So here at last, based on a promise I made weeks ago, is my compiled information about, and perspective on, the controversy over vaccine safety. I hope you find this information useful.

1)         Here is my single most important point on the controversy: The entire controversy tends to be characterized as being about “provaccine” people vs. “antivaccine” people, and this is a severe misrepresentation of what is in debate. What is in debate is whether the current system for developing, testing, and delivering vaccines is safe enough to make it wise — and honoring of human rights — to require the entire population to inject these substances into their bodies, including into the bodies of infants and toddlers.

And there is in fact a subtly different and equally central question in debate: whether parents who are reluctant to vaccinate their children, or who conclude that their children’s severe health or cognitive difficulties resulted from vaccination, are guilty of being “hysterical” or “unscientific” or “antivaccine.” I think you will find as you examine carefully the history of vaccine controversy in the U.S. (and abroad), regardless of what conclusions you ultimately come to about vaccine safety, that there is plenty of reason for parents to worry, and that it is profoundly unfair to characterize them as fanatical or superstitious.

Tens of thousands of parents have watched their children decline dramatically, and sometimes permanently, following a vaccine. You may not agree that the vaccines were a likely cause of what happened, but you can’t read these parents’ stories and not feel for them, and not see why they might very reasonably conclude that the vaccine was what did it.

2)         The beginning place for anyone who wants to understand the roots and history of the controversy is to read Evidence of Harm by respected journalist David Kirby, a former New York Times reporter. The book won the 2005 best book award from the Investigative Reporters and Editors (IRE). Kirby takes the reader through the experience of the parents, and through a careful review of the research and arguments on both sides of the debate. Kirby is sympathetic to the parents, but he presents the other side fairly and points out strengths and weaknesses of research cited by people across the spectrum of opinion.

Some points you will learn from Kirby’s book:

a) The evidence for a link between vaccines containing thimerosal (which contains mercury) and neurodevelopmental disorders, including autism, is extensive. Reasonable people can disagree on whether it is adequate to prove a link, but anyone claiming that there is “little evidence” of a link is being dishonest; there is a lot. (For just one example of many in the book, read pgs. 379-383.) Moreover, the studies that supposedly debunk the link were heavily funded by vaccine manufacturers, and often had researchers on staff who were receiving money from vaccine manufacturers (though they insisted that this fact in no way compromised their objectivity).

A large-scale Danish study that is probably the most widely cited “conclusive evidence” that there is not a link to autism included major manipulation of data which the researchers could not easily explain, and involved significant conflicts of interest (Kirby pp. 270 ff.). (Denmark is one of the world’s largest exporters of vaccines, by the way.)

In the year 2000, the CDC’s Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices reported that two of its own studies had found a substantial increased risk of developmental neurological disorders from exposure to thimerosal (which contains mercury), and that their research indicated that the risk increased with the amount of thimerosal exposure. (And this, by the way, despite the fact that a number of members of the Advisory Committee received research grants from drug companies or owned stock in drug companies, which was not deemed a conflict of interest — Kirby, pg. 123). The Advisory Committee also reported a third study that did not replicate the findings of the first two (Kirby, pp. 126 ff and note 98), but that hardly constitutes a basis for calling parents “hysterical” or saying they fall prey to “junk science.”

Be aware that flu vaccines contain thimerosal to this day.

b) Quite a number of scientists, academics, and former CDC employees report patterns of intimidation, including being fired from jobs, when they attempted to point out research findings that were being hidden, manipulation of data, or outright dishonest reporting of findings. Kirby was able to talk to a number of these people, and he describes what they report about their experiences. Speaking out about vaccine risk appears to be risky business for professionals.

c) The CDC has done a lot of manipulating of its own research data on vaccine safety to hide evidence of harm. Examples of this are so rampant through Kirby’s book that I hardly know where to start, but you might just for example go to pp. 356 – 360.

d) There is widespread evidence of children undergoing lasting improvements from autistic symptoms following chelation to remove mercury from their bodies, and Kirby explores this issue.

[All page citations to Kirby are from the hardcover edition.]

 

3)   Below is a link to a huge collection of published studies (over a hundred) raising concerns about vaccine safety. This list is broken down into many subjects, including the effects of aluminum (used as an adjuvant), the effects of mercury, the link to neurodevelopmental disorders, the link to autoimmune disease, the link to asthma and allergies, and many others.

Extensive list of studies of vaccine risk

Again, people can form a range of conclusions, but you can’t read (or even skim) these studies without realizing how unfair it is to call parents “hysterical”, to say “the science shows that vaccines are safe,” or to say that “junk science” is at the root of people’s concerns.

You might also want to look at this interesting list of doctors and other professionals who have either published articles or publicly raised concerns about vaccine safety.

4)    As many of you who watch the news may already be aware, there is an overly close relationship between the Centers for Disease Control (CDC) and the pharmaceutical companies. I don’t think the CDC, or its related group the Institute of Medicine, can be considered objective when there is such a great amount of funding coming to the CDC from vaccine manufacturers, and so much personnel going back and forth between serving in CDC positions and working in drug industry positions. Here are some reading on this issue:

Revelations of CDC’s Industry Funding

Former CDC Employee Discusses Implications of Pfizer Funding

U.S. Representatives Introduce Legislation to End Conflicts of Interest in Vaccine Policy

You can read here where the CDC Foundation proudly declares its private-public collaborations, as if that could possibly be appropriate coming out of the same agency that licenses vaccines and publicly vouches for their safety.

You may also be interested to know that Dr. Paul Offit, author of  “Vaccines:What Every Parent Should Know” was a consultant to Merck on vaccine development. Offit’s R&D partner received at least $350,000 from Merck to help develop a vaccine for which Offit shared the patent. And, most remarkably of all, while involved in this lucrative consulting, Dr. Offit was on the CDC’s Advisory Committee for Immunization Practices (Kirby pg. 80 and note 64).

5)  The CDC’s own website reports that the flu vaccine is about 50 to 60% effective! This is a low rate of effectiveness for a vaccine that the CDC is insisting everyone should take, and that many health care workers are now required  to take or they lose their jobs. And it’s a vaccine that a) contains mercury (thimerosal) — see my item # 14 below), and b) has been found to dramatically increase the recipients likelihood to contract other types of infections:

Increased Risk of Noninfluenza Respiratory Virus Infections Associated With Receipt of Inactivated Influenza VaccineClinical Infectious Diseases; (2012) doi: 10.1093/cid/cis307 First published online: March 15, 2012. Benjamin J. Cowling, Vicky J. Fang, Hiroshi Nishiura, Kwok-Hung Chan, Sophia Ng, Dennis K. M.lp, Susan S. Chiu, Gabriel M. Leung} and J. S. Malik Peir

6)  The media and various other sources encourage us to think of scientists who raise concerns about vaccine safety as being guilty of “junk science,” quacks who are completely outside of the mainstream. So compare that image with the qualifications of the scientists who presented at a conference on vaccine safety a few years back. I think you’ll be struck by the contrast between these people’s backgrounds and what you’ve heard about scientists who question vaccine safety.

7)  If you want to learn more about current vaccine risk, I recommend that you give the highest priority to watching two recent videos of medical researcher Lucija Tomljenovic from the University of British Columbia, discussing the research on the safety and effectiveness of the HPV vaccine. Her work has come under heavy attack, as happens with all researchers raising questions about vaccine safety, but UBC has stayed stalwartly behind Tomljenovic and her colleague Christopher Shaw.  These two videos cover a distinct set of issues.

http://www.thevaccinereaction.org/2016/10/is-there-objective-evidence-hpv-vaccination-programs-are-unjustified/

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9ByqAYuoFes

 

8)  Here are a few examples of specific studies and reports (you can find a far longer list of citations at the links in item # 3 above). Some of these studies have found evidence of harm from vaccines, others have found evidence of possible pathways for harm to occur, and others have found evidence of ineffectiveness. Here are some resources to pursue:

Int J Toxicol. 2003 Jul-Aug;22(4):277-85. Reduced levels of mercury in first baby haircuts of autistic children. Holmes AS1, Blaxill MF, Haley BE.

This study found much lower rates of mercury in the hair of young autistic children than in the hair of non-autistic children of the same age. (Both groups of children in the study had had extensive mercury exposure.) These findings suggest that children whose bodies do not shed mercury well were at risk to develop autism if they were exposed to mercury.

https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Lucija_Tomljenovic/publications

Behavioral abnormalities in female mice following administration of aluminum adjuvants and the human papillomavirus (HPV) vaccine Gardasil Rotem Inbar. Ronen Weiss, Lucija Tomljenovic, Maria-Teresa Arango, Yael Deri1, Christopher A. Shaw, Joab Chapman, Miri Blank, Yehuda Shoenfeld. Immunologic Research, July 2016.

https://www.nap.edu/read/13164/chapter/5

Adverse Effects of Vaccines: Evidence and Causality. A roughly 40-page chapter from a book, analyzing possible mechanisms of vaccine harm. The full book is also available for free download, and reviews a huge number of studies and case examples of vaccine harm. For the most part the authors do not take a stand on causality, they just review the evidence.

 

http://info.cmsri.org/blog/significant-breakthrough-in-study-of-aluminum-adjuvant-impact-on-immune-response

A new study, 2016: Insight into the cellular fate and toxicity of aluminum adjuvants used in clinically approved human vaccinations. Matthew MoldEmma Shardlow, & Christopher Exley. Scientific Reports 6, Article number: 31578 (2016) oi:10.1038/srep31578

 

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20445208

A long story made too short: Surrogate variables and the communication of HPV vaccine trial results. Journal of epidemiology and community health 64(5):377-8 · May 2010 with 82 Reads.  (Evidence that the effectiveness of the HPV vaccine was greatly exaggerated, including several international studies cited therein.)

 

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2843136/

Adversomics: The Emerging Field of Vaccine Adverse Event Immunogenetics. Published in final edited form as: Pediatr Infect Dis J. 2009 May ; 28(5): 431 – 432. doi:10.1097/ INF.0b013e3181a6a511.  Gregory A. Poland, MD* , Inna G. Ovsyannikova, PhD†, and Robert M. Jacobson, MD.  Research showing genetic issues in which people are harmed by vaccines (and thus adding evidence that some people are, indeed, harmed).

 

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/14745455

Mol Psychiatry. 2004 Apr;9(4):358-70.  Activation of methionine synthase by insulin-like growth factor-1 and dopamine: a target for neurodevelopmental toxins and thimerosal.

Waly M1, Olteanu H, Banerjee R, Choi SW, Mason JB, Parker BS, Sukumar S, Shim S, Sharma A, Benzecry JM, Power-Charnitsky VA, Deth RC.  A study finding evidence that thimerosal is capable of causing neurological damage.

 

Historical Research Citations Linking Vaccines to Disease. Extensive listing of published studies and scholarly articles regarding evidence of harm from vaccines, dating from about 1966 – 1995. (See the link in my item #3 for current and recent research; the link here is for exploring the history of research on vaccine harm up to 1995).

 

9)  A study published in a medical journal in India found that polio vaccine was causing a massive rise in the number of cases of Non-Polio Acute Flaccid Paralysis (NPAFP), which, according to the article, is clinically indistinguishable from polio paralysis but twice as deadly.

Indian J Med Ethics. 2012 Apr-Jun;9(2):114-7.  Polio programme: let us declare victory and move on.  Vashisht N1, Puliyel J

(The title of the study is apparently meant sarcastically.)

 

These findings are especially relevant now given the rise in the U.S. given the recent rise in mysterious deaths from polio-like symptoms.

Speaking of which, here’s an important video to watch about the recent death of six-year old Daniel Ramirez in Washington State. The video reports, among several other points, that Daniel’s mother has been emphasizing publicly that Daniel was vaccinated about two weeks before his symptoms began, but this fact is being omitted from all the news coverage.

Video about Daniel Ramirez and surrounding issues

and

a related article

10)  A substantial collection of studies indicate that vaccines could be a significant contributor to the rampant growth of life-threatening allergies. Here is a review of the evidence:

“Evidence That Food Proteins in Vaccine Cause the Development of Food Allergies and Its Implications for Vaccine Policy” Journal of Developing Drugs. Vinu Arughuman. 2015, Vol. 4, Issue 4.

(See also the link at my item #3, which includes citations for various studies on the connection between vaccination, asthma, and allergies.)

11)  A letter was recently released regarding conflicts of interest and corruption within the CDC, which claims to be written by a group of unnamed CDC scientists. It contains some information that would be hard for outsiders to know. Some of the facts within it have already been confirmed. It makes no mention of the vaccine controversy­.  In my view this fact strengthens the letter’s value in that it shows that the groups raising concerns about vaccine safety are not the only ones saying that the relationship between the CDC and private industry has compromised the CDC’s objectivity, professionalism, and ethics.

To read the letter, go to:

Letter that states it is written by a group of CDC scientists

12 ) A Danish research and information center, the Nordic Cochrane Center, has recently released a complaint about inappropriate handling by the European Medicines Agency of concerns about HPV vaccine safety. This report has additional significance given that reports of injury from Gardasil and other HPV vaccines is already widespread (see, for example, the work of Dr. Lucija Tomljenovic at the University of British Columbia that I mention under item # 7 above).

13)    It’s instructive to see how certain writers characterize David Kirby’s book Evidence of Harm, which I discussed under item #2 above. A reviewer in the British journal The BMJ, for example, wrote, “[David Kirby] seems to take at face value every claim made by campaigning parents in the United States who believe that vaccines containing the mercury based preservative thimerosal caused their children to become autistic. But parents may not be reliable guides.” I’ve read Kirby’s book cover to cover twice; and it is without a question a serious and honest attempt to engage the issues and the research. I don’t know what to conclude about the reviewer except that he is deliberately misrepresenting this highly journalistic book in order to try to get people not to read it and examine the history it covers.

I have observed how this happens over and over again to people who raise concerns, however carefully-argued, about vaccine safety; a huge weight is swung down upon them, apparently to try to silence them from raising their concerns. For me, this dynamic doesn’t reassure me about vaccine safety; in fact, in contributes to my sense that there is good reason to be concerned.

 

14)    Here are examples of ingredient lists for a few vaccines:


Novartis Focetria Adjuvanted H1N1
Influenza Vaccine Ingredients/Toxicity
Polysorbate 80: Sterile Agent
Potassium Chloride: Neurotoxin
Squalene: Neurotoxin
Thimerosal: Neurotoxin 

Novartis H1N1 Monovalent Influenza Vaccine Ingredients/Toxicity
Beta-Propiolactone: Carcinogen
Polymyxin: Neurotoxin
Neomycin: Immunotoxin
Thimerosal: Neurotoxin 

GlaxoSmithKline Arepanrix Adjuvanted
H1N1 Influenza Vaccine Ingredients/Toxicity

Formaldehyde : Carcinogen
Polysorbate 80: Sterile Agent
Sodium Deoxycholate: Immunotoxin
Squalene: Neurotoxin
Thimerosal: Neurotoxin

GlaxoSmithKline Pandemrix Adjuvanted
H1N1 Influenza Vaccine Ingredients/Toxicity

Octoxynol 10: Immunotoxin
Polysorbate 80: Sterile Agent
Potassium Chloride: Neurotoxin
Sodium Deoxycholate: Immunotoxin
Squalene: Neurotoxin
Thimerosal: Neurotoxin

GlaxoSmithKline Fluarix 2009-2010
Formula
 Ingredients/Toxicity
Formaldehyde : Carcinogen
Octoxynol 10: Immunotoxin
Polysorbate 80: Sterile Agent
Sodium Deoxycholate: Immunotoxin

Sanofi-Pasteur H1N1 Influenza Vaccine Ingredients/Toxicity
Formaldehyde : Carcinogen
Polyethylene Glycol: Systemic Toxin
Thimerosal: Neurotoxin

MedImmune H1N1 Vaccine Ingredients/Toxicity
Monosodium Glutamate: Neurotoxin
Gentamicin Sulfate: Nephrotoxin
Monobasic Potassium Phosphate: Immunotoxin

FLUARIX 2009 Latest Package Insert Ingredients/Toxicity
Formaldehyde : Carcinogen
Gentamicin Sulfate: Nephrotoxin
Polysorbate 80: Sterile Agent
Sodium Deoxycholate: Immunotoxin
Thimerosal: Neurotoxin

CSL PANVAX H1N1 Vaccine Ingredients/Toxicity
Beta-Propiolactone: Carcinogen
Neomycin: Immunotoxin
Sodium Taurodeoxycholate: Carcinogen/Immunotoxin
Polymyxin: Neurotoxin
Thimerosal: Neurotoxin

CSL Afluria H1N1 Influenza Vaccine Ingredients/Toxicity
Beta-Propiolactone: Carcinogen
Neomycin Sulfate: Immunotoxin
Polymyxin B: Neurotoxin
Potassium Chloride: Neurotoxin
Sodium Taurodeoxycholate: Carcinogen/Immunotoxin
Thimerosal: Neurotoxin

Some of these ingredients are food additives that I work hard to avoid in my food, so it’s hard to imagine injecting them into my body. You may notice some ingredients on the list above that don’t seem risky, such as potassium chloride, but you can read here about the toxicity of oral versus injected potassium chloride. Each time you get a vaccine, ask to read the package insert. Here is one place to get lists of  vaccine ingredients.

15)    One of the key arguments for mandatory vaccination is the concept of “herd immunity,” which means that when everyone in your society is immune to a disease, then no one can carry it to others. However, there is considerable evidence that vaccinated people can still carry and spread the disease against which they were vaccinated. You can see the many studies and reports cited here. One way this problem has been explained is to draw a sharp distinction between naturally acquired immunity and vaccination immunity, which are shown to not be biologically the same. This issue is explained briefly, with some citations for further reading, here.

16)  Back to a subject from much earlier in this letter:  Evidence continues to mount that environmental toxins play a role in causing autism. To my mind, it therefore remains a bad idea to shoot known neurotoxins into the blood streams of young children, especially since the studies suggest that the accumulation of toxins may be important, not just the single exposure.

17)  I am choosing not to go into the whole question of the problems associated with overrelying on epidemiological data without adequate weighing of biological data. If this subject interests you, you might start by reading pp. 308 ff. in David Kirby, Evidence of Harm.

18)    Finally, a huge missing piece in the debate about vaccine safety is the question of whether vaccines are the only way, and the best way, to prevent epidemics. This question has virtually disappeared from the discussion. If this issue interests you, you might start by watching this video of a presentation by Dr. Suzanne Humphries.

Best wishes to all,

Lundy

Advertisements

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s