Vaccine 'science'

http://www.whale.to/vaccine/quotes17.html

Unhealthy babies excluded from trials, making vaccines look better/safer

All trial participants have to be healthy. You won't find babies in these
trials who have ongoing health issues, family history, immunodeficiency,
failure to thrive, or any ill health..........If it's not acceptable to
vaccinate babies with any possible health problem in any vaccine study, why
does it become acceptable after the vaccine has been licensed to vaccinate
premature babies? Or to vaccinate at birth, babies from at risk mothers who
have exactly these problems that excluded them from the study in the first
place, or babies who have just come out of intensive care?......That's why
the data which say vaccines are safe, looks so good.......Think about this
for a minute. Think about those animal safety tests as well.---- [Book June
2006] Just A Little Prick by Peter and Hilary Butler p118, 120, 121
Trial information kept secret
Most people don't realise that the findings from these trials always include
a no public disclosure clause, and you are not allowed to see the data
gleaned from these clinical trials. Even the FDA or CDC in the USA gets to
see only the filtered final statistics....The IAS requested all
information.....relating to the Meningococcal Meningitis B
vaccine.....Almost everything we asked for, even the protocols, were witheld
under confidentiality provisions...of the Act. ---- [Book June 2006] Just A
Little Prick by Peter and Hilary Butler p 121

Antibody theory [See: Antibody Theory quotes]
"Human trials generally correlate "antibody" responses with protection -
that is if the body produces antibodies (proteins) which bind to vaccine
components, then it must be working and safe. Yet Dr March says antibody
response is generally a poor measure of protection and no indicator at all
of safety. "Particularly for viral diseases, the 'cellular' immune response
is all important, and antibody levels and protection are totally
unconnected."--Private Eye 24/1/2002

No trial ever done using 100% unvaccinated controls
" One of the flaws in studies of vaccines is that there are no true placebo
groups. The vaccine is tested in one group of immunized children and is
compared to another group of immunized children."--Peter Baratosy

"the US National Academy of Sciences published a report in Sept 1993 in
which the American Academy of paediatrics reaffirmed "its long standing
position that the benefits of immunisation far outweigh the risks". However,
Russell Alexander, a panel member and professor of epidemiology at the
University of Washington, says he is disappointed that the panel did not
compare the risk of vaccination with the risks of going
unvaccinated!.....Since there was no comparison of immunisation with another
procedure, or with being unimmunised, the conclusions of the American
Academy of Paediatrics are not based on scientific reasoning and are almost
meaningless. Their position only serves to illustrate the prejudice that
exists within many of those interested in promoting vaccines."---Trevor Gunn
BSc

"The Prevnar pre-licensure clinical trials, which Wyeth Lederle paid Kaiser
Permanente to conduct, compared two experimental vaccines against each
other. To compound this basic methodological flaw, Kaiser and Wyeth Lederle,
allowed most of the children in the trial to be given the more reactive DPT
vaccine rather than use the safer, less reactive DTaP vaccine. This placed
the children in that five-year experiment in greater danger and allowed the
drug company to write off the seizures that occurred as being caused by DPT
and not Prevnar, when in fact, they didn't know. Even so, the groups of
children who got Prevnar suffered more seizures, higher fevers, more
irritability and other reactions than did the children who got the other
experimental vaccine. It was a no-brainer as far as I was concerned: Kaiser
and Wyeth Lederle had proved nothing about Prevnar vaccine safety."--Barbara
Loe Fisher

"P.Aaby et al, Pediat Infec DisJ 8:197-200,1989---By comparing groups of
children with apparently different vaccination status, this study suggests
that measles vaccination reduces mortality by 30%. However, their
comparisons in this study would lead one to have serious misgivings about
their conclusions. The group used as a "non-vaccinated" group were in fact
vaccinated between certain dates. They were found to have undetectable
levels of antibody and therefore it was assumed that the vaccine did not
work, hence this was used as a 'control' non-vaccinated group. Most of a
second group of 123 individuals, vaccinated at another time were found to
have responded and were therefore used as the vaccinated group. However 15
of this vaccinated group did not seroconvert and they were excluded from the
results! Three of these children died!"---Trevor Gunn BSc

"It is a pretty bad habit of vaccine researchers to give several vaccines
simultaneously where the effect of only one of them has to be studied and
evaluated. Obviously this leads to confounding results..........for
evaluation of side-effects in most studies was restricted to 48 to 72 hours.
Needless to say that many serious adverse effects show up long after that
time span; by definition they could never be mentioned in those studies.
Nevertheless most of these studies pretend to prove the safety of the
vaccine."--Kris Gaublomme MD

Animal safety tests--you couldn't make it up
"The only safety testing that has ever been done on the pertussis vaccine in
the past 50 years is an unproven method called the Mouse Weight Gain Test.
The "scientists" inject the vaccine to be tested into the stomachs of baby
mice. If the mice continue to gain weight and don't die right away, it is
assumed the vaccine is safe and effective for humans. That's it! I'm not
making this up!.......The only toxicity test required for the initial
licensing of the DPT vaccine in the United States was this mouse weight-gain
test 60 years ago."-----The Sanctity of Human Blood By Tim O'Shea p. 69

"john" wrote in message
...
http://www.whale.to/vaccine/quotes17.html

Unhealthy babies excluded from trials, making vaccines look better/safer

All trial participants have to be healthy. You won't find babies in these
trials who have ongoing health issues, family history, immunodeficiency,
failure to thrive, or any ill health..........If it's not acceptable to
vaccinate babies with any possible health problem in any vaccine study,
why does it become acceptable after the vaccine has been licensed to
vaccinate premature babies?

Actually, there have been studies to show that vaccines work in premature
babies.

Oopsie, John got the facts wrong. What a surprise.

jeff

Or to vaccinate at birth, babies from at risk mothers who have exactly
these problems that excluded them from the study in the first place, or
babies who have just come out of intensive care?......That's why the data
which say vaccines are safe, looks so good.......Think about this for a
minute. Think about those animal safety tests as well.---- [Book June
2006] Just A Little Prick by Peter and Hilary Butler p118, 120, 121
Trial information kept secret
Most people don't realise that the findings from these trials always
include a no public disclosure clause, and you are not allowed to see the
data gleaned from these clinical trials. Even the FDA or CDC in the USA
gets to see only the filtered final statistics....The IAS requested all
information.....relating to the Meningococcal Meningitis B
vaccine.....Almost everything we asked for, even the protocols, were
witheld under confidentiality provisions...of the Act. ---- [Book June
2006] Just A Little Prick by Peter and Hilary Butler p 121

Antibody theory [See: Antibody Theory quotes]
"Human trials generally correlate "antibody" responses with protection -
that is if the body produces antibodies (proteins) which bind to vaccine
components, then it must be working and safe. Yet Dr March says antibody
response is generally a poor measure of protection and no indicator at all
of safety. "Particularly for viral diseases, the 'cellular' immune
response is all important, and antibody levels and protection are totally
unconnected."--Private Eye 24/1/2002

No trial ever done using 100% unvaccinated controls
" One of the flaws in studies of vaccines is that there are no true
placebo groups. The vaccine is tested in one group of immunized children
and is compared to another group of immunized children."--Peter Baratosy

"the US National Academy of Sciences published a report in Sept 1993 in
which the American Academy of paediatrics reaffirmed "its long standing
position that the benefits of immunisation far outweigh the risks".
However, Russell Alexander, a panel member and professor of epidemiology
at the University of Washington, says he is disappointed that the panel
did not compare the risk of vaccination with the risks of going
unvaccinated!.....Since there was no comparison of immunisation with
another procedure, or with being unimmunised, the conclusions of the
American Academy of Paediatrics are not based on scientific reasoning and
are almost meaningless. Their position only serves to illustrate the
prejudice that exists within many of those interested in promoting
vaccines."---Trevor Gunn BSc

"The Prevnar pre-licensure clinical trials, which Wyeth Lederle paid
Kaiser Permanente to conduct, compared two experimental vaccines against
each other. To compound this basic methodological flaw, Kaiser and Wyeth
Lederle, allowed most of the children in the trial to be given the more
reactive DPT vaccine rather than use the safer, less reactive DTaP
vaccine. This placed the children in that five-year experiment in greater
danger and allowed the drug company to write off the seizures that
occurred as being caused by DPT and not Prevnar, when in fact, they didn't
know. Even so, the groups of children who got Prevnar suffered more
seizures, higher fevers, more irritability and other reactions than did
the children who got the other experimental vaccine. It was a no-brainer
as far as I was concerned: Kaiser and Wyeth Lederle had proved nothing
about Prevnar vaccine safety."--Barbara Loe Fisher

"P.Aaby et al, Pediat Infec DisJ 8:197-200,1989---By comparing groups of
children with apparently different vaccination status, this study suggests
that measles vaccination reduces mortality by 30%. However, their
comparisons in this study would lead one to have serious misgivings about
their conclusions. The group used as a "non-vaccinated" group were in fact
vaccinated between certain dates. They were found to have undetectable
levels of antibody and therefore it was assumed that the vaccine did not
work, hence this was used as a 'control' non-vaccinated group. Most of a
second group of 123 individuals, vaccinated at another time were found to
have responded and were therefore used as the vaccinated group. However 15
of this vaccinated group did not seroconvert and they were excluded from
the results! Three of these children died!"---Trevor Gunn BSc

"It is a pretty bad habit of vaccine researchers to give several vaccines
simultaneously where the effect of only one of them has to be studied and
evaluated. Obviously this leads to confounding results..........for
evaluation of side-effects in most studies was restricted to 48 to 72
hours. Needless to say that many serious adverse effects show up long
after that time span; by definition they could never be mentioned in those
studies. Nevertheless most of these studies pretend to prove the safety of
the vaccine."--Kris Gaublomme MD

Animal safety tests--you couldn't make it up
"The only safety testing that has ever been done on the pertussis vaccine
in the past 50 years is an unproven method called the Mouse Weight Gain
Test. The "scientists" inject the vaccine to be tested into the stomachs
of baby mice. If the mice continue to gain weight and don't die right
away, it is assumed the vaccine is safe and effective for humans. That's
it! I'm not making this up!.......The only toxicity test required for the
initial licensing of the DPT vaccine in the United States was this mouse
weight-gain test 60 years ago."-----The Sanctity of Human Blood By Tim
O'Shea p. 69

In article , john wrote:
http://www.whale.to/vaccine/quotes17.html

Unhealthy babies excluded from trials, making vaccines look better/safer

All trial participants have to be healthy. You won't find babies in these
trials who have ongoing health issues, family history, immunodeficiency,
failure to thrive, or any ill health.

That's as it should be. When you start trials, you want a reasonably
healthy group. They'll be better able to resist bad side effects if
such emerge. After you've shown that your new product is safe for the
healthy ones, then you can move on to seeing whether it works on the
unhealthy ones.

No trial ever done using 100% unvaccinated controls
" One of the flaws in studies of vaccines is that there are no true placebo
groups. The vaccine is tested in one group of immunized children and is
compared to another group of immunized children."--Peter Baratosy

There's no automatic reason that this is bad.

"The only safety testing that has ever been done on the pertussis vaccine in
the past 50 years is an unproven method called the Mouse Weight Gain Test.
The "scientists" inject the vaccine to be tested into the stomachs of baby
mice. If the mice continue to gain weight and don't die right away, it is
assumed the vaccine is safe and effective for humans. That's it! I'm not
making this up!.......The only toxicity test required for the initial
licensing of the DPT vaccine in the United States was this mouse weight-gain
test 60 years ago."-----The Sanctity of Human Blood By Tim O'Shea p. 69

A blatant falsehood, see e.g.

Pediatr Int. 2004 Dec;46(6):650-5.
Safety and efficacy of acellular pertussis vaccine in Japan,
evaluated by 23 years of its use for routine immunization.

* Kuno-Sakai H,
* Kimura M.

Department of Public Health and Social Medicine, Tokai University,
Isehara City, Japan.

BACKGROUND: Real evaluation of any vaccine can only be done after
the vaccine has been in routine use for a substantially long
period of time. In Japan, acellular pertussis vaccine was
introduced and totally replaced whole cell pertussis vaccine in
1981. From 1982 to 1988 40.3 million doses of acellular pertussis
vaccine were given to 2-year-olds and from 1989 to 2001 59.3
million doses of acellular pertussis vaccine were given to
3-month-olds. It is now time to evaluate the efficacy and safety
of acellular pertussis vaccine by the use of national data
officially supplied by the Government. METHODS: Government
national surveillance of pertussis, which began in 1981, was used
to analyze epidemiology of pertussis. Official Government reports
on acceptance rates of pertussis were analyzed. A peer review has
been made on all severe neurological illnesses/death occurring
after pertussis immunization which have been applied for through
the Vaccine Injury Compensation System, Ministry of Health Labor
and Welfare, Japan. RESULTS: High acceptance rates of acellular
pertussis vaccine combined with diphtheria and tetanus toxoids
(DTaP) has been maintained and a dramatic decrease in pertussis
was noted over the past 23 years. Neurological illnesses
temporally associated both with whole cell and with acellular
pertussis vaccination has been a rare phenomenon. However,
incidences of encephalopathy/encephalitis and status
epileptics/frequent convulsions, febrile seizures/provocation of
convulsions, and sudden deaths were significantly lower with
acellular pertussis vaccination than with whole cell pertussis
vaccination. CONCLUSION: With the use of acellular pertussis
vaccine which has been accepted by the public, pertussis has been
well controlled in Japan.

PMID: 15660862 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]




Ah well. Truth has never been a priority at whale.to.

-- David Wright :: alphabeta at prodigy.net
These are my opinions only, but they're almost always correct.
"If you can't say something nice, then sit next to me."
-- Alice Roosevelt Longworth

David Wright wrote:
In article , john wrote:

http://www.whale.to/vaccine/quotes17.html

Unhealthy babies excluded from trials, making vaccines look better/safer

All trial participants have to be healthy. You won't find babies in these
trials who have ongoing health issues, family history, immunodeficiency,
failure to thrive, or any ill health.

But John wants babies to die. He's shown that again, and again. So
should we be surprised that we should be using sick kids for preliminary
trials? I'm not.

Bryan

"Bryan Heit" wrote in message
...
David Wright wrote:
In article , john wrote:

http://www.whale.to/vaccine/quotes17.html

Unhealthy babies excluded from trials, making vaccines look better/safer

All trial participants have to be healthy. You won't find babies in these
trials who have ongoing health issues, family history, immunodeficiency,
failure to thrive, or any ill health.

But John wants babies to die.

OMG.

He's shown that again, and again.

Only in you so-called mind.

So
should we be surprised that we should be using sick kids for preliminary
trials? I'm not.

Bryan

In article ,
Bryan Heit wrote:
David Wright wrote:
In article , john wrote:

http://www.whale.to/vaccine/quotes17.html

Unhealthy babies excluded from trials, making vaccines look better/safer

All trial participants have to be healthy. You won't find babies in these
trials who have ongoing health issues, family history, immunodeficiency,
failure to thrive, or any ill health.

But John wants babies to die. He's shown that again, and again. So
should we be surprised that we should be using sick kids for preliminary
trials? I'm not.

If you're going to include my name in your reply, you really should at
least include some text I wrote.

-- David Wright :: alphabeta at prodigy.net
These are my opinions only, but they're almost always correct.
"If you can't say something nice, then sit next to me."
-- Alice Roosevelt Longworth

"Bryan Heit" wrote in message
...
David Wright wrote:
In article , john wrote:

http://www.whale.to/vaccine/quotes17.html

Unhealthy babies excluded from trials, making vaccines look better/safer

All trial participants have to be healthy. You won't find babies in these
trials who have ongoing health issues, family history, immunodeficiency,
failure to thrive, or any ill health.

But John wants babies to die. He's shown that again, and again. So
should we be surprised that we should be using sick kids for preliminary
trials? I'm not.

Bryan

Don't you mean healthy kids?

john wrote:
"Bryan Heit" wrote in message
...
David Wright wrote:
In article , john wrote:

http://www.whale.to/vaccine/quotes17.html

Unhealthy babies excluded from trials, making vaccines look better/safer

All trial participants have to be healthy. You won't find babies in these
trials who have ongoing health issues, family history, immunodeficiency,
failure to thrive, or any ill health.

But John wants babies to die. He's shown that again, and again. So
should we be surprised that we should be using sick kids for preliminary
trials? I'm not.

Bryan

Don't you mean healthy kids?

No. He's describing, quite clearly, your desire to use sick kids for
preliminary trials. And he's right: no-one's surprised.

john wrote:
"Bryan Heit" wrote in message
...
David Wright wrote:
In article , john wrote:

http://www.whale.to/vaccine/quotes17.html

Unhealthy babies excluded from trials, making vaccines look better/safer

All trial participants have to be healthy. You won't find babies in these
trials who have ongoing health issues, family history, immunodeficiency,
failure to thrive, or any ill health.

But John wants babies to die. He's shown that again, and again. So
should we be surprised that we should be using sick kids for preliminary
trials? I'm not.

Bryan

Don't you mean healthy kids?

Note that John did not deny that he wants babies to die.

When given the opportunity, he never takes it. I wonder why?

In message , Mark Probert wrote:

Note that John did not deny that he wants babies to die.

When given the opportunity, he never takes it. I wonder why?

Hey, even when I try to help him by pointing out how he could
get rock-solid substantiation for his position, he never
replies.

For instance, he told us recently that Vitamin C eliminates
all of the serious sequelae of measles. Easy enough to back
that one up, since there are places (New Mexico, Ireland)
with vitamin C intake enormously higher than their neighbors.

Both NM and IR have good health records from 1960, so he should
have no problem pointing out the low levels of measles sequelae
in either place, which would be powerful confirmation of his
theories.

Sudden silence.

He's also told us that chili peppers cure arterial disease,
and when I point out that NM and southern India ingest enough
that the differential disease rates should show it, he suddenly
drops off the thread.

I don't understand -- I'm just trying to help.

--
begin signature.exe
A:*Because*it*messes*up*the*order*in*which*people* normally*read*text.
Q:*Why*is*top-posting*such*a*bad*thing?
A:*Top-posting.
Q:*What*is*the*most*annoying*thing*on*usenet?