|
|
5. What are the
chances that my child may be hurt or killed by a vaccine?
No one knows.
Although we are repeatedly told by medical and government authorities that
"the benefits of vaccines outweigh the risks," and vaccine
damage is "minimal" or "infinitesimal," these
statements are based on faith rather than science.
The reason is that pediatricians, GPs, nurses and others who give the
shots rarely report vaccine damage, even though they are required to by
law. According to the Food and Drug Administration (FDA), only one case of
vaccine damage in 10 (10%) is ever reported to a higher authority.
However, according to Connaught Laboratories only one case in 50 (2%) is
reported (James Froeschle, Connaught Laboratories. Adverse Events
Associated with Childhood Vaccines. Evidence Bearing on causality.
Institute of Medicine. May 11, 1992, Washington, DC, Appendix B.)
The
National Vaccine Information Center (NVIC) did its own study and found
similar underreporting. Why? Among the reasons given are fear of
malpractice, lack of training to recognize vaccine damage and outright
denial that vaccine damage occurs. Medical and health professionals risk
professional censure, loss of funding, and their own advancement in
health departments, research centers, etc. if they openly question
vaccines. Most doctors who question vaccination keep quiet.
"For
a pediatrician to attack what has become the `bread and butter' of
pediatric
practice is
equivalent to a priest's denying the infallibility of the Pope."
Robert S.
Mendelsohn, M.D., The Medical Time Bomb Of Immunization Against Disease.
East West Journal, November 1984
Government bureaucrats are also guilty of spreading incorrect, misleading
or outright fraudulent vaccine information. For example, when a measles
vaccine/autism connection was discovered by a researcher, the Center for
Disease Control (CDC) put out this misinformation http://www.cdc.gov/nip/vacsafe/concems/autism/
autism-mmr.htm
Question 6: "I
heard that measles virus was found in specimens from intestines of
children with autism. Have these data been reviewed by other
scientists?"
CDC Answer:
"The recently released finding has not yet been published in a
scientific journal. This means that it has not been reviewed by other
medical experts, before and after publication to assure the methods of
the study are sound. No other laboratories have had similar
findings."
The truth of the matter is quite different from the CDC position. The work
of Professor John O'Leary who discovered measles virus in the intestines
of autistic children was reviewed by the Royal College of Pathologists in
December 1999 and was found to be sound. O'Leary's work was confirmed by
another laboratory (see answer to question 8 below).
Another question was answered by the CDC in a manner showing the reflexive
denial that is so often seen among government functionaries:
Question to the CDC:
"What if measles virus is shown to be associated with autism?
Would that mean we should stop vaccinating against measles?"
CDC answer: "If
measles virus is shown to be associated with autism, it would be most
likely that the wild measles virus would be a greater cause of autism
than vaccine virus."
In its unending effort to deny any relationship between vaccination and
autism the CDC carefully omits contradictory information. In fact, a
Japanese research team not only found measles virus in the intestines of
children with autism but isolated it to the vaccine strain. (Detection and
Sequencing of Measles Virus from Peripheral Mononuclear Cells
From
Patients with Inflammatory Bowel Disease, Digestive
Diseases and Sciences, April
2000.)
The medical juggernaut
often fires back with papers of their own that "prove"
vaccination is safe. Such was a sloppily written paper by Dr. Brent Taylor
that supposedly "proved" that there was no relationship between
the MMR shot and autism. This paper has been severely criticized by The
Royal Statistical Society as being of inferior quality with confusing
statistics. In spite of that it is often cited by US and UK government
officials to show that the MMR vaccine does not cause autism. (Taylor B.,
Miller E., Farrington CP., Petropoulos M-C., Favot Mayaud I., Li J.,
Waight PA. Autism and measles, mumps and rubella vaccine: no
epidemiological evidence for a causal association. Lancet. Vol 353,
June 12 1999, pp. 2026-2029)
An example
of the medical profession's unwillingness ever to admit fault is seen
in the history of bloodletting. Phlebotomy was phased out slowly in
the end of the 19th century and beginning of the 20th century, but it
was never stated to have been an error; indeed, the medical profession
held, in the late 19th century, that the "nature of
diseases" had changed from earlier times, that bloodletting was
justified then, but was no longer needed in the new circumstance. Harris
Coulter Ph.D. Medical Historian. Personal correspondence to author.
It has been noticed that, in general, European countries tend to be more
open than the US when it comes to acknowledging vaccine damage. For
example, The Parisian 25 May 2000 stated: "The public
authorities come for the first time to officially recognize the link
between the vaccine and ...multiple sclerosis."
Currently in the UK there is a class action lawsuit against the government
with over 2,000 families claming that their child was damaged by the MMR
vaccine.
However, even with all the denial and underreporting of vaccine injury,
since 1990 the National Childhood Vaccine Injury Compensation Program has
paid out over 1 billion dollars in damages to families for injuries and
deaths following a vaccine reaction (National Vaccine Injury Compensation
Program, "Monthly Statistics Report" http://www.hrsa.dhhs.gov/bhpr/vicp/monthly.htm
and http://www.hrsa.dhhs.gov/bhpr/vicp/
.
Every year the Food and Drug Administration receives 12,000-14,000 reports
sent to the Vaccine Adverse Events Reporting System (VAERS) of
hospitalizations, injuries and deaths following vaccination (The Vaccine
Adverse Events Reporting System, [VAERS] http://www.vaers.org)
. As mentioned previously, this figure may only be 1-10% of the true
number (Journal of the American Medical Association, June 2, 1993,
Vol 269, No 21, pp. 27652768).
|
|