Edda West from VRAN (Canada) on 5 in 1 vaccine (Pentacel)Edda West from VRAN (Canada) on 5 in 1 vaccine (Pentacel)Edda West from VRAN (Canada) on 5 in 1 vaccine (Pentacel)

http://www.whale.to/a/west5.html

Edda West from VRAN (Canada) on 5 in 1 vaccine (Pentacel)

Good for the folks in the UK who are protesting the new 5 in 1 vaccine being
foisted on them. Here in Canada, we didn't hear a peep in the media when
Aventis Pasteur's 5 in 1 vaccine (Pentacel) was introduced across the board
and injected into most Canadian babies starting in 1997.

Although we can be grateful that thimerosal is no longer in the vaccine
(except perhaps for trace amounts used in the manufacturing process which
apparently they don't have to disclose), it has been replaced with
2-phenoxyethanol, a main ingredient in anti-freeze. You'd need to check the
ingredients list to determine whether this is also being used in the
U.K.version of the 5 in 1 vaccine. We've not been able to find any data
showing that it is safe to inject infants with 2-phenoxyethanol or
anti-freeze for that matter. Our understanding is that they were unable to
continue using thimerosal, not because of safety concerns to babies, but
because the inactivated polio viruses in Pentacel vaccine are altered by
thimerosal, hence the need to switch to another preservative. Some sources
state that 2-phenoxyethanol is a 'protoplasmic poison'. No matter how many
vaccines your David Salisbury and Paul Offit in the U.S. think babies can
handle, the bottom line is they are still being injected with toxic
substances.

Canadian infants have been the main test market for this vaccine these past
7 years, and based on this large experiment, Aventis is aiming to have it
licensed for use in the U.S. either in 2004 or 05. Undoubtedly licensing in
other countries is pending as well.

Canada is the perfect test market for pharmaceutical companies testing new
vaccines because:
a) There is no mandatory reporting of vaccine reactions in this country,
with the result that only a small fraction (between 1-10%) of adverse
reactions are reported.
b)Reporting of adverse reactions hinges solely on the individual doctor's
'opinion' as to whether a reaction is vaccine related. Most physicians
refuse to entertain the possibility of vaccine involvement when a child
presents with any range of collapse, seizures, neurological injurty post
vaccination. Hence, the vast majority of vaccine reactions are discounted as
'coincidental' and reports are not filed.
c) to the best of our knowledge the original trials did not monitor
reactions in chilren beyond 72 hours (see attached pdf medscape report), and
prelicensure testing was only done in healthy children.
d)Testing on children with existing or evolving neurological or other health
problems was not undertaken until after the vaccine was already in
widespread use. (we have not seen the results of this additional post
licensure evaluation) We suspect that parents whose children suffered
existing health problems and who were vaccinated with Pentacel were not
informed their children were included in a test group. (see Marina's story,
attached)

e)Although reporting of adverse reactions in the first 72 hours are
substantially less than with the old whole cell vaccine that contained
thimerosal, the pattern we have observed from parents who have contacted us,
is that serious reactions to this 5 in 1 vaccine are delayed often by 10 or
12 days, way beyond a time frame that any physician will consider the
seizures or collapse to be vaccine related. See Kirk's story
http://64.41.99.118/vran/news_art/st...ry_shunter.htm
f)No public access to govenment or pharmaceutical data bases for independent
inquiries into reactions that are being reported. Without independent
evaluation of reactions and in the absence of mandatory reporting of vaccine
reactions, sweeping statements claiming that the 5 in 1 vaccine has been
proven safe after 7 years of injection into Canadian children are
fraudulent.

Following is backgrounder from Scott Hunter, (parent of vaccine injured
child) who has been investigating Pentacel:

"I have not been able to unearth any clinical trials used to license the
product in 1996 that used the products exact ingredients. To the contrary
I've been able to find several references pointing in the opposite
direction. The accellular component was added in 1997 post-licensure and the
preservative Thimerosal was replaced with 2-phenoxyethanol seemingly without
the product being retrialed. Most clinical trials references in the
monograph utilize component trials not the DTaPP -ActHib all in one
combination with the one mention of Quadracel trials in Canada not dated.
Any change in the product ingredients should have constituted a reason for
retrial given the potential immunologic sensitivities to the new elements."

Additional writes Scott "VAESS (canadian reporting system) requires that
physicians and health professionals NOT make causal assessments prior
toreporting. Kirk's neurologist refused to entertain vaccine injury to such
an extent, he informed us after 6 months of intensive testing which
confirmed a diagnosis of idiopathic seizures, he would"never" reconsider
vaccine as a possible trigger. This, I presume, contributed to the reason it
took us over a year of constant parental shoving to get this "possible"
injury recorded. As a matter of fact Kirk's only official documenting of the
our suspicions was recorded at the MAYO Clinic inRochester, despite repeated
attempts with several health professionals here." (see attached letter to
minister of health - saskatchewan)

The attached is a significant piece of the puzzle I've been trying to put
together. The other pieces regarding my sons injury and the lack of
reporting is apart from this. But suffice to say, even if they had performed
these trials properly - the way in which they report/monitor injury is
flawed. ie:

1. it's a completely volunteer system - health professionals are left to
decide what constitutes injury even though the guidelines clearly state
causal determinations are not to be made.
2. the manufacturer (Aventis) says Health Canada isn't legally bound to
report injury claims to them therefore what piecemeal data do the trials
represent.
3. Aventis said they encourage reporting through their monograph - which no
one in this province recieves. Just the one pager Sask Health gives to
parents which says the benefit outweighs risk.
4. It took almost two years for my sons possible injury (intractable
siezures) to be reported when it should have taken 15 days.
5. By their own admission trial data is so small (as few as 250 kids) they
rely on post-market data tracking to reveal anomolies and trends in injury
(See above)

Beginning with the attached, the following observations/questions come to
mind.

1. Vaccine approved for use in Canada in 1996 (I need to reconfirm this)
2. Vaccine changed in 1997 (whole cell to accellular) (and at some point
thimerosal changed to phenoxethanol2)
3. appears only data used to trial done on heathy children
4. data required on children with underlying heath issues
5. What were the parents told when their children with health problems were
vaccinated/offered vaccination ie: was info given that related to healthy
childrens trial only?
6. There are additional questions on reporting - Is 0-72 hours really
sufficient? How is the data collected shared with the maker?

BTW - Aventis is seeking FDA approval this year for the product.

There has been a HUGE increase in anaphylaxis disorders following the
widespread use of the 5 in 1 vaccine and its precursor Penta (4 in one plus
Hib). Attached is a letter from a parent whose child developed anaphylaxis
following injection with Penta, the precursor to Pentacel - it took her over
a year to get a list of reactions to the lot numbers of vaccine her boy was
injected with. Of course we have no idea how many lot numbers were issued in
all, or how many children overall were vaccinated during the course of this
experiment before they created its progeny, the 5 in 1 vaccine trademarked
Pentacel in Canada.

..............I'm sending you a separate email on the legal perspective of
vaccine injury cases in Canada - that's another huge topic.

Best wishes,

Edda West,
VRAN - Vaccination Risk Awareness Network Inc.

www.vran.org

"john" wrote in message
...
http://www.whale.to/a/west5.html

Edda West from VRAN (Canada) on 5 in 1 vaccine (Pentacel)

Good for the folks in the UK who are protesting the new 5 in 1 vaccine
being
foisted on them. Here in Canada, we didn't hear a peep in the media when
Aventis Pasteur's 5 in 1 vaccine (Pentacel) was introduced across the
board
and injected into most Canadian babies starting in 1997.

Although we can be grateful that thimerosal is no longer in the vaccine
(except perhaps for trace amounts used in the manufacturing process which
apparently they don't have to disclose), it has been replaced with
2-phenoxyethanol, a main ingredient in anti-freeze.

Water is in antifreeze. Perhaps you should stop eating and drinking anything
with water in it. We would all be grateful.

Please show us evidence that this is dangerous in the quantities used. Or
would rather kids get a vaccine that is contaminated with bacteria?

You'd need to check the
ingredients list to determine whether this is also being used in the
U.K.version of the 5 in 1 vaccine. We've not been able to find any data
showing that it is safe to inject infants with 2-phenoxyethanol or
anti-freeze for that matter. Our understanding is that they were unable
to
continue using thimerosal, not because of safety concerns to babies, but
because the inactivated polio viruses in Pentacel vaccine are altered by
thimerosal, hence the need to switch to another preservative. Some
sources
state that 2-phenoxyethanol is a 'protoplasmic poison'. No matter how
many
vaccines your David Salisbury and Paul Offit in the U.S. think babies can
handle, the bottom line is they are still being injected with toxic
substances.

Please show us the evidenced that the very tiny amounts of these substances
are harmful.

Canadian infants have been the main test market for this vaccine these
past
7 years, and based on this large experiment, Aventis is aiming to have it
licensed for use in the U.S. either in 2004 or 05. Undoubtedly licensing
in
other countries is pending as well.

Good. Then more kids will be able to get life-saving shots and have few
shots. I don't think kids enjoy the "pin-cushion" role.

Rest of garbage is deleted.

Jeff

On Fri, 13 Aug 2004 07:30:55 -0400, "Jeff"
wrote:


Please show us evidence that this is dangerous in the quantities used.


Why would anyone bother showing you evidence of anything?

After hundreds of thousands of women had already written the FDA about
broken implants and many other horrific complaints about their
implants ... you were still claiming there was "no one harmed" ...

You are not a "retired pediatrician" as you claim ... just a Quack Vac
Flack.

Why would anyone bother showing you evidence of anything?

Exactly! Why would anyone show you anything?

You would never accept any answer that does not result in the subject of you
inquisition leaving usenet.

Another person's free speech, when you do not agree with it, is an anethma
to you. Your sole purpose in you inquisitional questioning is to stifle any
disagreement with you.

On Fri, 13 Aug 2004 17:12:09 GMT, "M,a,r,k P,r,o,b,e,r,t-August 13,
2004" M,a,r,k P,r,o,b,e,r,t projected his
own job on Usenet onto me ... and with one crooked finger aimed at me
.... and the rest back on him slurped:




Another person's free speech, when you do not agree with it, is an anethma
to you. Your sole purpose in you inquisitional questioning is to stifle any
disagreement with you.


You mean that if people KNEW you DO have a law degree ...

and that YOU are the very same Mark S Probert mentioned in these
pages (... the attorney from your district who was disciplined and 6
of his disgruntled ex clients were paid because of your actions ...)

www.nylawfund.org/pubs/97AnRep.pdf


Details are at:

http://www.humanticsfoundation.com/P...stProbert.html

That perhaps the fact that you have denied this in the past ... have
had your fellow Ragtag & Andy Posse Members lie on your behalf ...

That it would stifle you?




For the NY Bar Page that lists Mark S Probert:

www.nylawfund.org/pubs/97AnRep.pdf


Here is Mark S Probert denying that he was ever a lawyer:



"I have never been an attorney, have never claimed to be one, and do
not play one on the internet."

http://groups.google.com/groups?q=g:...ews.CIS.DFN.DE

On Fri, 13 Aug 2004 17:12:09 GMT, "M,a,r,k P,r,o,b,e,r,t-August 13,
2004" M,a,r,k P,r,o,b,e,r,t projected his
own job on Usenet onto me ... and with one crooked finger aimed at me
.... and the rest back on him slurped:




Another person's free speech, when you do not agree with it, is an anethma
to you. Your sole purpose in you inquisitional questioning is to stifle any
disagreement with you.


You mean that if people KNEW you DO have a law degree ...

and that YOU are the very same Mark S Probert mentioned in these
pages (... the attorney from your district who was disciplined and 6
of his disgruntled ex clients were paid because of your actions ...)

www.nylawfund.org/pubs/97AnRep.pdf


Details are at:

http://www.humanticsfoundation.com/P...stProbert.html

That perhaps the fact that you have denied this in the past ... have
had your fellow Ragtag & Andy Posse Members lie on your behalf ...

www.humanticsfoundaton.com/andysposse.htm

And they knew, that no only did you don your "Marla Maples" disguise
to infiltrate my support group, but in fact, MANY of the addresses I
attribute to you and you have denied, are ALSO you in disguise ...

That it would stifle you?




For the NY Bar Page that lists Mark S Probert:

www.nylawfund.org/pubs/97AnRep.pdf


Here is Mark S Probert denying that he was ever a lawyer:



"I have never been an attorney, have never claimed to be one, and do
not play one on the internet."

http://groups.google.com/groups?q=g:...ews.CIS.DFN.DE

I wonder if Ilena gave her daddy
the same 'terrorizing activist' routine
before he was dragged into court on
Fraud charges?


"Ilena Rose" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 13 Aug 2004 17:12:09 GMT, "M,a,r,k P,r,o,b,e,r,t-August 13,
2004" M,a,r,k P,r,o,b,e,r,t projected his
own job on Usenet onto me ... and with one crooked finger aimed at me
... and the rest back on him slurped:




Another person's free speech, when you do not agree with it, is an
anethma
to you. Your sole purpose in you inquisitional questioning is to stifle
any
disagreement with you.


You mean that if people KNEW you DO have a law degree ...

and that YOU are the very same Mark S Probert mentioned in these
pages (... the attorney from your district who was disciplined and 6
of his disgruntled ex clients were paid because of your actions ...)

www.nylawfund.org/pubs/97AnRep.pdf


Details are at:

http://www.humanticsfoundation.com/P...stProbert.html

That perhaps the fact that you have denied this in the past ... have
had your fellow Ragtag & Andy Posse Members lie on your behalf ...

www.humanticsfoundaton.com/andysposse.htm

And they knew, that no only did you don your "Marla Maples" disguise
to infiltrate my support group, but in fact, MANY of the addresses I
attribute to you and you have denied, are ALSO you in disguise ...

That it would stifle you?




For the NY Bar Page that lists Mark S Probert:

www.nylawfund.org/pubs/97AnRep.pdf


Here is Mark S Probert denying that he was ever a lawyer:



"I have never been an attorney, have never claimed to be one, and do
not play one on the internet."


http://groups.google.com/groups?q=g:...ews.CIS.DFN.DE

"Ilena Rose" wrote in message
news
On Fri, 13 Aug 2004 07:30:55 -0400, "Jeff"
wrote:


Please show us evidence that this is dangerous in the quantities used.


Why would anyone bother showing you evidence of anything?

After hundreds of thousands of women had already written the FDA about
broken implants and many other horrific complaints about their
implants ... you were still claiming there was "no one harmed" ...

Ilena, I hate to tell you this, but this thread is about vaccines.

Breast implants and vaccines are very different.

Perhaps you should start a thread in an appropriate newsgroup.

Jeff

You are not a "retired pediatrician" as you claim ... just a Quack Vac
Flack.

Ilena Rose wrote in message . ..

Here is Mark S Probert denying that he was ever a lawyer:



"I have never been an attorney, have never claimed to be one, and do
not play one on the internet."

http://groups.google.com/groups?q=g:...ews.CIS.DFN.DE

So Mark's already answered your question. He previously said he
answered it. You have no factual evidence to the contrary, just
guesses. You were shown proof that Dr. Utz is a medical doctor,
practicing or not. Surely you can find *proof* WRT your claim THIS
time??

In article ,
Ilena Rose wrote:

On Fri, 13 Aug 2004 17:12:09 GMT, "M,a,r,k P,r,o,b,e,r,t-August 13,
2004" M,a,r,k P,r,o,b,e,r,t projected his
own job on Usenet onto me ... and with one crooked finger aimed at me
... and the rest back on him slurped:




Another person's free speech, when you do not agree with it, is an anethma
to you. Your sole purpose in you inquisitional questioning is to stifle any
disagreement with you.


You mean that if people KNEW you DO have a law degree ...

and that YOU are the very same Mark S Probert mentioned in these
pages (... the attorney from your district who was disciplined and 6
of his disgruntled ex clients were paid because of your actions ...)

www.nylawfund.org/pubs/97AnRep.pdf


Details are at:

http://www.humanticsfoundation.com/P...stProbert.html

That perhaps the fact that you have denied this in the past ... have
had your fellow Ragtag & Andy Posse Members lie on your behalf ...

www.humanticsfoundaton.com/andysposse.htm

And they knew, that no only did you don your "Marla Maples" disguise
to infiltrate my support group, but in fact, MANY of the addresses I
attribute to you and you have denied, are ALSO you in disguise ...

That it would stifle you?




For the NY Bar Page that lists Mark S Probert:

www.nylawfund.org/pubs/97AnRep.pdf


Here is Mark S Probert denying that he was ever a lawyer:



"I have never been an attorney, have never claimed to be one, and do
not play one on the internet."

http://groups.google.com/groups?q=g:...859-1&oe=ISO-8
859-1&selm=3c8d5bcb.4292106754%40News.CIS.DFN.DE

Please produce evidence that the Mark S. Probert to which you refer is
the same as the Mark Probert who is a regular to this newsgroup.

--
Orac |"A statement of fact cannot be insolent."
|
|"If you cannot listen to the answers, why do you
| inconvenience me with questions?"