I'd like to acknowledge a few books that opened my eyes to this controversial but fascinating field of research.
The first is The Virus and the Vaccine, a fascinating true story of the contamination of the polio vaccine with a cancer-causing monkey virus.
The second is Dr. Mary's Monkey. Although I didn't use this book as a source, it's a thrilling story in its own right, and weaves together the JFK assassination, the contaminated polio vaccine scandal, and a secret project to develop a bio-weapon to kill Fidel Castro.
Lastly I owe much of this research to the indispensable Vaccine Safety Manual for Concerned Families and Health Practitioners. The thousands of references provided have proved to be a veritable gold mine.
Risks, Reactions and Revenue
Adverse reactions to vaccines are unacceptably common. Even the FDA admits that FluMist (the live-virus nasal spray vaccine) can cause pneumonia and “medically significant wheezing.” Neil Miller reports that “during pre-licensure clinical studies 3% of all children six months to one year of age who received the vaccine ended up in the hospital with respiratory problems!”
Vaccine injuries can often be “disguised” by labeling the conditions as learning disabilities, hyperactivity, mental retardation, attention deficit, etc. Many parents are completely unaware at how common these adverse reactions can be, let alone that they can occur at all. According to a study published by Pediatrics, when parents were specifically asked to observe changes in their baby's behavior after a shot, only 7% reported no reactions at all.
Because of the public's general ignorance of the various types of possible damage that can result from vaccines, the true number of vaccine injuries may be vastly underreported.
According to this study:
However, the FDA estimates that 90% of doctors don't even report reactions. Continuing from the study on VAERS:
According to Neil Miller, one of the authors of the aforementioned study, the federal government is aware of the unnecessarily high danger of many vaccines.
Interesting that Croatia would be so low on that list as well, as their policy towards vaccinating infants was made very clear by recent legislation forcing all parents to vaccinate, a disturbing decision that was even more disturbingly lauded by those who think the vaccine debate is only about “autism.”
However, Miller is quite clear that vaccination does prevent disease...the tragedy is that greed and conspiracy have created a system that is becoming increasingly difficult to trust.
It wasn't until after the vaccine was licensed that the CDC began warning parents about the dangers of chickenpox. Many doctors soon stopped encouraging parents to expose their children and instead receive the shot. The “solution”—a vaccine—preceded the apparent danger.
Vaccine efficacy can be specious.
The HPV vaccine was marketed deceptively as well when first introduced, being promoted as “100%” effective. However, the vaccine is only “100%” effective against two of numerous strains of HPV, not cervical cancer itself.
According to the report HPV Vaccination – More Answers, More Questions: “cautious approach may be warranted in light of important unanswered questions about overall vaccine effectiveness, duration of protection, and adverse effects that may emerge over time.”
In this 2007 report commissioned by the NEJM, two studies were considered on the vaccine's effectiveness on cervical cancer. The report asked: “In these trials, called Females United to Unilaterally Reduce Endo/Ectocervical Disease (FUTURE) I and II, what is the efficacy of vaccination among all subjects, regardless of causal HPV types?”
The results were not promising, as it was determined that in FUTURE I that the vaccine had an efficacy of only 20%, and this was only against low-risk lesions: “no efficacy was demonstrable for higher-grade disease, but the trial may have lacked adequate power to detect a difference.”
However, the larger FUTURE II had more conclusive, and even less favorable, results, as the vaccine was only 17% effective, and again had no impact on preventing high-risk lesions. The report mentions the obvious shortcomings of the vaccine:
This concept of “strain replacement” is not limited to the HPV vaccine, and is an extremely important aspect of the vaccine debate that deserves more attention. Miller continues:
Researchers don't consider this a failing of the Hib vaccine, rather “it raises the question whether a [new] vaccine will need to be developed.”
Prevnar, the pneumococcal vaccine, is only designed to protect against a few of the 90 different strains that can cause the disease. The vaccine is therefore still considered “effective” if the child is stricken with pneumococcus...just not from one of the strains included in the vaccine.
The Journal of the American Medical Association and the Pediatric Infectious Disease Journal have both published data demonstrating that non-vaccine strains of pneumococcus are replacing the strains targeting by the vaccine. What's even more concerning is the new strains are more dangerous and drug-resistant. According to the study Pediatric Invasive Pneumococcal Disease in the United States in the Era of Pneumococcal Conjugate Vaccines:
Another concern is when vaccines are given to one group with the hope of protecting another group. Miller explains:
Some studies show that hepatitis B vaccine recipients lose protective antibodies after 5 to 10 years. The vaccine that babies receive shortly after birth at the hospital will not be effective a few years later. “By 5 to 15 years after vaccination, some individuals have antibody levels below the protective threshold—and in some cases even undetectable.”
Another example of the strange logic employed by the media and many vaccine enthusiasts is the hysteria surrounding blaming those who are unvaccinated when there are outbreaks of disease.
Miller continues by stressing that even members of the U.S. government are aware that the current vaccine program has many shortcomings, as well as the uncomfortable fact that some members of the FDA and CDC have extremely suspect financial interests.
For example, in 2000, a congressional hearing before the Committee on Government Reform was held called Conflicts of Interest in Vaccine Policy Making. The tone of the hearing was set in the opening statements, when it was announced that they needed to determine if “the entire process of licensing and recommending vaccines” has been polluted and the public trust has been violated.
Recent revelations about questionable tactics to approve the first rotavirus vaccine prompted the hearing. It was suspected that members of the FDA and CDC knew about the dangers of the rotavirus vaccine before approving it and recommending it for every child in the country.
Dr. Kathryn Edwards, a physician on the FDA's committees that voted to recommend the vaccine, received $255,000 a year from Wyeth-Lederle, the making of the vaccine. This fact was also cited in the 2000 congressional hearing.
Dr. Paul Offit, who was on the CDC's committee that recommended the vaccine, also held a lucrative patent on another rotavirus vaccine under development. “In addition, [Offit] was paid by the drug industry to travel around the country and teach doctors that vaccines are safe.”
Indeed, even within the last few months, Offit has made appearances on numerous talk shows, both TV and radio, bemoaning those who dare to question vaccines. The vast majority of the time he specifically mentions only “autism” and how ignorant the “anti-vaxxers” are for being afraid of “autism.” Instead of educating, he is continuing to restrict the conversation by completely omitting all of the concerns outlined so far, among many others.
One of the more striking things revealed by this hearing was with regards to the FDA and CDC advisory committees that voted to recommend adding the rotavirus vaccine to the childhood vaccination schedule. A whopping 60% of the FDA advisory committee and 50% of the CDC committee had financial ties either to the drug company that produced the vaccine or to Merck and SmithKline Beecham, two other companies developing potentially lucrative rotavirus vaccines.
During the hearing, Congressman Dan Burton had this to say:
One would think, in the face of waning public confidence in the entirety of the vaccine program, that the FDA and CDC would take the opportunity to agree with such a rational request and restore the confidence of Congress and the public. Sadly, the response was quite the opposite.
On August 24th, 2000, Reuters Medical News published an article called “Congressional report slams FDA, CDC policies on disclosing financial conflicts.” The article describes how Linda Suydam, the senior associate commissioner at the FDA, stated quite unequivocally that “Both the law and policies allow us to use people who have financial ties.” Both the CDC and the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) were also unwilling to make any of the recommended changes.
The rotavirus vaccine saga continued when a 2006 study was used by the FDA and CDC as a basis for licensing and recommending a new vaccine called RotaTeq. Neil Miller explains the obvious conflict of interest:
The vaccine market is shifting towards adolescents and adults as well. According to a June 17th, 2007 article published by Genetic Engineering and Biotech News, “at present, pediatric vaccines occupy a higher market share, but this trend will shift towards the adult vaccine segment.”
Naturally, the US is the largest market for vaccines because they are “more profitable than generic pharmaceutical drugs.”