- 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
|