- They finally did it. After years of lobbying and angling,
GlaxoSmithKline finally got their new vaccine for Hepatitis A tacked onto
the mandated schedule as of Jan 2002, with no public fanfare. (www.aap.org)
The vaccine is called Havrix, and is delineated on p.1544 of the 2002 Physicians
Desk Reference, which incidentally was printed much earlier last year.
Merck also has a hepatitis A vaccine - Vaqta.
-
- The CDC's mandated schedule is the brass ring that all
vaccine manufacturers are going for - approval of a vaccine can mean annual
revenues of $1 billion or more, which is about what Merck pulls in for
their current Hepatitis B vaccine.
-
- Hepatitis A vaccine appears in a brand new category on
the mandated schedule called the 'high risk' category. The significance
of this new category will soon become apparent. But before we get into
that, let's take a look at Hepatitis A the disease and assess the necessity
for a mandated vaccine.
-
- WHAT IS HEPATITIS A?
-
- As every doctor knows, Hepatitis A is an acute viral
disease of the liver. Hepatitis A virus (HAV) has supposedly been isolated:
"a 27-nm RNA picornavirus (enterovirus) with only one serotype..."
- American Academy of Pediatrics, Dec 1996
-
- The infectious agent is passed from human to human either
through
-
- * the oral - fecal route, waterborne, often from raw
shellfish or dirty water * blood and body secretions
-
- Hepatitis A is a mild, self-limiting disease, resolving
on its own with no treatment in 4-8 weeks. Most infections are subclinical,
meaning that most people who get the disease never even know it because
they never manifest symptoms. (Merck Manual, p 377) The journal Pediatrics
agrees:
-
- "Most HAV infections in young children are asymptomatic...
Clinical hepatitis occurs in fewer than 10% of infected children."
-
- This disease is so mild that 90% of kids who get hepatitis
A never even know it. Even the National Institutes of Health states that:
-
- "Most people who have Hepatitis A get well on their
own after a few weeks." - NIH Manual: What I Need To Know About Hepatitis
A
-
- Most cases of hepatitis A are found in Third World areas,
outside the US. The question pops up: then why are we the only country
in the world who recommends the vaccine on a mass scale?
-
- That billion dollars hanging in the balance wouldn't
be in the equation, now would it?
-
- Diagnosis of hepatitis A is supposedly by IgM antibody.
But more often, diagnosis is by symptoms alone.
-
- SYMPTOMS OF HEPATITIS A
-
- According to Merck Manual, the chief symptoms of hepatitis
A are
-
- * loss of appetite * NVD * hives * joint pain * dark
urine - p 382
-
- Hardly life-threatening situations. Jaundice may also
occur, but it usually indicates the beginning of recovery. By the time
these symptoms appear, the disease is no longer infectious.
-
- Unlike hepatitis B, Type A hepatitis disappears completely
after acute infection, and does not contribute to chronic liver disease
or to cirrhosis. It is important to note that after the patient recovers,
he has lifetime immunity. True immunity.
-
- Hepatitis A is a disease of poor personal hygiene, bad
sanitation, poverty, overcrowding - Third World scenario. Even well-groomed,
well-fed junkies are not high risk for Hepatitis A. They're more apt to
get Type B. Medline indicates the lack of sewers in Third World locales
as the biggest contributor to Hepatitis A. Again from the journal Pediatrics
we find that: "The major method for prevention of HAV infections is
improved sanitation and personal hygiene" Bottom line here: Hepatitis
A is not common in most of the United States.
-
- OTHER CAUSES
-
- It's shocking to discover that hepatitis can be caused
by both hepatitis B and hepatitis C vaccines! This fact is found in a disclaimer
that GlaxoSmithKlein makes about Havrix, that it can't cure the hepatitis
caused by these other 2 vaccines. So can we infer from this that Havrix
itself also causes hepatitis? We don't need to infer it. The manufacturer
states it on p 1545 of the 2002 PDR: a possible side effect of Havrix is
hepatitis!
-
- Another source of hepatitis A for children is nososcomial
infection. That means infants in hospital intensive care units pick it
up there. We never hear about it because the new literature is leaving
it out.
-
- (AAP Policy Statement, 1996)
-
- SO THEN WHAT'S THE VACCINE FOR?
-
- The question arises - did we really need another vaccine
beyond the 40 already mandated for schoolkids, and specifically did we
need a vaccine for a rare disease that resolves by itself in a few weeks?
-
- To answer the first, we must ask were there any studies
done which prove that the new vaccine is safe when Havrix is added to the
other 40 mandated vaccines? No, there are none. This concept of the cumulative
viral load is discussed at length in the 2002 edition of The Sanctity of
Human Blood.
-
- Secondly, to substantiate the necessity for any vaccine,
we must look at two criteria: Incidence of disease severity HOW MANY CASES
REALLY ARE THERE?
-
- This is tricky - research roulette. In the 2002 Physicians
Desk Reference, the manufacturer of Havrix cites 13-year old studies which
supposedly show the incidence of hepatitis A and state that the case death
rate is six-tenths of one per cent. (p 1545) This is claiming that about
six out of a thousand who get hepatitis A die from hepatitis A. It seems
like a rather high death rate until one realizes that these are not US
figures, but global figures, meaning that they were taken primarily from
Third World countries because that's where the majority of hepatitis A
is found! So that means that these patients are trying to recover from
a disease of poverty, filth, and malnutrition in an environment of poverty,
filth, and malnutrition. Hardly applies in the rare instance of a patient
in most of America. But these are the studies and figures that the vaccine
manufacturer has used to convince the FDA that Hepatitis A is such a serious
disease in the US that a vaccine is necessary.
-
- Numbers, numbers, numbers. Different sources, different
stats. From the American Academy of Pediatricians website we see only half
the death rate reported by the PDR:
-
- "Mortality is rare, especially in children. The
case-fatality rate has been estimated as 3 per 1000 clinical cases in the
United States.." - http://www.aap.org/policy/01207.html
-
- Looking at the true incidence of the Hepatitis A in the
US is an academic artifice, a daunting challenge indeed. A standard government
reference for epidemiology is Statistical Abstracts. On p 137 of the most
recent edition (2000), we find that the overall incidence of Hepatitis
A has been declining for the past 2 decades:
-
- 1980 --- 29.1 cases per 100,000 1998 --- 23.2 cases per
100,000
-
- This decline is good news, and of course has nothing
to do with the vaccine. The vaccine just came out.
-
- But the figures still seem a little high, don't they?
On closer inspection, getting out the magnifying glass and reading the
microprint footnote on that same page, we read:
-
- "Includes cases imported from outside the United
States"
-
- Huh? 'Cases imported from outside the United States'?
We're not talking Pinot Noir here. No one doubts that the vast majority
of hepatitis A cases are foreign. It's a disease of poverty, filth, and
malnutrition.
-
- Unfortunately, in a disease which only manifests symptoms
less than 10% of the time, and with the immense amount of immigration and
international travel going on, there is simply no way to separate foreign
from domestic origin.
-
- To further illustrate the low credibility of government
figures for hepatitis A cases, we need only look at a CDC report which
claimed more than 10 times higher incidence: 30,000 cases, which is about
300 cases per 100,000. (Hepatitis Surveillance Report No. 55)
-
- That's a little different from 23 cases per 100,000.
So which study is right?
-
- Who knows? Results depend on who funded it, who wrote
it, and who was responsible for verification.
-
- The truth is no one can really say with authority how
many cases of hepatitis A occur in the US annually.
-
- THE REAL NUMBER OF DEATHS
-
- In an earlier part of that same reference - Statistical
Abstracts, p 90 - we find that the total number of annual US deaths from
all 3 types of viral hepatitis put together (Types A, B, and C) in 1998
was only 4700.
-
- Remember this 4700 also includes complications of autoimmune
diseases, terminal infectious diseases, and other serious illnesses, most
in communities of poverty and malnutrition, alcoholics, drug addicts -
individuals of this nature. This lowest common denominator of life supposedly
represents the necessity of a vaccine for all.
-
- Looking at the PDR's global figures above - a mortality
of 6 out of 100,000 - we see the usual attempt by the vaccine manufacturers
to grab the credit for saving us from an already declining disease. As
we learned from the Michael Alderson figures cited in The Sanctity of Human
Blood (p 45), virtually every infectious disease of the past century had
almost disappeared by the time vaccines came on the market.
-
- This is the perfect time to make the same claim for Hepatitis
A, before it disappears completely on its own. Masterful PR in action,
a la The Doors of Perception - www.thedoctorwithin.com
-
- We may be sure that future studies on US hepatitis A
incidence will show vast decreases, for which the vaccine will doubtless
be given credit. Just remember the virtual impossibility of determining
incidence at this time, when the vaccine is being introduced.
-
- Stats game aside, almost all sources agree that children
are not the group dying from hepatitis A: "hepatitis with mortality
occurs mostly in people with underlying conditions, such as chronic liver
disease, and in older age groups" - http://www.aap.org/policy/01207.html
-
- THE VACCINE ITSELF
-
- This is fun. Hepatitis A vaccine is made from infected
human connective tissue cells. Not kidding. Not from just one guy, but
rather each batch of vaccine is made from an infected mass of cells which
had 1000 donors. (Pediatrics) Imagine that party. They are infected with
hepatitis A virus, the causative vector presumed to be present in every
case of hepatitis A disease.
-
- The agents are filtered, and attenuated with aluminum,
formaldehyde, and phenoxyethanol - a synonym for ethylene glycol - a component
in antifreeze. Someday we're gonna pay for this.......
-
- ALUMINUM AND FORMALDEHYDE
-
- Just for the sake of argument, let's make the colossally
irresponsible concession that the attenuated viral agent in this vaccine
is necessary to stave off the "epidemic" of Hepatitis A about
to sweep through our children's bloodstreams. All right, we'll concede
that unlikely situation. So do the science wizards then want to explain
the additional presence of one of the most potent of all human neurotoxins
and also of a well known carcinogen in this supposed life-saving elixir?
Of course I am now referring to the aluminum and formaldehyde which GlaxoSmithKline
thought so vital to the composition of Havrix. (PDR, p 1544) As Drs. Russell
Blaylock and Theo Colburn have well explained, it is not just the connection
with Alzheimer's that makes aluminum such a danger to human physiology.
It's that aluminum can interfere with the formation, development and survival
of virtually any human nerve tissue in an unpredictable fashion, beyond
any timetables yet devised. (Excitotoxins, Our Stolen Future) We simply
don't know.
-
- As for formaldehyde, let's just ask how much danger of
cancer is an acceptable risk in the pure, perfect blood of a newborn? Cancer
occurs first in just one cell. So where are the studies that prove that
this "trace" of formalin or antifreeze will not be sufficient
to cause that first cell mutation that develops into cancer? Where are
they?
-
- As long as we're talking about scientific probability
here, let's take the discussion one step further. This single causative
viral agent that has been identified for hepatitis A is a presumption.
Remember - diagnosis is often by symptoms and by the presence of IgM in
the blood. Viral infections are not cultured for diagnosis - it's largely
theoretical. So then doesn't the isolation, concentration, and dissemination
of an infectious viral agent seem at least a little presumptuous if not
enormously reckless, especially when we're talking about the unformed immune
systems of the newborn infant population?
-
- That seems like a reasonable question, doesn't it?
-
- MASS DISSEMINATION OF AN UNPROVEN AGENT
-
- Here's the key point -- is it really necessary to introduce
an attenuated infectious vector into our entire population of children
in order to theoretically prevent a disease which is extremely rare in
the vast majority of US communities, and getting rarer? And is self limiting,
does not contribute to chronic liver disease, and confers lifetime immunity
to the ones who get it? What are we doing?
-
- Even the manufacturer does not claim that the vaccine
confers immunity, but only delay of the disease. Thus the need for boosters.
Get the idea - if the vaccine worked, we wouldn't need boosters after 6
months or a year. Following this shaky logic, if the immunity only lasts
a year, the child should get boosters every year for the rest of his life.
Now, the booster shot and the first vaccination shot are identical. So
why does the first shot supposedly last for a year but the last one is
going to be effective for the rest of the patient's life?? Anybody ever
think of that??
-
- The other big issue is that the Hepatitis A virus is
supposedly a specific agent that has been photographed, sequenced, and
catalogued, and occurs the same in every case of the disease. Classical
diagnosis is by symptoms and the presence of the antibody, remember? IgM.
But acute viral liver infections can be of a variety of completely different
agents and disease scenarios. To pretend that they can all be cured by
the dissemination of one single type of attenuated viral agent is disingenuous
at best and scientifically ludicrous, even criminal, at worst. Mass inoculation
must be absolutely proven to be necessary, beneficial and free from side
effects, or else it shouldn't even be considered. Havrix meets none of
these criteria.
-
- THE NEW HIGH RISK CATEGORY
-
- The most disconcerting - make that horrifying - aspect
of the new Mandated Vaccine Schedule that has just sneaked up on us will
prove to be the creation of this new High Risk category, in my opinion.
As we would expect, this ingenious addition was tacked onto the program
with no fanfare, no general public attention. Suddenly the most vaccinated
children in the history of the world are still not getting sufficient injections,
even at 40 vaccines now mandated. So for further protection, the CDC has
now created the new High Risk category which they'll christen with just
2 vaccines: Hepatitis A and influenza.
-
- Now folks, these extra shots aren't really part of the
mandated schedule, but are intended for the child who needs that extra
protection because he is what we doctors call 'high risk.' Which according
to the American Pediatrics Association means any child who seems to have
a tendency to get colds, asthma, allergies, the flu, or is generally sick.
-
- What percentage of kids does that include? Like, all
of them?
-
- Step right up. It's such a slick set-up. The script will
go something like, well, little Johnny and little Suzie just got their
regular shots, so they should be fine. By the way, Mrs. Jones, do these
children have a tendency to get allergies, colds, or the flu? Oh, they
do? Well, then the newest recommendations, just to be on the safe side,
are that for extra protection for Johnny and Suzie we should add just two
more shots today, while they're here. And that's the new Hepatitis A shot
and the flu shot. Yes, and then they should be good for a year. Yes, all
the other kids are getting the 2 extra shots. You can't be too careful
these days, you know.
-
- Who's going to argue with a rap like that? Only the most
informed.
-
- SET-UP FOR FUTURE VACCINES
-
- The most insidious consequence of the new High Risk category,
however, is the door that it opens up for future vaccines. With all the
hysteria surrounding bioterrorism and anthrax, we've certainly been inundated
with beaucoup worries about coming vaccines:
-
- anthrax AIDS smallpox and a whole string of others waiting
in the wings. That's where Hepatitis A vaccine was last year. Don't miss
the implication here: the High Risk Category is now providing the infrastructure
for any new vaccine that has to be rushed to the population in a hurry
because of supposed bioterrorist threats. This is the set-up for the administration
of the edicts which may come down if the draconian Health Emergency Powers
Act should ever pass through Congress.
-
- (www.mercola.com/2001/dec/26/mehpa.htm)
-
- As you may have read, by this Act the governor of any
state would be given absolute, dictatorial powers to proclaim virtually
any situation a terrorist emergency, and to summarily decree that all or
any part of the population must submit to whatever health measures are
deemed necessary, including experimental vaccines. Those who refuse may
be quarantined, prosecuted, imprisoned, or forced to submit, and property
may be burned or confiscated.
-
- Why not toss in the guillotine?
-
- It seems unlikely that legislation this extreme would
ever pass through Congress. But just the fact that it is being considered
at all should make us ask ourselves - who is behind these totalitarian
proposals and at what point we might actually want to become involved in
state politics... Given these two options, Nazis-R-Us or Terrorists Might
Pop Up Here and There, give me the threat of terrorism any day of the week.
We've seen how well the government can protect us from anything. The answer
is obviously not to give them another bigger chance, in this writer's opinion.
-
- THE ILLUSION OF HIGH RISK
-
- The big trouble with the High Risk Category is that it
doesn't target high risk groups - it hoses down everybody. In a semantic
bait-and switch, typical of organized medicine, they will call the category
High Risk, and then proceed to hustle every possible individual into it
by the absurdly overbroad and indiscriminate criteria of anyone with a
tendency towards
-
- allergies colds the flu
-
- Very selective. There are true high risk groups for hepatitis
A, including those living in overcrowded, unhygienic surroundings, improper
diet, and certain racial selections as well. But here's where politics
controls science - imagine the furor that would emerge if the vaccine were
mandated according to living environment and race. That would be interesting
- trying to convince those groups that the vaccine was for their own good.
But if the CDC recommends it for almost everybody, hey then everybody's
equal - the American way, right? And no one whines.
-
- PROPAGANDA VS. INFORMATION
-
- With uncharacteristic foresight, in 2000 the National
Institutes of Health published a booklet whose goal was to prepare the
public for the addition of Hepatitis A vaccine to the 2002 Schedule. As
a study in language alone, the book is a frightening representation of
the NIH's presumptions about the public's intelligence, which are probably
accurate. Written in Basic Retard, What I Need To Know About Hepatitis
A spoonfeeds the ninth grade mentality some idiotically simplistic propaganda,
dumbing them down in the most patronizing and condescending manner. Some
excerpts:
-
- "A vaccine is a drug that you take when you are
healthy that keeps you from getting sick." Really? First of all vaccines
aren't drugs, nor do people "take" them. As for keeping people
from getting sick, perhaps we should ask the hundreds of VAERS parents
whose children have suffered fatal injury or permanent damage from vaccines
about how well vaccines kept their child from getting sick. This is classic
Edward L Bernays (Propaganda, 1928)
-
- Or this gem:
-
- "Vaccines teach your body to attack certain viruses,
like the hepatitis A virus."
-
- This myth has survived intact since Jenner first propounded
it in 1799. If it were true we would not have the ridiculous situation
where the only cases of diseases for the last 35 years have occurred in
the vaccinated population, as with smallpox and polio. (Salk, Sabin)
-
- Here's another excerpt from the same NIH booklet:
-
- "Children can get the vaccine after they turn 2.
Children age 2-18 will need 3 shots. The shots are spread out over a year....
Adults get 2 shots over 6 -12 months. ... You need all of the shots to
be protected." Yes, 2 years is the recommended age for the vaccine.
And where are the studies showing the absolute safety of injecting aluminum
and formaldehyde into the unformed neurophysiology of a 2 year old?
-
- Where?
-
- CALL IT IN THE AIR
-
- What is shocking about these statements is the cavalier,
arbitrary fashion in which dosages are recommended. I mean, reading it
like this, it seems so scientific, doesn't it, and you assume that an enormous
amount of scientific study is behind this very sober recommendation for
"3 shots over a one year period." So why is it that in the PDR,
the manufacturer has a totally different dosage recommendation and the
AAP still another?? (Policy Statement)
-
- On p 1545 of the new PDR, the manufacturer of Havrix
states that the child may get an initial dose, and then get one booster
6-12 months later.
-
- What is this - Spin the Bottle?
-
- Yes, actually it is. That's exactly what it is. These
dose recommendations are just guesswork - not the result of clinical trials.
A year from now they may change completely, as we just saw with other vaccines
on the new schedule. That's why different sources recommend different dosages.
-
- Nothing is more obvious is studying government publications
than inconsistency and ignorance of the most fundamentally pertinent literature
and policies of related health offices, even within the same office. The
classic left hand and right hand thing. There's no real "oversight"
which is a bureaucratic word that means "watching over" an entire
field of inquiry. Each office just sort of says what it wants, and then
the doctors or lawyers or health officials quote the parts they can use.
There's really no such thing as objective science when it comes to legislated
health policies. Either you know this or you don't. The unfortunate thing
for those who don't is that they follow blindly what they assume to be
health policies and decisions made with the physical welfare of the child
in mind. Discovering their mistake too late, the consequences can be physically
disastrous.
-
- Some other arbitrary, unscientific recommendations by
the AAP for the new experimental hepatitis A vaccine include just-in-case
shots for
-
- · travelers to practically any destination that
doesn't have a US zip
- code
- · military personnel
- · Persons living in or moving to areas that have
a high rate of HAV
- infection.
- · Persons who may be exposed to the hepatitis
A virus repeatedly due
- to a high rate of hepatitis A disease, such as Alaskan
Eskimos and Native
- Americans.
- · Persons engaging in high-risk sexual activity,
such as homosexual
- and bisexual males.
- · Persons who use illegal injectable drugs.
- · Persons living in a community experiencing an
outbreak of hepatitis A.
- · Persons working in facilities for the mentally
retarded.
- · Employees of child day-care centers.
- · Persons who work with hepatitis A virus in the
laboratory.
- · Persons who handle primate animals.
- · Persons with hemophilia.
- · Food handlers.
- · Persons with chronic liver disease.
-
- Again, this is just guesswork and does not have to make
any particular sense. No special studies of these groups with the vaccine
were done. If the vaccine doesn't confer true lasting immunity, then why
would it be good for any of the above groups? If the disease itself is
mild and self limiting and confers true lasting immunity, wouldn't it be
better for that very low number of people just to get the disease and forego
the addition of carcinogens and neurotoxins into their bloodstream?
-
- Another question about the persons using illegal injectable
drugs - how would a virus know whether or not the injections were illegal?
With all the serious side effects from prescription drugs and vaccines,
legal - illegal: why would one be higher risk than the other? This is nonsense.
-
- Why on earth would someone who already has chronic liver
disease want to take a risky vaccine that only claims to protect him from
a mild, temporary type of liver disease? Especially one which has a hepatitis
as a possible side effect and one which is going to further stress the
liver with toxic adjuvants? Even though the above bullets are pure conjecture,
they do represent groups that are being designated as High Risk. The question
then becomes - why isn't the vaccine recommended ONLY for these groups
instead of for the majority of the childhood population? What was that
- one billion...?
-
- PREGNANT? DON'T EVEN THINK ABOUT IT
-
- Under no circumstances should Hepatitis A vaccine be
given in pregnancy. The manufacturer states that pregnancy studies simply
have not been done. (www.aap.org/policy/01207.html) So unless you want
to be in the experimental group, when that doctor who has not read the
manufacturer's insert tries to give you this vaccine "just to be on
the safe side" - pass.
-
- WRAP UP
-
- So what have we learned? Well, there's a new vaccine
for hepatitis A being recommended for most children over 2 years old, as
part of a brand new category in the Vaccine Schedule. And the disease itself
- hepatitis A is not a big problem because in the vast majority of cases
the individual never even knows the disease is present. And even if he
gets the disease, it almost always resolves in a few weeks with no permanent
after effects whatsoever.
-
- And there are a few problems with the vaccine:
-
- * aluminum
- * formaldehyde
- * ethylene glycol
- * many side effects, including hepatitis itself
- * the dosages are best guesses
- * the manufacturers can pull in a billion new dollars
per year
- * the vast majority of hepatitis A occurs outside the
US, yet no other
- country has mass vaccines
- * the mass dissemination of an infectious agent in to
the childhood population
- * adding to the cumulative viral load of the most vaccinated
children in
- world history
-
- Outside of that, everything should be fine.
-
- SOMEWHERE MACHIAVELLI SMILES
-
- Perhpas the darkest consequence of all the foregoing
is that most of us have lost our confidence in the inner curative power
of Nature - the body's inborn wisdom. A hundred media snippets a day, week
after week, year after year, have undermined our ability to even consider
the notion that 99.9% of infants may be perfect as they are. Or that their
pure blood is the most sacred medium in the universe, the crucible in which
the human genome itself was meant to be safeguarded and passed on from
age to age. Or that the immune system can only develop to its full potential
if left to its own devices, largely unknown to human science.
-
- Such natural, vital postulates as these sound foreign
to our ears, even fanatical, cultist. Clear, rational independent thinking
has become so rare, so unwelcome, so feared in this world where Conventional
Wisdom on all topics of consequence is locked down tight, top to bottom.
Adrift in this gallery of manufactured illusion, no effort is spared to
keep one idea from surfacing: that we have all but lost the ability to
trust our own instincts, to find the truth, and then to act on it.
-
|