Kirby Comments at Friday's Vaccine Safety Meeting in DC (FYI)

[Guest guest]

I thank Kirby from speaking out IMMENSELY, but to add my comments:

1. I am NOT pro vaccine and there is no safe

vaccine now, nor will there ever be as the whole

basis of vaccines is wrong. Not enough is known

about the immune system of an adult and even less about an infant.

2. The fear of the diseases we vaccinate for is exaggerated or lied about

3. Mitochondrial changes likely have occurred

after the vaccines also - testing of newborn may

find nothing, so they vaccinate and then there

are changes - are we going to test after each vaccine, before the next ones?

4. Single M, M & R vaccines - there is no

guarantee that is safe. Look back at the medical

information about reactions from each of those

vaccines -

http://www.wellwithin1.com/vaccine.htm my pages

that have pages on each of those vaccines

5. Antibodies after a vaccine do not mean

immunity - they mean exposure - only that, as all

aspects of the immune system have not been activated by an injected vaccine

I understand why someone might say they are

pro-vaccine in such a forum - in order to be

heard and maybe is pro-vaccine. But the

whole premise is wrong. And what happens when

changes are made in the schedule & otherwise and

we still have vaccine injury (because we

will). I prefer to warn of the risks of all

vaccines - in singles, in multiples, delayed,

separated - all vaccines are dangerous in any

amount and any age. You cannot manipulate the

immune system which so little is known about.

Otherwise I'm in agreement with what he has said.

Sheri

--------------------------------------------------------

Sheri Nakken, former R.N., MA, Hahnemannian Homeopath

Vaccination Information & Choice Network, Nevada City CA & Wales UK

Vaccines -

http://www.wellwithin1.com/vaccine.htm Vaccine

Dangers & Childhood Disease & Homeopathy Email classes start April 18

From Kirby..................

Hello, someone transcribed my comments from the

vaccine meeting yesterday at HHS.

Other comments were recorded, and I believe they

may be transcribed and posted at the Age of Autism blog.

It was a good meeting, all around, I thought. The

government people seemed to take their charge very seriously.

PS: The other news stories I am working on are

still very much alive – they just need a little

more time before they are ready for primetime.

Thanks, and all best- DK

Hello, my name is Kirby, I am an author and

journalist, and my only conflict of interest is

that I wrote a book about vaccines and autism.

But I don't plan on selling any books here today.

This has been a really extraordinary meeting, and

I am very happy that everyone came together to

discuss this important topic. I will probably be

reporting on this in various venues, though I am

not quite sure what my, what we call 'take home message', is going to be.

But I do want to say, and at the risk of

overstatement: History will judge each and every

one of you. A year from now, five years from now,

ten years from now, people like me will look back

on the history of vaccine safety in this country,

and look at you folks, and say, " What did they do? "

Now, I am going to guess from your body language

that you know that there is an issue here. We

have a problem with the vaccine schedule. We don't know what it is.

You have the power to listen to these community

people, and make some decisions. And you are

maybe going to make the decision that you are

going to look into this situation, and change things.

Or, you are going to decide to protect the status

quo. And if you do that, you do that with several risks.

One risk is that there really is a problem,

perhaps, with the vaccine schedule. We know that

Hannah Poling was injured by her vaccines, and now she has autism.

For all we know, some kid right now with

mitochondrial dysfunction getting vaccinated with

multiple vaccines may get seizures, may get

fevers. We don't know what the ultimate outcome

for that child may be. Keep that in mind as you

are revising the schedule – or not.

Now, you can choose to support the status quo,

and pretend that we don't have a problem with

this. But if you think you have trust problems

now, you can imagine how far away you are going

to send parents from vaccination.

I am extremely pro-vaccine. But I live in Park

Slope, Brooklyn, and I talk to young parents in

my neighborhood all the time. These are not

autism parents, these are not vaccine activists.

These are frightened, young Americans who are

looking to you for guidance. And you know what?

They don't trust you. And I take no pleasure in saying that.

But you have a real problem on your hands, and as

a journalist, I am here telling you: Yes, they

want to vaccinate their kids. Yes, they want to

believe in the medical establishment, and the

government. But they don't trust you, a good

number of them. And I know that doesn't sound

nice to hear. But you have to take that into account.

A couple of other comments that were made here

today - and as a journalist, I probably will

mention this in my reporting – Dr. McCormick

asked " How quickly can we get the information out

to the public after these RCAs (Rapid Cycle

Analysis of vaccine adverse events) are done? "

She wanted to know so that we can reassure the

public. Well, that data is not always going to be

reassuring. And I understand the desire to

reassure. Everybody wants to reassure. It feels good to reassure people.

But when people have genuine concerns about

vaccine safety, and all they get is reassurances

when their questions are not being addressed

directly, that doesn't build trust, that doesn't

support transparency. Instead, that will drive

parents away from vaccination in very dangerous

droves. And nobody in this room wants to see that

happen. We all want to protect the children of this country.

Now, I just have a few very quick questions about the vaccine schedule:

We have been hearing a lot of talk from the CDC

lately about flexibility. And my question is: If

there is flexibility, and parents do have the

right to talk to their doctor, will Hepatitis B

vaccine still be basically mandatory at birth? Or

will parents have a right to say, " No, I prefer to wait a while? "

On that subject, what exactly is the rationale

for giving Hepatitis B vaccine at birth? I have

heard about four or five different rationales

from different public health people. And without

knowing the exact reason, it makes it very hard

to decide whether it is a good idea or not.

I would like to know, if MMR titers can be

offered to parents, so that after the first set

of vaccinations, if the child has developed

immunity, is it necessary to revaccinate? Would a

certificate be available for that child to prove

that they have immunity, and don't need to get revaccinated?

On MMR, can we possibly separate out the M, M

and the R, if parents want? Can we encourage

industry to produce more monovalent vaccine? And

can we work with parents who want to go that route?

And again, can we encourage them to come back and

get the other vaccines? No one wants children to

go unprotected. But parents have reasons for

asking these questions, and if they are not given

the proper answers, they may just not vaccinate.

Can we get testing on vaccinated versus

unvaccinated populations in this country? To give

us some idea if there really are any differences?

Maybe there are no more adverse events in the

vaccinated over the unvaccinated population. But

if there are, that will at least give us some

direction of things to go look at.

What is being done to identify children with

mitochondrial dysfunction, before vaccination –

whether it is a nuclear DNA test, a mitochondrial

DNA test, or even just a simple blood test for

certain metabolic markers? If we are able to

identify these children, I realize that it is

very precarious. They should be first in line to

be vaccinated, because they might be more at risk

for regression due to febrile infections.

But, should we create a separate schedule for

those children? Yes, they may need to be

vaccinated first, but that one-size schedule does

not fit all, including the children with mitochondrial dysfunction.

And finally, my last question, (let me look at my

notes), when we talk about relative risk, can we

also look at lifetime risks? Particularly for the

flu vaccine, which some people get every year.

And my understanding is that lifetime risks are

actually magnified quite a bit when you talk about yearly vaccination.

These are not just rhetorical questions. I don't

expect an answer, but I did want these questions to be put on the record.

Thank you very much. I appreciate the chance to speak.