DOD and CDC: Studies Suggest a Possible Link Between Multiple Vaccines and Injury

[Guest guest]

DOD

and CDC: Studies Suggest a Possible Link Between

Multiple Vaccines and Injury

December 02, 2008

AGE OF

AUTISM

http://www.ageofautism.com/2008/12/dod-and-cdc-stu.html

By

Kirby

It looks

like the CDC may have missed a memo to itself on vaccine safety.

One very

contentious issue in the vaccine-autism debate has been whether a certain

subset of genetically susceptible children is unequipped to handle the early

and intensive US

immunization schedule – including kids like Hannah Poling, who developed

autism after receiving nine vaccines at once.

The

theory is that some people with abnormal immune or metabolic systems might

become overtaxed by the fever, inflammation and/or other stresses sometimes

caused by multiple vaccines.

Many

doctors and scientists scoff at the notion that someone could be injured by

getting too many shots at once. They say that people of all ages, including

babies, can handle multiple exposures at any given moment.

For

example, the CDC’s website says that simultaneous multiple immunizations

are safe for children with “normal” immune systems. And Dr.

Offit, a prominent pediatrician and wealthy vaccine co-inventor, says that kids

can handle simultaneous exposure to the antigens contained in 100,000 vaccines

- without any harm coming to them.

So, the

CDC says that multiple vaccines are safe for everyone (at least in infants).

But now,

we learn that a collaborative program between the CDC and the Department of Defense

says that multiple vaccines may not be safe for everyone (at least in adults

being inoculated for military service).

“We

have preliminary findings from one of our many on-going research studies that

suggest a relationship between adverse events and multiple vaccinations exist.

These findings will require validation, but heighten our concern for the

current clinical practice of multiple vaccinations.”

That

rather remarkable statement came from US Army Colonel Renata J. M. Engler, MD,

director of the Vaccine Healthcare Centers Network (VHCN) a

“collaborative network” of the Defense Department - and the CDC.

She went

on to say this:

“The

more drugs one is exposed to, the greater the likelihood of having an adverse

event so as vaccine numbers increase, and (sic) we will see more people who

have efficacy or safety issues.”

And

later, this:

“The

standard of care (ie, when mixing vaccines) is to minimize drug exposures

because of the recognition that the more drugs being used, the greater the

chance of a reaction and potentially a serious adverse event.”

Col.

Engler’s candid statements (I’ve never heard anything like them

from any other senior vaccine official), were included in a November 26 letter (HERE)

to Rep. Carolyn Maloney (D-NY). Maloney had written to inquire (HERE)

about a 2007 VHCN presentation suggesting that 1-2 percent of all service

members were suffering serious adverse effects from their shots.

I first

reported on this presentation in August, (HERE)

when someone alerted me to a Government Accounting Office report saying that

VHCN and CDC officials “estimate that between 1 and 2 percent of

immunized individuals may experience severe adverse events, which could result

in disability or death. Some of these events may occur coincidentally following

immunization, while others may truly be caused by immunization. "

I had never heard of the VHCN, so I went to their website, where I found this (HERE) Power Point

presentation, and this slide in particular: (HERE).

The slides suggested that, among active duty and reserve service members, up to

48,000 individuals may have sustained serious vaccine injuries which might need

to be classified as " casualties,” and may require teaching " new

skills " to some of those injured.

But Col. Engler wrote that the slides had been misinterpreted.

“Our program is not in a position to provide incidence data but rather to

refine case definitions and research questions to address the serious and the

rare adverse events questions,” she wrote.

The 1-2%

figure was merely an estimate of “who may need an immunization healthcare

consultation to address clinical questions raised,” she said.

“The

consultation does not prove or disprove causality association but it is from

these consultations that we have refined our understanding of the questions, a

critical first step to future refinement of research agendas. It is our firm

belief that increased research into side effects that are more severe but may

be short duration, may help us understand more severe adverse events (more rare

at 1 in 10-100,000). However, our work over the past years has been humbling in

relation to the knowledge gaps.”

And what

about the slide mentioning that up to 48,000 service members might require

”new skills” following vaccine injury?

“This

statistic refers to the potential number of service members, experiencing more

serious side effects (not serious disease with prolonged duration), that may

need a medical consultation about next dose and/or pre-treatment to reduce the

severity of the side effects, etc.,” Col. Engler explained, (I think).

So what

does any of this have to do with autism? Perhaps nothing. As Col. Engler

herself wrote: “The belief that vaccines are safe to mix is based largely

on pediatric experience and with a much more limited spectrum of

vaccines.” (In other words, apples and oranges, here folks).

Now,

it’s hard to imagine how 35-to-40 or more shots in the US

childhood schedule could be “much more limited” than the

military’s regime. But then again, babies don’t get vaccinated

against anthrax and smallpox.

But

it’s also hard to imagine that there might be a “relationship

between adverse events and multiple vaccinations” in adults healthy

enough to fight a war, and yet, among babies and infants with immature immune

systems and developing brains, the practice is universally harmless –

even for kids like Hannah Poling who had an underlying mitochondrial

dysfunction.

In the

meantime, let’s hope the DOD and the CDC and get their message straight.

If they want to convince parents that multiple vaccines might be risky for some

soldiers but safe for all little kids, well, good luck.

Or maybe,

the government is finally going to look into the percentage of people (however

small) who might be genetically programmed against the ability to withstand

more than one or two shots at any given time.

As Col.

Engler notes, more work is needed in this regard: “The recommendation for

more research on subpopulation risk factors in relation to multiple vaccine

combinations has been included in the Institute

of Medicine Report on Multiple

Vaccines - (HERE.)”

Kirby is author of Evidence of Harm,

a contributor to Age of Autism and

blogs for Huffington Post.

[Guest guest]

I can't get the link to the IOM report on Multiple Vaccines to work. Is this the report the link is referring to?

http://www.iom.edu/Object.File/Master/4/167/MultImmSummaryFINAL.pdf

http://www.iom.edu/CMS/3793/4705/4432.aspx

Aasa “The belief that vaccines are safe to mix is based largely on pediatric experience and with a much more limited spectrum of vaccines.” (In other words, apples and oranges, here folks).

Now, it’s hard to imagine how 35-to-40 or more shots in the US childhood schedule could be “much more limited” than the military’s regime. But then again, babies don’t get vaccinated against anthrax and smallpox.

But it’s also hard to imagine that there might be a “relationship between adverse events and multiple vaccinations” in adults healthy enough to fight a war, and yet, among babies and infants with immature immune systems and developing brains, the practice is universally harmless – even for kids like Hannah Poling who had an underlying mitochondrial dysfunction.

In the meantime, let’s hope the DOD and the CDC and get their message straight. If they want to convince parents that multiple vaccines might be risky for some soldiers but safe for all little kids, well, good luck.

Or maybe, the government is finally going to look into the percentage of people (however small) who might be genetically programmed against the ability to withstand more than one or two shots at any given time.

As Col. Engler notes, more work is needed in this regard: “The recommendation for more research on subpopulation risk factors in relation to multiple vaccine combinations has been included in the Institute of Medicine Report on Multiple Vaccines - (HERE.)”

Kirby is author of Evidence of Harm, a contributor to Age of Autism and blogs for Huffington Post.