Vaccines for public good or private profit?

[Guest guest]

I didn't pen this, and i an not anti vaccine I am for the truth. The

media loves to scare and so do agencies bent on self preservation.

Just stay informed and ask yourself why we can't get reform but we

can get lot's of 1940 scare tactics. We don't like it when the media

yellow's us. just resist being sucked in. this isn't wether or not

vaccines cause autism this iis wether or not vaccine schedules have

been proven out and if there ingredients can be improved for better

vaccination. I would welcome a better vaccine, i would welcome

research looking at the # of vaccines. I don't have all the answers

but i refuse to be led by the nose by any agency that has so much

money vested in the outcome. By the way Ravi had the MMR

March 7th, 2008

Those of us used to trawling medical literature have long since come

to the view that disease prevalence rates used to justify a vaccine's

introduction, have about as much credibility as a self-combusted

crystal ball. The numbers quoted are usually imaginatively inflated,

or a result of appallingly badly designed studies. This has been a

provable pattern since statistical sculpturing tactics, which were

used to inflate polio infection data during the 1950's, were first

revealed in 1960 (PMID 13857182). With previous jury-rigging in mind,

the recent announcement that the number of AIDS cases in India, is

only half of the earlier estimates, came as no surprise. Neither were

we surprised to find that when the formula which the CDC used to over-

inflate the numbers of hepatitis B cases in India was asked for, the

CDC had to admit that it had gone " missing " . (PMID 15547938) Also,

while the WHO used to advise mass vaccination for hepatitis B if the

prevalence was more than 2 per 100, that advice has been dropped in

favour of mass vaccination everywhere, regardless of disease

incidence.

Nowhere is the stupidity of this seen more than in India, where

according to WHO surveys, India does not have, and is unlikely to

have a problem with haemophilus type B. Yet a 2006 WHO position paper

on Hib (PMID: 17124755) states that because Hib vaccine is safe and

effective, it must be included in ALL routine infant immunization

programmes. " Lack of local surveillance data should not delay

introduction of the vaccine. " Yet the same paper also demands that

AFTER the introduction of the vaccine, surveillance should be done to

measure the impact of the vaccine!

It's nothing unusual for the WHO to demand universal vaccination with

vaccines other than Hib, irrespective of an individual country's

disease burden or lack of; not taking into account the rights of

sovereign states to decide what to spend their money on. To make it

worse, pharmaceutical companies drive their agendas hidden from

within agencies like GAVI.

Furthermore, the number of companies making basic EPI vaccines has

plummeted and these are being replaced by " value-added cocktail

vaccines " at exorbitant prices. For example, the addition of

Hepatitis B not only raises the price of DPT immunization 17 fold,

the relative safety and efficacy of these cocktail vaccines are much

lower than their individual counterparts.

Developing countries can no longer expect the WHO to be an honest

broker between themselves and private for profit vaccine

manufacturers.

Angry with us yet? Well you shouldn't be. Because apart from the

sentence including the 1960 PMID number and a self-combusting crystal

ball, none of the other sentiments are ours. If Inside Vaccines had

penned these realistic comments we would have been accused of touting

conspiracy theories–but we didn't pen them.

That honour belongs to the writers of a medical journal 2008

editorial. PMID 18316845.

Little wonder there is no abstract!