine research is hardly a trustworthy debunking source.
Here is a fairly detailed and insightful video that gives a retrospective analysis of the controversy surrounding the MMR research conducted by the CDC that culminated in its 2004 Publication entitled “Age at First Measles-Mumps-Rubella Vaccination in Children with Autism and School-Matched Control Subjects: Population Based Study IN Metropolitan Area”; Dr Collen Boyle was the research head of that study.
MMR Vaccine causes Autism – CDC destroys evidence – Whistleblower
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q8SSCEoT3MY
The international over-use of vaccine products is going through the roof and we have to challenge this. It is my fear that the long-term consequences of over-vaccination are going to put the over-use of antibiotics disaster in the shade.
The pharmaceutical industry is driving the growth of the vaccine market, with the apparent enthusiastic support of the scientific/medical establishment and governments.
The situation is dire in that vaccination policy appears to be dominated by pharmaceutical companies and academics with conflicts of interest, i.e. associations with the vaccine industry. There is no truly independent and objective formulation of vaccination policy, certainly not in my country Australia.
The mainstream media is also a major part of this shambles, providing little or nothing in the way of critical analysis of vaccination policy. Indeed the media is a major player in vaccine promotion as we have seen in Australia with the Murdoch media’s campaign for compulsory vaccination, i.e. the ‘No Jab, No Play’ campaign, which was obligingly adopted by the major political parties and enacted as the ‘No Jab, No Pay’ law.
The ‘No Jab, No Pay’ law coerces parents to have their children vaccinated to access benefits. This means parents will have to have their children vaccinated with ALL the vaccine products and revaccinations on the schedule for children up to the age of five years, i.e. they are hindered from evaluating the risks and benefits of each of these medical interventions – this directly conflicts with the obligation to obtain ‘informed consent’ before the medical intervention of vaccination.
This is extremely problematic as there are questionable vaccines on the schedule, e.g. the arbitrary second shot of live measles, mumps and rubella vaccine (when many are likely to be immune after the first dose of effective vaccine, which can be verified by antibody titre testing but this is generally not offered as an option to parents), and multiple shots of the aluminium-adjuvanted diphtheria, tetanus and pertussis vaccine, which is failing, hence the call for more and more so-called ‘boosters’. And older children are being pressed to have three doses of the very controversial turbo-charged aluminium-adjuvanted HPV vaccine(s), along with yet another diphtheria, tetanus and pertussis shot.
There is also currently persistent lobbying for the aluminium-adjuvanted GSK Bexsero meningococcal B vaccine to be added to the taxpayer-funded vaccination schedule in Australia, despite the fact this product has been rejected three times by the Pharmaceutical Benefits Advisory Committee due to the “multiple uncertainties in relation to the clinical effectiveness of the vaccine”.[1]
The trashing of the right to ‘informed consent’ before a medical intervention, i.e. vaccination, is a most serious development in our liberal democracies, one which has implications for adults as well as children, with the implementation of an adult ‘immunisation’ register in Australia. And yet this major political and ethical issue, which is important internationally, is going under the radar.
The general community is being seduced by the idea of ‘magic bullets’ to prevent disease, i.e. vaccines, but there are problems emerging with failing vaccines and adverse effects of vaccination. The possibilities for ‘unintended consequences’ abound. The long-term cumulative consequences of these excessive medical interventions, including annual flu vaccination, are unknown.
As seen recently in the UK, with the uproar about TV presenter Melinda Messenger’s concerns about the safety of HPV vaccination, the medical establishment quickly rises to stifle any questioning of vaccination safety. The vicious pillorying of Melinda Messenger was disgraceful, including Dr Chris Steele’s arrogant and patronising attitude towards Ms Messenger.[2]
Vaccine industry gatekeepers, such as science writer David Robert Grimes, are given platforms in the media to aggressively promote vaccine products and deride those who have concerns about these burgeoning interventions.[3] Grimes is not an ‘expert in vaccination’, he speaks with no authority in this area. Let’s have those who are accountable for vaccination policy in the frame, make them answer our questions.
Parents are entitled to ask questions about vaccination. This recent episode with Melinda Messenger is an illustrative example of the way parents are being bullied into having numerous vaccinations and denied being properly allowed to consider the risks and benefits of these ever-increasing medical interventions, which are proving to be so lucrative for the vaccine industry.
The medical establishment’s apparent reluctance to acknowledge the possibility of adverse events after vaccination also destroys any confidence in the post-marketing surveillance system. The voluntary reporting system is completely inadequate.
We are facing an epidemic of gross over-vaccination – this is a massive international scandal.
There should be an immediate moratorium on new vaccine products and an urgent review of vaccine schedules around the world. Children are being forced to have too many of these lucrative vaccine products and there may be serious long-term repercussions.
Elizabeth Hart
Over-vaccination(dot)net
References:
1. November 2014 PBAC Outcomes – Subsequent Decisions Not to Recommend.
2. See for example: “HPV Debate: Melinda Messenger sparks row on This Morning as she’s accused of scare-mongering for not giving her daughter the HPV vaccine”. The Sun, 14 December 2016 and “Melinda Messenger hits back at ‘hostile’ Holly, Phil and This Morning for ‘gagging’ her during HPV vaccine debate”. Mirror, 16 December 2016.
3. See David Robert Grimes’ contribution, as enabled by the Daily Mail, i.e. inset box in this article: “Why I stopped my little girl from having the cervical cancer jab: TV presenter Melinda Messenger is one of a number of mothers worried about the possible side effects of the HPV vaccination”. Daily Mail, published 30 November 2016, updated 2 December 2016. Also see: Grimes’ article: “We know it’s effective. So why is there opposition to the HPV vaccine?” The Guardian, 12 January 2016.
I don’t understand what the issue is with the aluminum adjuvant. These are simple compounds. The goal of an adjuvant, yes, is to get a good titer of antibody, but they have been used a long time. The titer does fall to undetectable levels after two years ( https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18930097 ) but immune memory (i.e. undetectably low titers) is enough to allow the body to respond to the infection.
Why is The Intercept defending Big Pharma and its lackey, the CDC??
Watch “Vaxxed”, watch a few of the parents on Vaxxed TV, and consider why Big Pharma spends more lobbying the govt than Big Oil.
When you’re all done with that, then go ahead and tell me RFK Jr is a nut.
One of the hottest topics in neuroscience research is that of excitotoxicity. The ‘starting point’ for this research happened in the 1950’s and 60’s when it was discovered that glutamate—an amino acid used as a building block of proteins—is also a neurotransmitter. In fact, it is the major excitatory neurotransmitter and is essential to life. “It is used by every major excitatory information-transmitting pathway in the vertebrate brain, accounting in total for well over 90% of the synaptic connections in the human brain.” (Wikipedia) However, it is highly toxic and the body has multiple ways to deal with its toxicity. When an excitotoxin like glutamate is present in too high a concentration, the nerve cells can become so ‘excited’ that they rapidly die, as is seen when monosodium glutamate (MSG) is present. (see the entry, “Excitoxicity”—Wikipedia). The FDA lets MSG be hidden under words such as ‘flavors, natural flavors, autolyzed yeast, textured vegetable protein, broth, etc.
A similar concept, immunoexcitotoxicity, is now at the forefront of neurological research, and it involves how the immune system can become over-excited. One way that the microglia—the main immune cell of the brain—becomes excited and harmed is through vaccination, especially over-vaccination. Before a child in the United States starts school, she or he has had dozens of vaccinations. Many researchers will speak in private that giving this many vaccines is insane.
Vaccine critics often focus on the harm caused by vaccines as the sole cause of autism, but there are other factors that can contribute to a brain becoming ‘mis-wired’. For example, in the developing fetal brain, there is an astounding and beautiful construction that takes place—assembling the most complicated thing we know of in the universe, the human brain. When the brain is under construction in the womb, billions of nerves are grown and billions of connections are made. To prevent these connections from becoming too chaotic, there are ‘waves’ of glutamate released at precisely controlled intervals to ‘prune’ back these connections. So imagine the fetal brain being ‘washed’ with the vegetarian chicken broth–sold in stores such as Whole Foods–that is 50% ‘autolyzed yeast’, a hidden form of MSG. Perhaps you can imagine how the wiring of the developing fetal brain just might be altered from the MSG the mother is eating and thereby bathing her fetus in, given the fact that glutamate is the major excitatory neurotransmitter.
Similarly, vaccines ‘excite’ the immune system, and that excitation can last for years or even decades, so that when other insults come along, the excitotoxicity can become even worse.
If over-exciting the developing fetal and child brain through over-vaccination weren’t enough, vaccine researchers will speak behind closed doors at conferences—but never in front of the media, for fear of losing their jobs—about the following: because many vaccines are grown on monkey kidneys, the viruses, bacteria and other pathogens on those kidneys cannot all be purified out leaving only the one desired. In other words, the vaccine that is injected into the pregnant mother, infant, child or adult can often contain not just the one that is advertised but many antigens (viruses, etc).
Vaccines are a multi-billion dollar a year industry. There is a huge propaganda machine—fake news, if you will—erected to maintain the belief that more vaccines are ‘better’, and that injecting viruses, etc into the body is always good all of the time with no possibility of harm.
A lecture on this can be found on youtube by typing into the youtube search window “Vaccines and Immunoexcitotoxicity Dr Russell Blaylock”
It is worth noting that the above description of how vaccines cause immunoexcitotoxicity said nothing about the mercury that is found in some vaccines. Mercury is highly toxic, and certainly causes great harm in the body and brain. But even if all the mercury is removed from all vaccines, vaccines will still cause great harm through the process of immunoexcitotoxicity, as the neuroscience literature proves.
The autism connection may be hogwash, but the effectiveness of the vaccine program remains to be proven with evidence better than correlation. Standards of hygiene and public sanitation and labor safety went up all around the same time as vaccines were starting to be introduced, thus the reduced incidence and death rates are not necessarily due to vaccination.
krishna e bera, what you say is true. As our population gets poorer and poorer with hygiene & public sanitation decreasing and malnourishment increasing, the need for vaccines will become greater. That is why there is a push to make them mandatory. Doesn’t matter if a certain percentage are harmed as long as the healthy wealthy are not subjected to the diseases of the poor.
Mackey, are you aware of the CDC whistleblowe Mr. William Thompson who disclosed that the data was manipulated for the very study (of four studies) that are heavily cited by those claiming the association between autism has been debunked. Are you aware that there is a growing cadre of qualified scientists and physicians exposing flaws in vaccine safety research and raising a multitude of safety issues? Suzzane Humphries and Sherry Tenpenny come to mind. Are you aware of Physicians for informed consent in California? Mackey, the piece you wrote here is the type of schill piece that Greenwald rails against the Washington Post and the NY Times for doing on the alleged Russian Hacks. Please go back, do your job and dig deeper. Oh, by the way, the Wakefield paper does not purport an association between autism and MMR btw if you would take the time to read it. Moreover, his coauthors have been vindicated. Could it just possibly be Wakefield was hung out to dry or does that seem too “conspiratorial” for you?
‘Read both sides’, not only did Andrew Wakefield threaten the MMR vaccine market, but with his suggestion for the use of monovalent vaccines for measles, mumps and rubella he threatened the emerging polyvalent vaccine market.
Consider the UK vaccination schedule, which currently has 51 doses of vaccine for children aged from 8 weeks to 14 years, including 2-in-1, 3-in-1, 4-in-1 and 5-in-1 shots. (This total includes annual flu vaccination recommend for children 2-7 years. The Men C vaccine at 12 weeks is discontinued from 1 July 2016).[1]
So we can see if Wakefield’s suggestion for monovalent vaccines had been allowed to take hold, it could have seriously impacted on the polyvalent market, imagine all those multi-combo shots as individual vaccinations.
Reference:
[1] NHS When to have vaccinations (page last reviewed 14/03/2016): http://www.nhs.uk/Conditions/vaccinations/Pages/vaccination-schedule-age-checklist.aspx?tabname=NHS%20vaccination%20schedule
I find it concerning that little debate is allowed, much like the “fake news” phenomenon in the US. Here is a recent article this Dr. from Cleveland Clinic wrote, then was forced to apologize and retract. Big Pharma does not have public health in mind, but they do seem to be able to silence any dissenters.
https://www.fxtribune.com/m/?id=408595
You at the Intercept know how deeply beholden to corporate interests our government is. Why is it so hard to believe Big Pharma does not work hard to influence vaccine policy and media coverage? Follow the money. There are thousands (if not millions) of vaccine injured children/adults in the US today. The vaccine inserts themselves claim that vaccines pose neurological risks. Where there is risk, the decision to vaccinate or not should be up to the parent. Please look beyond the mainstream media narrative that “the science is settled”. Science should never be settled. That statement by itself should be reason to question.
Most residents of Tribeca, Park Slope, and other educated, well to do areas of NYC don’t vaccinate.
My son had a polio vaccine and ended up in the Health Science Hospital in Winnipeg for 3 weeks.
When I asked the doctor what happened, he said that 30% of children that get vaccines has a negative reaction. I inquired why I was not informed about the problems and he said: “I am only allowed to treat the child once it has a negative reaction.”
I never immunized any of my children again.
Why don’t you hear from Robert Kennedy Jrs own words
http://www.ecowatch.com/kennedy-mercury-cdc-autism-2147157503.html?page=1
i dare any of you “science” people to watch vaxxed and still claim that there is no scientific reason to question the safety of our vaccine protocols. at least, you could then claim to have heard both sides of the argument.
http://vaxxedthemovie.com/watch/
It’s one of the most pretentiously and vehemently-defended things without those doing so having any knowledge if how they actually function
*of
I am disappointed in your article here. I just subscribed to this website last week after reading that The Intercept spoke up on the weapons of mass destruction disaster and thought there would be other good and courageous reporting. Please look into the facts about vaccination. Mr Kennedy is pro-vaccination but we cannot talk about the side-effects in public. For example, antibiotics save lives but there are side-effects and we can talk about them. The vaccine safety issue is now exactly like the Iraq War, all conversation is shut down on this subject. Please look into it, we are counting on you.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K1m3TjokVU4
I’ve studied this issue for over a decade. It’s a shame that the left cannot fathom how corporate influence could taint the scientific integrity of the CDC, etc. One only needs to dig a little on any branch of this issue to smell a rat. Look into some of the respected scientists/doctors concerns about vaccines. Do some honest research. I’m disappointed with journalists who assume this is a non-issue. It might be the biggest holocaust in human history, all created by profiteers in sheep’s clothing. Heads must roll, sorry to say.
Well, as the article says (and this part the article has researched), it’s not “the left” alone that avoids actually considering the specific details involved in this issue they are so “decided” about