First off, simply regarding the list of physicians, health practitioners and scientists who lent their name to this important report, while it is a long list it is by no means complete. Many people, of course were not aware of the report while perhaps even more importantly, as has been brought out by commentators numerous times on this blog, if one is in a conventional medical environment, it is extremely difficult and risky to criticize firmly entrenched policies. If one deviates from the norm and something goes awry, one is at risk of not only harming or even losing ones career to a charge of malpractice but also possibly facing a financial lawsuit.
Perhaps a better measure of what physicians and health care providers think of vaccines is to observe what they do themselves. As is brought out in the report, doctors and nurses, quite often avoid vaccines like the plague (pardon the pun) if they are able. Additionally, an ABC News report from 2008 stated that the majority, 60% of physicians, don't get the yearly flu vaccine. At least as regards flu vaccine, I think that figure should give one pause, "Do as we say, not as we do."
The report does correctly note that there is an epidemiological correlation between increasing vaccination rates and increasing autism rates. There has been a tremendous effort to discredit the notion that vaccines could play any role in autism development. The issue is far from settled to my mind. The vaccine/autism hypothesis has biologic plausibility considering the varied toxins, immune adjuvants and strong physiologic reaction to vaccination, as noted epidemiological support and perhaps equally important, very large numbers of loving parents have tragically declared that vaccination caused their child's autism. Before one cruelly and blithely dismisses these parental anecdotes out of hand in favor of the more rigorous, established, consensus scientific opinion, it is worth recalling that up until autism started becoming epidemic, the rigorous, established, consensus scientific opinion spouted off in the peer-reviewed medical literature was that autism was caused by emotionally distant and sexually frigid mothers. When I see the baseless and virulent smear campaign being waged for years now against so highly respected and credentialed a physician and researcher as Dr. Andrew Wakefield, my concern for vaccines playing a role in autism is only increased. Unfortunately, considering the current political climate I believe it will be very difficult to perform the detached, objective research necessary to definitively answer this question any time soon.
The report notes that vaccines are financially profitable, especially with the government indemnifying manufacturers against damages, and as they also note there are some 20 more vaccines currently in the development pipeline. While the financial incentive is certainly there, vaccines, being at most a shot a year deal are still small potatoes compared to things like blood pressure meds or cholesterol lowering drugs. With the federal government having thrown itself behind the vaccine paradigm, through the FDA, CDC and indemnification of pharmaceutical companies quite honestly I suspect they also don't want to be criticized or hear that you don't trust them enough to have them stick a needle in you or your child's arm. Many have of course considered more sinister motives to the government's carte blanche support of vaccination, but let's step away in this post from that possible rabbit hole unless it serves our health to join the mad hatter's tea party, shall we?
In the section on How Many Vaccines are There, we find this gem of a statement,
"If U.S. children receive all doses of all vaccines, they are injected with up to 35 shots that contain 113 different kinds of disease particles, 59 different chemicals, four types of animal cells/DNA, human DNA from aborted fetal tissue and human albumin."Where even to begin with this? First off, all vaccines are dangerous, they are not, as they seem to be viewed, lollipops to be given out at every well baby visit. As the article goes on to detail, depending on the vaccine one may find aluminum, mercury, polysorbate 80, formaldehyde, etc. This in conjunction with the possible varied immune stimulating adjuvants and the pathogen mimicking vaccine epitopes themselves. Scientists, who have found evidence of zoonotic, potentially pathogenic viruses present in the supposedly sterile vaccines have been forced from their work.
Of course, and not many people are aware of this, a handful of vaccines (which if anyone is interested I will dig out particulars) are grown on culture derived from aborted, donated, fetuses. I suspect at the very least, pro-life parents might not be simply delighted to learn that their infant baby will subsequently be injected with material grown from aborted baby tissue. This practice is horrifying and repugnant and must stop.
The report goes on to detail the "revolving door" policy, where industry captured government regulators go to lucrative positions in industry after faithfully safeguarding pharmaceutical interests. Julie Geberding, former head of CDC, now head of Merck's vaccine division being just one of many examples.
The report also discusses some unpublished research (which considering the politicization of peer-reviewed literature will likely remain unpublished) finding in 17,674 surveyed children, the rates of many chronic and serious disease to be far higher in the vaccinated then un-vaccinated cohort.
One point I might bring out that is not greatly emphasized in this report is that the measure for efficacy of vaccinations, the studies submitted to FDA for approval, generally involve surrogate end-points. That is to say, instead of documenting for instance, flu vaccine decreasing flu rates or flu deaths, it is simply approved based on an antibody response being mounted to the vaccine. The evidence for actual improvement in disease rates is dismally scarce in most vaccines. The issue of pre-marketing safety evaluation and post marketing safety monitoring for vaccines to be given to tens or hundreds of millions of people, is likewise woefully inadequate.
At the very least, I think one can say the pendulum has swung way too far to the side of vaccines as a harmless panacea. They are neither harmless, nor often times very effective. For those, who may be hearing criticisms of vaccines for the first time one might also at the least consider looking into individual vaccines and considering whether all of them are necessary, and in the case of children necessary as early on as they are generally given. For instance, the hepatitis B vaccine is given at birth. Aside from the fact that a new born does not have a fully functioning immune system, with much of the immunity coming from maternal antibodies, hepatitis B, like HIV, is a blood borne, or sexually transmitted disease. If one knows the mother does not have Hep B, for which there is a good blood test, is it really necessary to vaccinate a child with an immature immune system (which will undoubtedly deplete a number of protective maternal antibodies along with whatever other havoc it may cause) against a sexually transmitted disease? So one may wish to look at the current vaccine schedule and look to prioritize which vaccines may be considered more worthwhile, and what the appropriate time is, if any, for someone to receive those vaccines.
I mentioned at the start of this post that there are a number of other physicians and experts, aside from those listed in this report who are critical of vaccines. In writing the post I also stumbled on a page of "Doctors on Vaccinations Quotes." That page certainly provides additional food for thought.
Reader Comments
to our Newsletter