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.