www.thedoctorwithin.com
2-6-2
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. (http://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 - http://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.
REFERENCES
NIH - What I Need To Know About Hepatitis A
2000
US Dept of Commerce - Statistical Abstracts
of the United States, p .137 2000
Medical Economics - Physicians Desk
Reference 2002
Beers & Berkow, MD - The Merck Manual,
Centennial Edition 1999
National Library of Medicine
http://www.nlm.nih.gov/medlineplus/druginfo/hepatitisavaccineinactivatedsy202902
.html#Brands
Blaylock, R MD - Excitotoxins: The Taste
That Kills --- Health Press 1997.
Colburn, T, PhD - Our Stolen Future - Plume
1997.
O'Shea, T - The Sanctity of Human Blood -
New West 2002.
American Academy of Pediatrics - Policy
Statement: Prevention Of Hepatitis
A Infections: Guidelines For Use Of
Hepatitis A Vaccine And Immune Globulin
Pediatrics, vol 98 no 6, p.1207-1215 Dec
1996.
Committee on Infectious Diseases - Centers
for Disease Control and
Prevention. Hepatitis Surveillance Report
No. 55. p 1-34 1994.
Bernays, E. Propaganda --- Liveright, New
York 1928.
Micromedex - National Library of Medicine
Sabin, Albert MD - La Stampa, Torino Italia
8 Dec 1985.
Model Emergency Health Powers Act (MEHPA)
Turns Governors into Dictators
http://www.mercola.com/2001/dec/26/mehpa.htm
Salk, Jonas, MD quoted in Science Abstracts
4 Apr 1977.
Copyright 2002
http://www.thedoctorwithin.com/newwest/index38.html
