VaxTruth Responds to 1 in 88 Congressional Hearing on Autism, November 29, 2012. For the Public Record.
Chairman Issa, Representative Cummings, and distinguished members of The Commmittee:
This statement is submitted by VaxTruth, Inc. We are a 501(c)3 nonprofit organization comprised of parents and professionals who share a common concern about vaccinations. Our primary goal is to empower and support parents as they strive to make informed decisions regarding medical care for their children.
We ask that this statement be entered into the official public record for the 1 in 88 Hearing on Autism, held on November 29, 2012.
Many important questions have been asked about autism and about the role of vaccines in the Autism Epidemic. There can be no mistake… it is an EPIDEMIC.
During the November 29th hearing it was clear that neither Dr. Guttmacher nor Dr. Boyle was prepared to answer questions regarding the safety or efficacy of the CDC’s Recommended Childhood Vaccine Schedule. In response to questions from Committee members, these representatives from NIH and the CDC were unable to answer even the most basic questions.
When asked, “How many vaccinations do American children receive?” Dr. Boyle seemed unable to answer. Dr. Guttmacher gave his opinion that “40 seems a little high.” According to the CDC’s childhood schedule, American children are now recommended to receive 49 vaccines before they start kindergarten. This number includes the flu vaccine administered to pregnant women.
When queried by the members of The Committee, Drs. Guttmacher and Boyle were unprepared to address issues related to synergy or interactions between vaccinations administered simultaneously, as the childhood schedule recommends. The reluctance of the doctors to respond to these very relevant questions is understandable, since there has never been any research conducted to investigate these safety and efficacy concerns. Due to the lack of research regarding vaccines as they are administered, the current vaccination program is tantamount to medical experimentation on live human subjects.
In the short time that VaxTruth has been in existence (we incorporated in August 2011), we have posted more than 100 articles on our website. Many of the articles are stories of children who have been severely injured or who have died after receiving multiple vaccines. Vaccines have been promoted as “life-saving” and “necessary” and in many cases, parents report they have been threatened by physicians who vow to contact Child Protective Services if vaccines are refused or even questioned. This is a violation of the tenets of informed consent, which dictates that permission for medical procedures or participation in medical research must not be obtained through coercion or the use of threats.
Informed Consent for medical procedures is a basic right. All patients (and parents of minor children) must be advised of the risks and benefits of medical procedures before informed consent can be given. When there has never been a single study to investigate the safety or efficacy of giving 9 vaccinations simultaneously, or of the overall effect of repeated administration of multiple vaccines over time, there cannot be informed consent. There is no data to inform.
A related issue has to do with the fact that even though, since 1986, physicians have been compelled by law to report vaccine-injuries to the Vaccine Adverse Events Reporting System (VAERS), reports are rarely made. It is estimated that somewhere between 1% and 10% of adverse reactions to vaccines are reported and subsequently included in the database maintained by the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS). This must be changed. If we do not have accurate data, we cannot make accurate risk-benefit assessments. Physicians who fail to report adverse reactions to VAERS, as is consistent with the law, must face consequences. One of the possible reasons why many physicians do not report adverse reactions is because they are told and they believe reactions are “very rare.” Another reason may be because physicians are not trained to recognize adverse reactions. This must be changed. Family practice doctors, pediatricians and emergency room doctors must know what adverse reactions look like. The must know what reactions are compensable by law, and they must know that if they do not report those reactions they will be sanctioned. This is the only way we will ever begin to know the true extent of vaccine-injuries.
Given that at this point in time we are missing the research and the data that is essential for making informed decisions regarding the childhood vaccination schedule, it is unconscionable for the federal or state governments to require children to be “fully vaccinated according to the schedule” in order for them to attend public or private school. When parents cannot be fully informed about the risks and benefits of vaccines as they are administered, and then those parents are told that unless they agree to this untested and highly complex medical procedure their children cannot attend school, something is terribly wrong.
As more vaccines are added to “the schedule,” more children are being harmed as a result of mass vaccination. More children are suffering from seizure disorders, gastrointestinal disorders, autoimmune disease, and systemic illness that manifests both medically and neuro-developmentally. These children are medically ill. They also frequently have difficulty regulating their behavior. Their neurological inflammation results in learning disabilities, inattentive and impulsive behavior, slow cognitive processing speed, and social difficulties. They are diagnosed with autism, Asperger’s syndrome, ADHD, ADD, Learning Disabilities, bipolar disorder and intermittent explosive disorder.
As more and more children are becoming sicker and sicker, more and more young parents and parents-to-be are asking questions. They want to know what’s going on and they want to know how to protect their children from the same or similar fates. Parents are talking. To each other. Those whose children have been harmed are sharing their stories. Doctors may not listen. School Boards and Boards of Health may not listen. State governments may not listen. The mainstream media certainly isn’t listening. So who is listening to the stories parents are relationg about their vaccine-injured children? Other parents.
We network. We talk. We are organizing in numbers like never before. We are a force to be reckoned with. We vote.
We are extremely grateful to you, the members of The Committee, for beginning this process. We are finally beginning to feel like we are going to be heard.
We are thankful. But we are also cautious in our optimism. We know about Simpsonwood. We know about Zimmerman. We have received lip-service in the past. We will not be satisfied with it again.
When it comes to making decisions for our children’s health, we are often dependent on the information and advice of our government. When it comes to the laws that determine whether or not our children are allowed to attend school, we are at the mercy of those in the government who make and enforce the laws. Because those in the government hold such a high degree of power, it is incumbent upon those lawmakers to understand the research, and to make decisions that are based on an accurate cost-benefit analysis of the safety and efficacy of the vaccinations they are mandating for our children.
When it comes to the question of vaccinations and school attendance, there are many issues that deserve discussion. For now, I will focus on the mandatory vaccination against a sexually-transmitted disease: Hepatitis B.
In 1991, the American Council on Immunization Practices (ACIP) recommended universal vaccination of all U.S. infants with 3 doses of hepatitis B vaccine, beginning within 48 hours of birth. Hepatitis B is a sexually-transmitted disease and is spread the same way HIV and Hepatitis C are spread: through contact with body fluids such as semen, vaginal fluids, and blood. Those at high risk of infection include homosexual men, heterosexuals who have multiple sex partners, and healthcare workers who are exposed to body fluids. Infants whose mothers are actively infected with Hepatitis B are at increased risk of infection. (citation)
Pregnant women in the U.S. are screened for the disease.
Infants who are born to mothers who are not infected with hepatitis B are at very low risk for infection, by virtue of the fact that they are not engaging in high risk behaviors that are associated with the disease. (i.e., Infants are not having sex and they are not using injection drugs.)
The CDC states that the incidence of hepatitis B infection in U.S. children (age 0-19 years) has decreased by 89% as a result of mass vaccination of infants. This is misleading, in my opinion. When you say that the incidence of the illness has decreased by 89% it sounds like the vaccine has been extremely effective in improving the health of children who receive it. The opposite is actually the case.
Studies that have investigated the health effects of hepatitis B vaccine in U.S. Children have found increased rates of arthritis, acute ear infections, pharyngitis/nasopharyngitis, liver problems, CNS inflammatory demyelination, multiple sclerosis, and developmental disabilities in children who received the vaccine, when compared to children who were unvaccinated. One study found that the odds of receiving early intervention services (EIS) were approximately nine times as great for vaccinated boys as for unvaccinated boys. Another study found that boys who received the hepatitis B vaccine at birth were three times more likely to be diagnosed with autism than boys who where either unvaccinated (for hepatitis B) or boys who received the vaccine later in infancy (citations for these studies can be found here: http://vaxtruth.org/2012/02/when-we-know-better-we-do-better-or-do-we/).
Much of the research regarding the health outcomes noted in the previous paragraph involved data analysis for children who received the hepatitis B vaccine prior to the elimination of thimerosal, or mercury from the vaccine. This may lead you to believe once that was accomplished the problem was solved. The current hepatitis B vaccines contain high amounts of aluminum. Aluminum is a neurotoxin that is present in many of the childhood vaccines. Research indicates that aluminum greatly increases the toxicity of even small amounts of mercury when living organisms are exposed to both metals simultaneously. Other research indicates that aluminum alone may cause many neurological and immune system disorders. (for more on aluminum and mercury in the current vaccines being administered, the reader is encouraged to review the following: http://vaxtruth.org/2012/01/aluminum-toxicity-and-a-primer-on-the-vic/)
Research regarding aluminum in vaccines is scant. This is because those at the CDC and others who promote the safety of vaccines want us to believe there is no difference between aluminum in the environment and aluminum that is injected. Recent research indicates there is much to be concerned about, regardless of what we are told about how there is no difference between injected aluminum and aluminum in breast milk. One major concern with aluminum is that research shows that “mitochondrial metabolism is the main site of the toxicological action of aluminum.” Research indicates that aluminum in vaccines may be related to abnormal brain development and chronic autoimmune disorders such as diabetes and autism. With regard to the importance of aluminum as a disruptor of mitochondrial function, the reader is encouraged to review the case of Hannah Poling.
Many of us in the “autism community” have had and continue to have concerns about the emphasis that is placed on mercury as a neurotoxin, when it comes to autism and other neuro-developmental disorders. Many, though not all, of us are very concerned about aluminum and other toxins in vaccines, including formaldehyde, polysorbate 80, and MSG (among others). Many of us are also concerned about the effects of injecting fragments of human and animal DNA into infants and developing children, and we ask that as you move forward, you not restrict your consideration to research articles which have been published in major medical journals (which are frequently funded by pharmaceutical money).
Additionally, as you move forward in this process, VaxTruth asks that you not focus solely on mercury, but also consider the research that has been performed regarding aluminum toxicity in adults. If aluminum is toxic when injected into adults, it is likely also toxic to infants and children, whose brains and immune systems are still developing.
With all of these concerns about the safety of aluminum in vaccines, and about the Hepatitis B vaccine in particular, you may be led to ask yourself, “Is it worth it?”
As noted above, the CDC states that the incidence of hepatitis B infection in U.S. children has decreased by 89% as a result of mass vaccination. What does this really mean?
In 1990, the incidence of hepatitis B infection in U.S. children between birth and 19 years of age was 3.03 per 100,000. In 2002, the number had declined to .34 per 100,000. (citation) This is how they came up with the 89% decrease. Another way of putting this is that if the 1990 number had been 1 infection out of 1 Million people, and mass vaccination had wiped out that 1 instance of infection over a period of 12 years, the CDC would be claiming the vaccine was responsible for a 100% decrease in hepatitis B infection.
Can we really credit the vaccine with the reduction in cases? According to the CDC’s data, between 1992 and 2009, the incidence of Hepatitis C infections among people living in the United States decreased at a rate that was comparable to the decrease in Hepatitis B infections.
source: http://www.cdc.gov/hepatitis/Statistics/2009Surveillance/Slide3.2.htm and
source: http://www.cdc.gov/hepatitis/Statistics/2009Surveillance/Slide4.2.htm
Hepatitis C has decreased at a comparable rate to Hepatitis B, but there is no vaccine for hepatitis C. This suggests that the decrease in incidence is not due to the vaccine, but due to other factors, such as increased awareness of the dangers of unprotected sex among those groups who are at highest risk of contracting both hepatitis B and hepatitis C.
Is this another instance of the CDC giving too much credit to the vaccine? We believe this to be the case, and the CDC’s own data support that conclusion.
Hepatitis B infection has never been a significant cause of death in children who are born in the United States. Using the CDC’s data on the prevalence of hepatitis B infection, beginning prior to the licensure and widespread administration of the vaccine, it is possible to calculate the probable number of deaths that have may have been prevented in American children under 15 years of age, as a result of mass vaccination. That number is 11.5 (the reader is referred to this article for methodology in this calculation: http://vaxtruth.org/2012/02/when-we-know-better-we-do-better-or-do-we/
The estimated number of deaths from hepatitis B infection among U.S. children and infants across the 20 year history of mass vaccination of infants is 11.5
We can estimate that approximately 1 death every 2 years (11.5 deaths /20 years = .575 deaths per year) among U.S. children under 15 years of age has been prevented by universal vaccination of infants against hepatitis B infection. Is the vaccine worth it? A quick search of the VAERS (Vaccine Adverse Events Reporting System) database gives us the answer to that question.
Since the establishment of VAERS database in 1990 there have been reports of
807 deaths, with 773 deaths in children under the age of 3 years.
642 deaths in children under six months of age.
The identical VAERS search in February 2012 indicated there had been 629 deaths in children under six months of age (reported to VAERS). Today (December 5, 2012), the VAERS database contains 13 more reports for deaths of infants under the age of six months than the number reported for that same cohort just 10 months ago. If these numbers are correct, that means that in the last 10 months, more infants have been killed by the vaccine than the number of lives (in children aged 0-14 years) potentially saved by the vaccine over the last 20 years.
According to the Nuremberg Code, which was established in response to the horrific war crimes committed against prisoners during World War II, there are a number of rules that must be obeyed with regard to the performance of medical experiments on human beings.
The rules set forth in The Nuremberg Code dictate, among other things, that
“The degree of risk to be taken should never exceed that determined by the humanitarian importance of the problem to be solved by the experiment.”
Clearly, when the number of deaths from the hepatitis B vaccine (807) is at least 70 TIMES the number of deaths that could be expected in children under 15 as a result of hepatitis B infection (11.5) during the same 20-year time span, we can say with certainty that this is in violation of the Nuremberg Code.
Is this a case where we can say with confidence “When we KNOW better, we DO better?”
For many parents I know, the above quote from Maya Angelou is the case, particularly for those of us who have experienced the trauma of losing a child as a result of vaccine-injury. When our children are harmed by vaccines, many of us turn our efforts toward trying to figure out why. We research and we do everything we can to learn from our mistakes, in hopes of preventing further harm to our children.
The problem is, the same cannot be said for the United States Government, and for the the officials within the government who are charged with making decisions about requirements for vaccination of U.S. Children.
Documents from the Institute of Medicine, published in 1994, indicate that there have been serious concerns about the research regarding vaccine safety for nearly two decades. The following is from the conclusions of the IOM report:
“The lack of adequate data regarding many of the adverse events under study was of major concern to the committee… the committee encountered many gaps and limitations in knowledge bearing directly or indirectly on the safety of vaccines. These include inadequate understanding of the biologic mechanisms underlying adverse events following natural infection or immunization, insufficient or inconsistent information from case reports and case series, inadequate size or length of follow-up of many population-based epidemiologic studies…”
(citation: Stratton, K.R., Howe, C.J., & Johnston, R.B., Eds. (1994). Adverse events associated with childhood vaccines: Evidence bearing on causality. Vaccine Safety Committee, Division of Health Promotion and Disease Prevention. Institute of Medicine. Washington, D.C.: National Academy Press.)
Documentation of debate that took place at the 2000 Simpsonwood Conference, between officials from the CDC, FDA, and vaccine-industry experts reveals there were serious concerns more than a decade ago about the effects of mercury and aluminum, and about the number of vaccine antigens injected into infants when they are vaccinated according to the CDC’s Schedule. Rather than coming forward with this information and informing parents and the public, the information was kept secret and was only made known after the documents were obtained through the Release of Information Act. (please refer here for citations: http://vaxtruth.org/2012/02/when-we-know-better-we-do-better-or-do-we/)
Despite these very significant concerns, including those related to neurological damage, learning disabilities, autism and even death, the officials in the U.S. government refused to act and refused to inform the public of the dangers, opting instead to not only keep the schedule as it was, but to continue to ADD new vaccines.
This is clearly a case where we can say it is not true that “When THEY know better, they do better.”
Until now, our government has been too slow to take action. Some in our government have actively suppressed information that may have led to an earilier examination of the problems inherent in what can only be described as an over-inflated, over-zealous, and under-studied childhood vaccination schedule.
It is time for change.
We are calling for you to act. We are asking you to:
1. Fund unbiased research regarding the safety and efficacy of The Childhood Vaccine Schedule.
2. Until data is available, stop the mandatory adherence to this untested medical experimentation.
3. Immediately strike down mandated vaccinations for school attendance.
4. Examine not only the safety and efficacy, but also the medical necessity of each and every vaccine in the childhood schedule, including those that are currently being pushed on pregnant women and teenagers.
We realize this is a lot to ask.
We ask you to realize that the future of The United States of America depends on your willingness and ability to act.
“When we know better, we do better.” – Maya Angelou
It is time for ALL of us to Do Better.
Respectfully submitted, December 5, 2012.
Marcella Piper-Terry, M.S.
Founder, Board Member
VaxTruth, Inc.
P.O. Box 695
Meridian, ID 83680
Add a comment »21 comments to this article
Help Us Tell The World!
Donation Gifts, Get Yours Today!
Share Our Button! Use the HTML Code Below.
Stay Tuned! Subscribe!
Excellent, Marcella; THANK YOU! ♥
Great Job, Marcella! God Bless You! Thank You for all you do!!
Thank you Marcella!
Excellent, great work!
Wow! Wow! Wow! Excellently spelled out, thank you so much for sending this letter. Will pray and share!
Outstanding research, Marcella! Thank you!
This is a thorough analysis of the meeting. One has to wonder why the mainstream media isn’t touching this topic with a 10 foot pole. Could it be they fear losing their advertising dollars? Activist parents continue to be the trailblazers reporting government agencies covering their tracks.
Thank you, Marcella, for another job well done.
There will never be any headway until unbiased toxicologists and vaccinologists come on the stage.
Thank you also from Italy. Alessia comilva.org
BRAVO!
This brought tears to me eyes. I hope to see real change but I am doubtful it can happen at this point. I hope more hear these words and surprise me.
This article is great. I especially like your 4 points that you’re asking the Congressional Hearing Committee to consider, which you listed near the end. Point #2 says, “Until data is available, stop the mandatory adherence to this untested medical experimentation” and #3 says, “Immediately strike down mandated vaccinations for school attendance.” If only we could accomplish that, things would get so much better for families. Rates of autoimmune diseases would plummet and everyone would notice how much better children’s health was getting.
This is quite awesome indeed. You go Marcella
Standing ovation!!
Marcella, I am brought to tears right now realizing what you have so articulately put to words…..we have really failed on so many levels…
Excellent Marcella. The support you provide for each point you make is outstanding.
I totally agree that even though doctors are legally required to report adverse vaccince reactions to VAERS, they are reluctant to do so. When my wife experienced a reaction to the flu vaccine in 2010, I requested that the doctors report her reaction to VAERS after she had been in a coma for 3 days. It took the doctors over 2 weeks, and persistent requests from me, for this reaction to be reported. I did not know for over a year that doctors are required to report suspected adverse reactions.
In addition to their reluctance to report the reaction to VAERS, several doctors attending to my wife were extremely defensive when I questioned them about possibility that my wife was experiencing a reaction to the flu vaccine. During one conversation I had with an infectious disease doctor, I asked him why he was acting so defensive about the flu vaccine when neither he nor any of his colleagues at the hospital had administered the vaccine. He told me that reactions like my wife was experiencing were rare and that the flu vaccine does a lot of good for society. I asked the senior neurologist attending to my wife why so many doctors were defensive about the flu vaccine, she said she could not explain it. She even told me that doctors got defensive with her when she brought up the likely link between my wife’s condition and the flu vaccine.
I was absolutely shocked by this defensiveness and was not prepared for it. I expected doctors to be objective in treating my wife, particularly since they were not responsible for manufacturing or administering the vaccine. Every day, during discussions with an entire team of neurologists, I had to constantly request that the doctors continue to consider the possibility that my wife was experiencing a reaction to the flu vaccine.
Additionally, since our experience, my wife and I have met nearly a dozen people who had experienced neurological reactions to the flu vaccine including GBS and paralysis. None of these people were aware of VAERS or their ability to file a claim to recover damages they incurred.
Based on my limited experiences, I believe adverse reactions are significantly understated, as you suggest. In order to offset the strong reluctance of medical professionals to acknowledge the possible connection between vaccines and reactions, there need to be strong financial penalties put in place for medical professionals who do not report adverse reactions.
Bob
Bravo Marcella! Articulately and plainly put. Bob I agree with you 1000%. One must consider that doctors study at Medical schools where the information is created and controlled by PHARMA and PHARMA is also the only informational hand that feeds the doctors. They think very carefully about biting the hand that feeds them despite their oath to do no harm and the obvious links between vaccines and reactions. It is one thing to say reactions are rare, it is quite another to ignore the fact of a reaction to a vaccine staring you in the face. I say money and the fear of loosing it, is driving the profits before people approach in western allopathic medicine. I don’t know how one can trust a system, when the only voice it listens to, is it’s own. A very Narcissistic system to be sure and one that is at odds with those who it is charged to care for. (Run for the hills!) There is money in Sickness, not in cures. My condolences and well wishes for your wife as well as a good naturopathic doctor and or osteopathinc doctor, ones who are not afraid to look at what is actually happening and see it for what it is, then do everything possible to heal your beloved wife.
Marcella,
Thank you for running this article again. I did send my letter into Congress. I remember Congressman Issa promising that our voices will be heard. I never did get a reply. I do hope and pray that this was the first of more Congressional Hearings. People need to know all the harm these vaccines have caused to our children, especially our boys.
Wow…extremely well written and I can’t agree more with the post and the opinions the others have left! thank you, I’m printing this out to take to my pediatrician to support that I have decided to stop all vaccinations on my children!
Wow, you are a very good writer and this is an interesting article. However, I think some of the data in here is misinterpreted. For instance, you seem to be saying that the decreasing Hep B rate from 3.03/100,000 to .34/100,000 is insignificant and is probably not related to vaccines.
After doing some quick number crunching it looks like the US population in 1990 was approx. 248,709,873 which would mean at 3.03/100,000 there would be about 7536 people with Hep B. And in 2002 the population was approx. 287,421,906 (which is an estimate since the census is only done every 10 years) at .34/100,000 would mean 977 people had Hep B.
So according to my calculation 7,536 – 977 = 6,559. Seeing as they have saved about 6500 out of a possible 7500 I would say it is pretty darn significant as the prevalence of Hep B was pretty constant before this time.
You also make a comparison to Hep C as an example of a similar decrease in incidence over the same time period. You seem to be indicating that, since there is no Hep C vaccine and we see a similar decrease, then the cause must be due to something other than vaccination.
I would have to strongly disagree with this statement as the #1 cause of Hep C infection prior to 1992 (the beginning of the time frame you mention) was contaminated donated blood in hospitals. This decrease in incidence of Hep C is pretty easily explained by initiation of screening all donated blood specifically for Hep C, which started the same year (1992) as the incidence rate of Hep C started to decline significantly, as you noted.
One other thing I noted was your calculation of death rates. You seem to be implying that the Hep B vaccine has killed more people than it has saved, which may very well be true however I don’t think the material you presented supports this. From what I have read you are correct in saying the rate of infant death from Hep B has never been rampant and I am inclined to believe your statement “only 11.5 children saved for 20 years” because Hep B is a very chronic disease and usually takes over 20 years to rear its ugly head and cause serious problems. Still this “11.5″ number seems irrelevant as the Hep B vaccine was never designed to save children; it was meant to prevent Hep B infection during infancy and adolescence (the most common time period for infection) so as to prevent the tragic results of chronic Hep B infection in adulthood.
According to a couple different websites (I avoided CDC, IOM, and the like as you recommended) about 90% of infants who become infected with Hep B will become chronic carriers. Additionally, 25% of these people will develop liver cirrhosis or cancer. From the numbers you presented, 6559 people were stopped from getting Hep B from 1990-2002.
90% of 6559 = 5903. 25% of 5903 = 1476. That would be 1476 people saved from a horrific death in there 30s-50s due to liver cirrhosis or cancer. That is not even mentioning all the other problems I read about today that Hep B causes.
Lastly I really applaud the notion of mandatory reporting of symptoms and reactions to vaccines. I don’t know but I think you are probably right in saying that not very many doctors use this and there needs to be better reporting for accurate data. But VAERS is not it, at least not now. You don’t have to be a physician to note reactions to vaccines on VAERS, in fact you don’t even have to make a logical statement to get a reaction posted on there as one person I read about recently submitted a post saying “vaccines caused me to turn into the incredible hulk” and this statement was accepted and documented. There needs to be better regulation of that site including screening for nonsense like that statement I read about and actually confirming the events reported. Until that time I don’t think it is appropriate to use VAERS as a data source as there is not way to verify where any of the information is coming from.
I really enjoyed this article and I can’t believe it took me so long to find, It is a good read!! I hope to see more like it on this site.
Thank-you for your comment, Johnny. I would like to respond to the concerns you have raised.
You write: “I think some of the data in here is misinterpreted. For instance, you seem to be saying that the decreasing Hep B rate from 3.03/100,000 to .34/100,000 is insignificant and is probably not related to vaccines. After doing some quick number crunching it looks like the US population in 1990 was approx. 248,709,873 which would mean at 3.03/100,000 there would be about 7536 people with Hep B. And in 2002 the population was approx. 287,421,906 (which is an estimate since the census is only done every 10 years) at .34/100,000 would mean 977 people had Hep B.”
My response: I believe you have misinterpreted what I have written, and your misinterpretation has caused you to miscalculate in your number-crunching. The decrease from 3.03/100,000 to .34/100,000 refers to the incidence of hepatitis B in U.S. children between 0-19 years of age. In your calculations, you are multiplying by the entire U.S. population, so the formula you are using is incorrect.
You write: “So according to my calculation 7,536 – 977 = 6,559. Seeing as they have saved about 6500 out of a possible 7500 I would say it is pretty darn significant as the prevalence of Hep B was pretty constant before this time.”
My response: Your calculations are incorrect because you are multiplying the rate of decrease in children and adolescents by an inflated number (U.S. population).
You write: “One other thing I noted was your calculation of death rates. You seem to be implying that the Hep B vaccine has killed more people than it has saved, which may very well be true however I don’t think the material you presented supports this.”
My response: I have not addressed the overall death rate from the hepatitis B vaccine, nor how this compares to any “efficacy” of the vaccine in adults. This response to Congress is written regarding the Childhood Vaccination Schedule and the soaring rates of autism and other neuro-immune and neuro-developmental disorders that are the result of that schedule. What I have said is that there is no rationale for giving the hepatitis B vaccine to infants in the U.S. who are not at risk for the disease. The vaccine has killed many more infants and young children than it has saved from hepatitis B infection.
You write: “From what I have read you are correct in saying the rate of infant death from Hep B has never been rampant and I am inclined to believe your statement “only 11.5 children saved for 20 years” because Hep B is a very chronic disease and usually takes over 20 years to rear its ugly head and cause serious problems. Still this “11.5″ number seems irrelevant as the Hep B vaccine was never designed to save children; it was meant to prevent Hep B infection during infancy and adolescence (the most common time period for infection) so as to prevent the tragic results of chronic Hep B infection in adulthood.”
My response: As I said, the hepatitis B vaccine has killed many more infants and children than it has saved from death as a result of hepatitis B infection. We are in agreement. As you note, the hepatitis B vaccine was never meant to be given to infants in the U.S. because they are not now and never have been at significant risk. The reason the vaccine was added to the childhood schedule in the first place was because the rate of decrease stagnated when it was only given to adults (in the 1980s). The vaccine was given to infants based on the faulty rationale that vaccinating children would help to bring the numbers down in adults. There are several problems with this, including the fact that infants who are not born to mothers already infected are at extremely low risk of contracting hepatitis B because they are not having sex or engaging in iv drug activity. When you consider that recent studies show that IF there is any immunity at all conferred by the vaccine, it is non-existent (wears off) within 3-5 years, how does it make sense to vaccinate children at all? I don’t know of any five year-olds who are having sex or using iv drugs; at least not willingly. Adolescents who are having multiple sex partners and who are experimenting sexually and with drug use do represent a population that IS at increased risk of infection with hepatitis B, but infants and young children? NO. And if you re-read what I have written, the number of deaths I have cited from the VAERS data are deaths in children under the age of 15, with the vast majority occuring in children under the age of 3 years.
You write: “According to a couple different websites (I avoided CDC, IOM, and the like as you recommended) about 90% of infants who become infected with Hep B will become chronic carriers. Additionally, 25% of these people will develop liver cirrhosis or cancer. From the numbers you presented, 6559 people were stopped from getting Hep B from 1990-2002. 90% of 6559 = 5903. 25% of 5903 = 1476. That would be 1476 people saved from a horrific death in there 30s-50s due to liver cirrhosis or cancer. That is not even mentioning all the other problems I read about today that Hep B causes.”
My response: Infants who are not born to mothers who are infected with hepatitis B are not at risk of hepatitis B. When you say 90% of infants who contract hep B will become chronic carriers, and 25% of them will go on to develop serious illness decades later, you need to stop and rethink how many infants you are talking about: very few. The numbers you are attributing to me are wrong, as I have already addressed above. To vaccinate 100% of the approximately 4 million infants born each year in the U.S. with a vaccine that is designed to prevent infection in adolescents and adults, when the vaccine carries serious risk of illness or death, and provides zero lasting protection makes no sense. It’s criminal.