Hep B Vax...thought this was interesting. Read the whole Article.

[LimeSlice]

This is from: Age of Autism

October 09, 2009

Hepatitis B Vaccine: An Unmitigated Disaster

By J.B. Handley

As most readers of AoA know, the Hep B vaccine was added to the CDC?s childhood immunization schedule in the early 1990s, requires four doses before a child is eighteen months old, and is the only vaccine on the CDC?s schedule that is recommended to be given on an infant?s first day of life.

What else do we know about this vaccine? Quite a bit, actually. In no particular order:

1) A recent study published in the journal Neurotoxicology called ?Delayed Acquisition of Neonatal Reflexes in Newborn Primates Receiving a Thimerosal-containing Hepatitis B Vaccine: Influence of Gestational Age and Birth Weight? found that monkeys who received a Hepatitis B vaccine on the first day of life experienced a significant delay in survival reflexes versus monkeys who received a placebo.

2) A recent study published in the journal the Annals of Epidemiology titled ?Hepatitis B Vaccination of Male Neonates and Autism? found that ?Boys who received the hepatitis B vaccine during the first month of life had 2.94 greater odds for ASD [autism] compared to later- or unvaccinated boys.?

3) A recent study published in the journal Neurology called ?Hepatitis B vaccine and the risk of CNS inflammatory demyelination in childhood? found that the Engerix B vaccine for Hep B (the one my son received) appears to increase the risk of central nervous system inflammatory demyelination.

4) A recent study published in Toxicological and Environmental Chemistry titled ?Hepatitis B triple series vaccine and developmental disability in US children aged 1-9 years? stated "the odds of receiving EIS [special education services] were approximately nine times as great for vaccinated boys as for unvaccinated boys after adjustment for confounders. This study found statistically significant evidence to suggest that boys in United States who were vaccinated with the triple series Hepatitis B vaccine, during the time period in which vaccines were manufactured with thimerosal, were more susceptible to developmental disability than were unvaccinated boys."

5) In 2002, the Institute of Medicine (which I personally believe is a corrupt agent of the vaccine industry but many believe is the final word on medical issues) published a study titled, ?Immunization Safety Review: Hepatitis B Vaccine and Demyelinating Neurological Disorders? in which they reached the following non-conclusion: ?Additionally, the committee found that the epidemiological evidence favors rejection of a causal relationship between the hepatitis B vaccine in adults and multiple sclerosis. However, the evidence was inadequate to accept or reject a causal relationship between the hepatitis B vaccine and all other demyelinating conditions.? (Author?s note: If you?re a vaccine, and you can?t get an ?all clear? from the vaccine-loving IOM, you?re in big trouble.?)

6) Generation Rescue analyzed the vaccine schedules of 30 first-world countries. 60%, or 18 countries, have Hep B vaccine on their schedule. That means 12 countries, or 40% of the countries, DO NOT require the Hep B vaccine, despite the fact that it has been readily available for 19 years. Of countries that do require Hep B vaccine, we could only find a few Eastern European countries like Bulgaria and Latvia who also give the shot to babies on the first day of life. Many other countries appear to pursue a more balanced approach to Hep B vaccine, here are some direct quotes from country vaccination schedules.
Italy: ?Hepatitis B vaccine is administered at birth only to children born to HBsAg + mothers. Otherwise immunisation starts at 3 months of age.?
Finland: ?Hepatitis B vaccine is given only to infants of HbsAg
carrier mothers or fathers at the age of 0, 1, 2 and 12 months.?
Denmark: ?Vaccination against hepatitis B is recommended to children of HBsAg-positive mothers starting at birth with both hepatitis B immunoglobulin and one dose of HepB.?
Norway: ?HepB is recommended for risk groups only.?
Sweden: ?HepB is only recommended to children considered high-risk groups. Vaccination is given at birth to infants of mothers positive for hepatitis B.?
The Netherlands: ?Only for children born to HBsAg positive mothers.?
The Hepatitis B vaccine addition to the U.S. vaccination schedule for children is a wildly destructive disaster for seemingly little benefit to public health. The science proving what a disaster it is will keep coming.

I?d like to wrap this piece up with two remarkable statements from a very courageous father, Michael Belkin, who lost his infant daughter to a Hepatitis B vaccine. And, it?s not only this dad?s command of the facts that makes his statements remarkable, it?s also because these statements were delivered in public, to both the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices, the very group that added Hep B to our schedule, and the U.S. Congress, TEN YEARS AGO:

Statement #1:

TESTIMONY OF MICHAEL BELKIN BEFORE THE ADVISORY COMMITTEE ON IMMUNIZATION PRACTICES -- CENTERS FOR DISEASE CONTROL AND PREVENTION (February 17, 1999) -- Atlanta Georgia

My name is Michael Belkin. I am a father, businessman, former quantitative strategist at Salomon Brothers, and Director of the Hepatitis B Vaccine Project of the National Vaccine Information Center (NVIC).

The NVIC has studied Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS) data obtained under the Freedom of Information Act covering the last nine years on hepatitis B vaccine adverse events -- and in 1996 there were more than three times as many reported serious adverse reactions as reported cases of the disease in the 0 to 14 age group. Of the total 2,424 adverse event reports made between 1990 and October 1998 in children under age 14 who only received hepatitis B vaccine, there were 1,209 serious events and 73 deaths. Thus, one half of the reports for children under age 14 who received only hepatitis B vaccine were for serious events that required an emergency room visit, hospitalization, or caused life-threatening health problems or permanent disabilities.

As a UC Berkeley graduate and advisor to some of the largest financial institutions in the world, I am qualified to analyze and make conclusions about statistics. Based on that experience, I am astonished that the scientists on this Committee would disregard or cover up data showing the number and severity of adverse reactions to this vaccine. Science is observing and learning from what is observed. The assertions of the CDC that the many reported adverse reactions to this vaccine do not exist or are a coincidence violates the basic principle of science, which is rooted in the observation and analysis of data.
A benefit/risk analysis of the hepatitis B vaccine for the average infant in America, not born to infected parents, must conclude that the VAERS data on adverse reactions shows the real-world risk of a newborn infant dying or being injured by the hepatitis B vaccine is a greater threat than the remote chance of contracting the primarily blood-transmitted disease.

My 5-week old daughter, Lyla Rose, died within 16 hours of her hepatitisB vaccination, which she received because of the universal vaccination policy this Committee instituted in 1991. At her death, Lyla had four of the eight highest-reported symptoms in the VAERS hepatitis B vaccine adverse reaction data. The NY Medical Examiner observed brain swelling at the autopsy but refused to record that or mention the hepatitis B vaccine Lyla received in the autopsy report.

I hold each one of you who participated in the promulgation or perpetuation of that mandated newborn vaccination policy personally responsible for my daughter's death and the deaths and injuries of all the other beautiful, healthy infants who are victims of the hepatitis B vaccine. Your negligence is the proximate cause of my daughter's death and you have failed to exercise reasonable care.

At the NVIC, we are overwhelmed following up constant new reports of deaths, seizures and autoimmune reactions following hepatitis B vaccination. Because the CDC refuses to acknowledge this large number of serious adverse reactions, hospitals and doctors who have been misled about the risks continue to administer the vaccine and then deny any vaccine connection when children die, get ill or have seizures within hours or days. CDC officials tell parents they have never heard of hepatitis B vaccine reactions.

That is a lie. For this government to continue to insist that hepatitis B vaccine adverse reaction reports do not exist is negligent, unethical -- and is a crime against the children of America.

It is a sad day for the U.S. when the nation's children need protection from the official medical authorities who are charged with protecting them from disease.
Thank you.

Statement #2:

MICHAEL BELKIN TESTIMONY TO U.S. CONGRESS (Tuesday May 18, 1999)

My daughter Lyla Rose Belkin died on September 16, 1998 at the age of five weeks, about 15 hours after receiving her second Hepatitis B vaccine booster shot. Lyla was a lively, alert five-week-old baby when I last held her in my arms. Little did I imagine as she gazed intently into my eyes with all the innocence and wonder of a newborn child that she would die that night. She was never ill before receiving the Hepatitis B shot that afternoon. At her final feeding that night, she was extremely agitated, noisy and feisty -- and then she fell asleep suddenly and stopped breathing. The autopsy ruled out choking. The NY Medical Examiner ruled her death Sudden Infant Death Syndrome (SIDS).

But the NY Medical Examiner (Dr. Persechino) neglected to mention Lyla's swollen brain or the hepatitis B vaccine in the autopsy report. The coroner spoke to my wife and I and our pediatrician (Dr. Zullo) the day of the autopsy and clearly stated that her brain was swollen. The pediatrician Dr. Zullo's notes of that conversation are "brain swollen ... not sure cause yet ... could not see how recombinant vaccine could cause problem."

SIDS is a diagnosis of exclusion ..it wasn't this, it wasn't that, everything has been ruled out and we don't know what it was. A swollen brain is not SIDS. Through conversations with other experienced pathologists, I subsequently discovered that brain inflammation is a classic adverse reaction to vaccination (with any vaccine) in the medical literature.
I set out to do an investigation of the Hepatitis B vaccine and attended a workshop at the National Academy of Sciences, Institute of Medicine on "Neo-Natal Death and the Hepatitis B Vaccine," the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) February meeting, and a debate in New Hampshire between the Chairman of the ACIP, Dr. Modlin, and Dr. Waisbren about the safety of the Hepatitis B vaccine. I also obtained the entire Vaccine Adverse Events Reporting System (VAERS) database on Hepatitis B vaccine adverse reactions and have investigated it thoroughly.

These are my conclusions, supported by the following pages of text and analysis that are too lengthy to present in entirety in the time allotted for this appearance. Please read the results of my investigation, as it will help you understand the magnitude of the hepatitis B vaccine issue.

* Newborn babies are not at risk of contracting the hepatitis B disease unless their mother is infected.

* Hepatitis B is primarily a disease of junkies, gays, and promiscuous heterosexuals.

* The vaccine is given to babies because health authorities couldn't get those risk groups to take the vaccine.

* Adverse reactions out-number cases of the disease in government statistics.

* Nothing is being done to investigate those adverse reactions.

* Those adverse reactions include numerous deaths, convulsions and arthritic conditions that occur within days after

* The CDC is misrepresenting hypothetical, estimated disease statistics as real cases of the disease.

* The ACIP is recommending new vaccines for premature infants without having scientific studies proving they are safe.

* The U.S. vaccine recommendation process is hopelessly compromised by conflicts of interest with vaccine manufacturers, the American Academy of Pediatrics and the CDC.
Conclusion: If (as with the recently-recommended rotavirus vaccine) Hepatitis B vaccine was recommended in 1991 without scientific proof that it was safe in a broad sample of racially and genetically diverse babies less than 48 hours old before they established that recommendation, then the CDC has been experimenting on babies like guinea pigs and this Committee should suspend that universal immunization policy.

The Hepatitis B vaccine was effectively mandated in 1991 for universal immunization of newborn babies by the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) -- an adjunct of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). Paradoxically, the CDC's own Fact Sheet on the Hepatitis B disease does not include newborn babies as a risk group for that disease. That Fact Sheet lists the risk groups as injection drug users, homosexual men, sexually active heterosexuals, infants/children of immigrants from disease-endemic areas, low socio-economic level, sexual/household contacts of infected persons, infants born to infected mothers, health care workers and hemodialysis patients NOT NEWBORN BABIES.

Question: Why then, did the ACIP establish a policy mandating that newborn babies not at risk of the disease be automatically administered the 3-shot Hepatitis B vaccine as their first involuntary indoctrination into the pediatric care of America?

Answer: Here is that rationale from the original ACIP 1991 statement establishing the official vaccination policy "Hepatitis B Virus: A Comprehensive Strategy for Eliminating Transmission in the United States Through Universal Childhood Vaccination ..." "In the United States, most infections occur among adults and adolescents ... The recommended strategy for preventing these infections has been the selective vaccination of persons with identified risk factors ... However, this strategy has not lowered the incidence of Hepatitis B, primarily because vaccinating persons engaged in high-risk behaviors, life-styles, or occupations before they become infected generally has not been feasible ... Efforts to vaccinate persons in the major risk groups have had limited success. For example, programs directed at injecting drug users failed to motivate them to receive three doses of vaccine ... In the United States it has become evident that HBV transmission cannot be prevented through vaccinating only the groups at high risk of infection ... In the long term, universal infant vaccination would eliminate the need for vaccinating adolescents and high-risk adults ... Hepatitis B vaccination is recommended for all infants, regardless of the HBsAg status of the mother ... The first dose can be administered during the newborn period, preferably before the infant is discharged from the hospital, but no later than when the infant is 2 months of age ..." (emphasis added).

So in the CDC and ACIP's own words, almost every newborn U.S. baby is now greeted on its entry into the world by a vaccine injection against a sexually transmitted disease for which the baby is not at risk -- because they couldn't get the junkies, prostitutes, homosexuals and promiscuous heterosexuals to take the vaccine. That is the essence of the Hepatitis B universal vaccination program.

Question: What are the risks and benefits for administering this vaccine to infants?

Answer: Hepatitis B is a rare, mainly blood-transmitted disease. In 1996, only 54 cases of the disease were reported to the CDC in the 0-1 age group. There were 3.9 million births that year, so the observed incidence of hepatitis B in the 0-1 age group was just 0.001%. In the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS), there were 1,080 total reports of adverse reactions from Hepatitis B vaccine in 1996 in the 0-1 age group, with 47 deaths reported. Total VAERS Hepatitis B reports for the 0-1 age group outnumber reported cases of the disease 20 to 1.

Question: Why don't they just screen the mother to see if she is infected with Hepatitis B (since that's about the only way a baby is likely to get the disease), instead of vaccinating all infants?

Answer: Selling vaccines is extremely profitable and the process of mandating vaccines is fraught with conflicts of interest between vaccine manufacturers, the ACIP and the American Academy of Pediatrics. The business model of having the government mandate everyone must buy your product is a monopolist's delight.

Question: What studies are being done on the data from the FDA's Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS)?

Answer: Absolutely nothing. The 25,000 reports are going into a drawer and being forgotten.

How many reports are enough to show a drug or vaccine is dangerous -- 2,500? 25,000? 250,000? Chen of the CDC and Ellenberg of the FDA monitor this data, write reports and deliver speeches about how VAERS Hepatitis B adverse reaction reports show nothing out of the ordinary and show "the relative safety of HB vaccine when given to neonates and infants." VAERS shows nothing of the kind. TAKE A LOOK AT THE VAERS DATA YOURSELF.

The health authorities continue to negligently downplay the steady stream of serious adverse reactions to this vaccine and more infants and adults continue to die and suffer central nervous system and liver damage after HB vaccination.

Question: Why do the CDC, ACIP and Merck say that there are 140,000-320,000 new infections/yr (70,000-160,000 symptomatic infections/yr) when their own CDC data shows only 10,000 reported cases year?

Answer: They are passing off estimated, hypothetical numbers as actual cases. This is statistical fraud. In the financial world such mis-representation would lead to criminal charges. If a company inflated its earnings or revenues by 300% (as the CDC does hepatitis B disease statistics) and foisted those figures off as official data (and not some back-of-the-envelope guess-timate) -- that company would be investigated by the SEC and sued by shareholders. Why doesn't that happen in the medical world? There's no regulator to keep the CDC honest. They do not say those figures are hypothetical estimates, they misrepresent the data. Go try to audit those 320,000 supposed new infections/yr. You will not find them. The whole exercise is designed to increase public hysteria about the risk of a low-risk disease so the CDC can extend it's pervasive influence and Merck can increase it's $900 million/year vaccine revenues.

Question: What process does the Center for Disease Control employ to make a vaccine recommendation?

I attended the February Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) meeting in Atlanta and was absolutely appalled. Every vote by the Committee on new vaccine mandates was unanimous (except for one dissenting vote on Rotavirus vaccine for premature infants). There was hardly any discussion of adverse reactions, the ACIP simply rubber-stamped every proposal on the agenda. I call it Vaccination Without Representation. In one instance, the ACIP passed a recommendation for Rotavirus vaccine for premature infants even though no scientific studies had been done showing it was medically safe. Dr. Modlin, (Chairman of the ACIP), said in a pro-Hepatitis B vaccine debate in New Hampshire "How do we determine whether something is scientifically valid or not? ... 1) Is the theory biologically plausible? 2) Has it been tested by appropriate methods? 3) Is the study well concluded? 4) Are the results statistically sound?" But at the February ACIP meeting, when it came time for the ACIP to rubber-stamp approval of Rotavirus vaccine for premature infants, here are Modlin's quotes from the official transcript: "... available data are insufficient to fully establish the safety and efficacy of rotavirus vaccine in premature infants ... there is a section under Adverse Events that details what little information there actually are with respect to premature infants ... To my knowledge we don't have data from a clinical trial specifically ... Some bit of information from Seattle, as I recall, that had suggested there was a slight increase in relative risk for hospitalization for premature infants ... Obviously a situation where we have to make a judgment in the absence of data, and with a vaccine that has not yet been tested in the group ..." (ACIP transcript, pages 102-112) Modlin then held a vote and the recommendation for premature infants passed nine to one -- Modlin voted yes, Dr. Glode against. This is a clear example of how the medical bureaucracy (led by the CDC and ACIP), is recommending vaccines without scientific evidence that those vaccines are safe in a broad sample of racially and genetically diverse infants.

What Should Be Done? This Committee should investigate the 1991 ACIP recommendation establishing universal hepatitis B vaccination of newborn babies in the hospital -- and if (as with the Rotavirus vaccine example above) no studies were done to prove this was safe in a broad sample of racially and genetically diverse babies less than 48 hours old before they established that recommendation, then the CDC has been experimenting on babies like guinea pigs and this Committee should suspend that universal immunization policy.
VAERS ANALYSIS (Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System)

I studied statistics at the University Of California at Berkeley and went on to develop sophisticated proprietary risk/reward statistical models at Salomon Brothers from 1986-91 -- and in my subsequent, ongoing business provide statistical economic and financial forecasts to mutual funds, investment banks, pension funds and hedge funds.

I studied VAERS Hepatitis B vaccine data obtained by the National Vaccine Information Center (NVIC) under the Freedom of Information Act. The data has some flaws (incomplete fields, some multiple reports) but any qualified, impartial quantitative analyst or statistician not affiliated with Merck, Smithkline, the CDC, the FDA or the AAP who examines these reports will find a clear and undeniable pattern of central nervous system (CNS) and liver disease striking thousands of people within 0-4 days after vaccination with Hepatitis B vaccine. These reports have been ignored, explained away, or considered "acceptable" by the FDA, CDC and drug companies. This Committee should launch an investigation of the VAERS Hepatitis B data by a team of independent scientists not beholden to vaccine manufacturers or the FDA/CDC bureaucracy. The following is intended to be a starting point for such an investigation. This does not profess to be a complete, exhaustive analysis -- simply an overview, highlighting aspects of the data that may not previously have been brought to your attention.

The total 24,775 VAERS Hepatitis B reports from July 1990 to October 31, 1998 show 439 deaths and 9673 serious reactions involving emergency room visits, hospitalization, disablement or death. Therefore, more than one third of total reports were serious events. 17,497 of those total reports were for Hepatitis B vaccine only, the remainder were vaccine cocktails where hepatitis B was administered along with DPT, HIB, IPV, OPV, etc.

The Hepatitis-B-vaccine-only reports show a shocking cluster of reactions in females starting in their teenage years (the male/female reporting ratio is balanced before age 16). For ages 16-55, 77% of VAERS reports are women -- more than three times as many women as men are reporting adverse reactions to Hepatitis B vaccine. The median onset of adverse event after vaccination is one day, 70% of reactions happen within four days of vaccination. Independent scientists should investigate why females are more disposed to have adverse reactions to Hepatitis B vaccine and/or report them to VAERS. One possible explanation is that nurses have to take this vaccine for their jobs and are thus more exposed than most adults to Hepatitis B vaccine adverse reactions. Rather than dismiss that factor as an "over-reporting bias" as Dr. Chen of the CDC did at the February ACIP meeting, perhaps investigators might consider that nurses are alert health care workers and ought to be listened to with regard to the dangers of adverse events with any vaccine (rather than ignored). Personal case studies reported to the author have showed many teenage girls getting severe, debilitating adverse reactions to Hepatitis B vaccine, having nothing to do with nursing. Do women have a greater vulnerability to auto-immune reactions to Hepatitis B vaccine? Is the government discriminating against women by administering this vaccine without regard for genetic risk of CNS and liver disease? Those are questions that independent scientists should investigate.

A second area of concern is the VAERS reports involving Hepatitis B vaccine administered with other vaccines (vaccine cocktails). Health officials are fond of dismissing those reports as being attributable to Hepatitis B vaccine, because of the multiple other antigens present (almost as if they wanted to cloak Hepatitis B vaccine reactions from scrutiny). Let's avoid that controversy and focus on the extremely disturbing VAERS data of Hepatitis B vaccine with other vaccines. These reports amount to only one third of total reports (7,275), but account for two thirds of total deaths (291). The median onset of those deaths was 2 days after vaccination -- displaying a clear temporal association. The median age of death was 0.5 years in this group. 50% of all Hepatitis-B-vaccine-cocktail reports were serious (died, emergency room, hospitalized, disabled). I grouped convulsive reactions together from the Hep-B-vaccine-cocktail data and found a deeply disturbing pattern. These were anything labeled convulsions, seizures or tremors in the VAERS Hep-B-cocktail data. Of the 1189 such reports, fully 80% (950) were serious (died, ER, hospitalized, disabled) median age 0.5 years, median onset after vaccination 0 days (less than one day). Someone should do follow-up and find out what happened to those poor infants who suffered severe convulsions after a Hepatitis B-multi-vaccine cocktail. In the personal reports I've taken of similar adverse reactions, the children were left brain-damaged and developmentally disabled. Looking beyond the debate over whether VAERS reports of vaccine cocktails can be attributed to Hepatitis B, the data strongly suggests combining multiple vaccines may be convenient and profitable for pediatricians -- but fatal or debilitating for infants. Where are the scientific studies showing Hepatitis B vaccine is safe to administer with DPT, HIB, IPV, OPV, etc.? Did anyone doing cost/benefit analysis for those studies include data showing the higher mortality and serious reactions present in the VAERS data? Why not? Is there an identifiable genetic marker in those who suffered convulsive reactions to screen out those vulnerable in the future? These are all matters for independent scientists to audit.

Another area that leaps out of the VAERS database is something I dubbed arthritic reactions. These are joint pains, tingling, numbness, aching, fatigue, etc. I found 2,400 of those reports in just a quick survey of the first reporting column of VAERS (Hepatitis B vaccine only). Almost one half of those are serious, involving an ER visit, hospitalization, death or disablement. These are the type of adverse reactions reported by many adults who are forced to take the Hepatitis B vaccine for their jobs. In the reports of such adverse reactions I've taken, the symptoms do not go away, most patients complain it gets worse over time. Scientists not corrupted by drug company or CDC/FDA institutional bias should examine the thousands of VAERS Hepatitis B arthritic reaction reports and develop a diagnosis of their Hepatitis B vaccine-related illness.

Anyone who doubts if Hepatitis B vaccine adverse reactions exist should sit down and read the symptoms and text comments of a random selection of VAERS reports. When one does so, they will find a similar but wide-ranging list of CNS and liver reactions that occur within days of vaccination. The Merck package insert claims "Injection site reactions and systemic complaints were reported following 17% and 15% on the injections, respectively." The standard rule of thumb is only about 10% of reactions are reported to VAERS. So the actual number and full horror of the Hepatitis B vaccine reaction story is potentially much larger than even VAERS suggests.

J.B. Handley is co-founder of Generation Rescue.

[willow5]

Thanks Limeslice worth the read.

[tenar]

Very sad that his baby died It's a tragedy when a baby dies, for whatever reason.

In Australia, as I understand it, no vaccinations used for infants contain thimerosal. So that is not a problem for us here.

Wikipedia says that of newborns who catch HepB (which is, it seems, not always bodily-fluid-borne, as some infections do not have any history of dangerous activities in that regard), only 5% of them clear the infections (as opposed to 95% of adults). Apparently 40% of those babies will die from cirrhosis or hepatocellular carcinoma. (check wikipedia's hep B article for citations etc on this)

So the question is: what is the greater risk: the risk of an adverse reaction to the vaccine, or the risks associated with not being protected from the disease.

One thing I'd like to know - maybe someone has found the information about this:

Answer: Hepatitis B is a rare, mainly blood-transmitted disease. In 1996, only 54 cases of the disease were reported to the CDC in the 0-1 age group. There were 3.9 million births that year, so the observed incidence of hepatitis B in the 0-1 age group was just 0.001%. In the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS), there were 1,080 total reports of adverse reactions from Hepatitis B vaccine in 1996 in the 0-1 age group, with 47 deaths reported. Total VAERS Hepatitis B reports for the 0-1 age group outnumber reported cases of the disease 20 to 1.

As I understand the article, this survey was done 5 years after the vaccination of newborns for this disease was started. So it's not surprising that there is a low rate of cases of the disease among children 0-1. If there was a high rate, the vaccine wouldn't be working. So what is the author's point about this? What he writes actually suggests that the vaccination program is working very well.

The statistic we need, that he doesn't state, is how many infections were reported in the years before the vaccine program started? The closest information to that I can find (from vaccineinformation.org) is that 16,000 children under 10 were infected yearly in the USA before the vaccine program started. I don't know how many of those were under 1, and the article doesn't state its references, so not sure where that data is coming from.

It really bugs me how on the one side, we know that adverse reactions may not be getting reported very well, and on the other side, the anti-vaccination information is littered with misinformation in the form of bad statistics that claim to support conclusions that they actually don't support (the quoted paragraph above is an example of this, there are many others). No wonder there is such confusion over this stuff!

[Lulu]

I think it's more about how unnecesary Hep B actually is. No other country has it on the list unless the parents are carriers. It's far more ominous to me that it is on the schedule AT ALL.

[kawazuki]

i respect this article but as a health professional, i see a few holes in it.
1 it is an american article and teh vaccine is not the same here as it is there.

it is also noted the time inbetween vaccines, which with some neeed to be within 4 days and it is better to go 4 days over than 4 days before as this vaccine will slowly build up in teh system, it is how it works, and if given to soon the body can overload to quickly and cause an adverse reaction.

it also doesnt state that in 90% of vacc a reaction will occur, these can be from redness at the area to severe anaphalaxys, but it si clumping these all into one group so giving miss leading numbers, as it should be seperated into the 3 sub groups which doctors look at the reactions. if this happened the severe reactions would only likely be 1% of teh total number of reactions and be very minimal.

so because we have a low incidince of an illness we should stop vaccinating??
this happened back in the early 80's and within 5 years we had a pertussis outbreak again so they started vaccinating against it.

i am very sorry that this little baby died, it is a horrible tragedy and im sorry that the coronor isnt giving all the information, that is heart breaking that these people havent got a definant answer as to why their little girl was taken from them.

i will come back later when i have more time and give some more medical based answers to the holes in this article

[Lulu]

Oh please do, can you find better reasons that infants should be given Hep B at birth, cos thats a BIG FAT HOLE right there.

[kawazuki]

i agree.

i dont understand the reasoning behind jabbing a baby with a needle within 7 days of them being born.

but i can see both sides of the need for teh immunisation, but dont understand the timing and schedule behind it. but will go through the medical/ pharmacutical reasons behind the schedule and timing in more detail and when i can reffer back to my text book so i get it right and dont giev the wrong information.

i do remember reading something about if the child is 5 and hasnt recieved the full dose, not to worry as they get the adult version at 15 anyway. but will confirm that later.

lik ei said before from my first read of teh article there are lots of holes, and some not even medical or vaccin related, but coronor and parent related. i feel that any medical intervention eg vacc should eb listed on teh report if it happened within 24 hours and especially with hep b as it can take 7-21 days to manifest into a reaction

[LimeSlice]

Originally Posted by tenar

In Australia, as I understand it, no vaccinations used for infants contain thimerosal. So that is not a problem for us here.

So the question is: what is the greater risk: the risk of an adverse reaction to the vaccine, or the risks associated with not being protected from the disease.

One thing I'd like to know - maybe someone has found the information about this:

As I understand the article, this survey was done 5 years after the vaccination of newborns for this disease was started. So it's not surprising that there is a low rate of cases of the disease among children 0-1. If there was a high rate, the vaccine wouldn't be working. So what is the author's point about this? What he writes actually suggests that the vaccination program is working very well.

The statistic we need, that he doesn't state, is how many infections were reported in the years before the vaccine program started? The closest information to that I can find (from vaccineinformation.org) is that 16,000 children under 10 were infected yearly in the USA before the vaccine program started. I don't know how many of those were under 1, and the article doesn't state its references, so not sure where that data is coming from.

It really bugs me how on the one side, we know that adverse reactions may not be getting reported very well, and on the other side, the anti-vaccination information is littered with misinformation in the form of bad statistics that claim to support conclusions that they actually don't support (the quoted paragraph above is an example of this, there are many others). No wonder there is such confusion over this stuff!

I think you have misunderstood...The answer to your question is actually in the paragraph you are quoting.

The reason he is quoting the statistics from AFTER the vax was introduced is to make a frame of reference to the statistics involving the ration of adverse reaction:HB infection.

The point he is making that having adverse reactions at a 20 times the number of infected child is an outrageous statistic!
The more telling fact though is this:
54 cases of HB in 0-1 age group vs 47 deaths from the VACCINE

So almost as many children DIED from the vaccine as actually suffered the illness it is supposed to prevent.



Within the frame of reference he is talking about (the suitablility and adequacy of the testing and safety of implementation among he newborn (0-1) populace, this is an astoundingly high risk.

The number of births in that year was 3,900,000 (3.9mil), 47 deaths from the vaccine - supposing all newborns had their MANDATORY vaccines, make it 0.0012% of those inoculations ending in death - the same as the rate of HB infection.
So as many children are DYING from the vaccine as are contracting the disease after vaccination

To me, that number is too high. Especially when considering the fact you yourself recognised that not all adverse reactions are reported, and taking into consideration many ME's reluctance to make reference to the Vaccine in death reports (as in this articular case), it makes me wonder how high that number really is.

WRT to thimerosal in Australia, all flu shots have it, as does the new Swin Flu vax, which they are pushing on pregnant women, the elderly and small children. So yes, it is a problem here too.
In fact, there is a law suit underway in the US at the moment to stop the use of the 3 new SF vaccines as they are untested and unsafe, and in fact broke FDC regulations to get on the market.


BTT, making reference to how many children 0-1 were infected with HB before vaccinations started, whilst there is no figure given this paragraph is highly indicative:

The Hepatitis B vaccine was effectively mandated in 1991 for universal immunization of newborn babies by the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) -- an adjunct of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). Paradoxically, the CDC's own Fact Sheet on the Hepatitis B disease does not include newborn babies as a risk group for that disease. That Fact Sheet lists the risk groups as injection drug users, homosexual men, sexually active heterosexuals, infants/children of immigrants from disease-endemic areas, low socio-economic level, sexual/household contacts of infected persons, infants born to infected mothers, health care workers and hemodialysis patients NOT NEWBORN BABIES.

The notion of handing out a vaccine to a newborn infant that does not meet your own standards of an "at risk" group is careless to say the least, especially when the effects of the additives of that injection are KNOWN to cause serious side affects, inluding death at the same rate of infection. (which effectively nullifies the process. One could give the vaccine to NBs of HB positive women, and babies exposed from BIRTH to a high risk group and infected persons with a better result in terms of infant death and reaction, if one was following the CDCs own guidelines - there is simply no NEED to give it to other NBs at all)


The basic premise of the article and more to the point his testimony, is that the vaccine is not safe ENOUGH to be given.
If you look at other countries that do NOT give out HB vaccine to all its NBs, you will not see a soaring childhood infection rate at all. You also wont see 1000+ babies suffering adverse reactions.


KAWAZUKI - there is evidence that suggests, and indeed infectious disease specialits agree, that there is a cyclical infection rate of Whooping Cough. That regardless off vaccinations there is a WC "outbreak" somewhere every 3-5 years.
If you look at countries such as Sweeden and Germany, places where routine WC vax was stopped in 1978 and 1982 respectively, WC infection rates are still declining, just as they were already doing before WC vax was developed. The rates of infection in those countries is no higher than it is here either.

[tenar]

Limeslice, I haven't explained this very well, have I. I'll try to explain it better.

Let's assume that the figures quoted in the article are correct, that is that about 54 cases of the disease occurred in 0-1 age group, and that there were 47 deaths caused by the vaccine in the same year. Now, that is 47 deaths too many, obviously. But that is not the point at all. The most important figure in that paragraph is that the disease rate is so incredibly low.

I found elsewhere that there were 16000 infections yearly of Hep B in children under 10, in the US, in the years leading up to the vaccination program. Let us be conservative, and assume that only 10% of those were of children 0-1. Actually, the figure is probably far higher than 10%, because it seems probable that many of the infections of young infants are via their mothers, so acquired at or soon after birth. It also seems probable that since the older one is the more likely one is to be able to fight off a Hep B infection, that also would make the rate of infections in 0-1 year olds disproportionately high. But let's ignore those factors and assume that it's just evenly spread over each age in the 0-10 category.

So that would be 1600 infections in the age group 0-1, before the vaccination campaign. Of those, we know that 95% of them will not clear the infection themselves, and will go on to develop ongoing hepatitis (not sure what the terminology for that is). That's 1520 people. Of those, 40% will die of cirrhosis or hepatocellular carcinoma (whatever that is). So that's 608 deaths from each year's infections, pre-vaccination.

Now that the vaccination is done, the US is seeing around 47 deaths, plus 54 cases of Hep in infants. From those 54 cases you'd get, on average, 54*0.95*0.4 = 20.5 deaths, so a total of 68 deaths (rounding up).

So the vaccination campaign actually has reduced those deaths from Hep B by about 90%. Even though it's not a perfect vaccination, and has too-high a death rate. That means that each baby vaccinated has 1/10th of the risk that it once did of death due to Hep B.

That's an excellent result. Even though it can clearly be improved, and I'm sure that they are working on that.

This is my point exactly, that much of the anti-vaccination literature uses statistics badly. I don't think I've read an anti-vaccination article yet that didn't bug me (and I've read a lot of them, actually, because I'm interested) because somewhere in it was at least one (often many) statement that actually meant the opposite of what it was suggested to mean. There is also good, useful information in the literature, but a lot of it is fear-mongering based on meaningless statistics, and that annoys me because it means that loving parents are making choices based on wrong information.

I can spot this stuff because I have a background in mathematics. Many people would not understand it at all - it is often pretty obscure. I need to learn to be better at explaining it, though Doing my best to make it clearer here.

Hope that helps.