Hepatitis A - Inventing A Market For Another Superfluous Vaccine

[Guest guest]

Hepatitis A - Inventing A Market For Another Superfluous Vaccine

By Tim O'Shea

www.thedoctorwithin.com

2-19-2

They finally did it. After years of lobbying and angling, GlaxoKline

finally got their new vaccine for Hepatitis A tacked onto the mandated

schedule as of Jan 2002, with no public fanfare. (www.aap.org) The vaccine

is called Havrix, and is delineated on p.1544 of the 2002 Physicians Desk

Reference, which incidentally was printed much earlier last year. Merck also

has a hepatitis A vaccine - Vaqta.

The CDC's mandated schedule is the brass ring that all vaccine manufacturers

are going for - approval of a vaccine can mean annual revenues of $1 billion

or more, which is about what Merck pulls in for their current Hepatitis B

vaccine.

Hepatitis A vaccine appears in a brand new category on the mandated schedule

called the 'high risk' category. The significance of this new category will

soon become apparent. But before we get into that, let's take a look at

Hepatitis A the disease and assess the necessity for a mandated vaccine.

WHAT IS HEPATITIS A?

As every doctor knows, Hepatitis A is an acute viral disease of the liver.

Hepatitis A virus (HAV) has supposedly been isolated: " a 27-nm RNA

picornavirus (enterovirus) with only one serotype... " - American Academy of

Pediatrics, Dec 1996

The infectious agent is passed from human to human either through

* the oral - fecal route, waterborne, often from raw shellfish or dirty

water * blood and body secretions

Hepatitis A is a mild, self-limiting disease, resolving on its own with no

treatment in 4-8 weeks. Most infections are subclinical, meaning that most

people who get the disease never even know it because they never manifest

symptoms. (Merck Manual, p 377) The journal Pediatrics agrees:

" Most HAV infections in young children are asymptomatic... Clinical

hepatitis occurs in fewer than 10% of infected children. "

This disease is so mild that 90% of kids who get hepatitis A never even know

it. Even the National Institutes of Health states that:

" Most people who have Hepatitis A get well on their own after a few

weeks. " - NIH Manual: What I Need To Know About Hepatitis A

Most cases of hepatitis A are found in Third World areas, outside the US.

The question pops up: then why are we the only country in the world who

recommends the vaccine on a mass scale?

That billion dollars hanging in the balance wouldn't be in the equation, now

would it?

Diagnosis of hepatitis A is supposedly by IgM antibody. But more often,

diagnosis is by symptoms alone.

SYMPTOMS OF HEPATITIS A

According to Merck Manual, the chief symptoms of hepatitis A are

* loss of appetite * NVD * hives * joint pain * dark urine - p 382

Hardly life-threatening situations. Jaundice may also occur, but it usually

indicates the beginning of recovery. By the time these symptoms appear, the

disease is no longer infectious.

Unlike hepatitis B, Type A hepatitis disappears completely after acute

infection, and does not contribute to chronic liver disease or to cirrhosis.

It is important to note that after the patient recovers, he has lifetime

immunity. True immunity.

Hepatitis A is a disease of poor personal hygiene, bad sanitation, poverty,

overcrowding - Third World scenario. Even well-groomed, well-fed junkies are

not high risk for Hepatitis A. They're more apt to get Type B. Medline

indicates the lack of sewers in Third World locales as the biggest

contributor to Hepatitis A. Again from the journal Pediatrics we find that:

" The major method for prevention of HAV infections is improved sanitation

and personal hygiene " Bottom line here: Hepatitis A is not common in most of

the United States.

OTHER CAUSES

It's shocking to discover that hepatitis can be caused by both hepatitis B

and hepatitis C vaccines! This fact is found in a disclaimer that

GlaxoKlein makes about Havrix, that it can't cure the hepatitis caused

by these other 2 vaccines. So can we infer from this that Havrix itself also

causes hepatitis? We don't need to infer it. The manufacturer states it on p

1545 of the 2002 PDR: a possible side effect of Havrix is hepatitis!

Another source of hepatitis A for children is nososcomial infection. That

means infants in hospital intensive care units pick it up there. We never

hear about it because the new literature is leaving it out.

(AAP Policy Statement, 1996)

SO THEN WHAT'S THE VACCINE FOR?

The question arises - did we really need another vaccine beyond the 40

already mandated for schoolkids, and specifically did we need a vaccine for

a rare disease that resolves by itself in a few weeks?

To answer the first, we must ask were there any studies done which prove

that the new vaccine is safe when Havrix is added to the other 40 mandated

vaccines? No, there are none. This concept of the cumulative viral load is

discussed at length in the 2002 edition of The Sanctity of Human Blood.

Secondly, to substantiate the necessity for any vaccine, we must look at two

criteria: Incidence of disease severity HOW MANY CASES REALLY ARE THERE?

This is tricky - research roulette. In the 2002 Physicians Desk Reference,

the manufacturer of Havrix cites 13-year old studies which supposedly show

the incidence of hepatitis A and state that the case death rate is

six-tenths of one per cent. (p 1545) This is claiming that about six out of

a thousand who get hepatitis A die from hepatitis A. It seems like a rather

high death rate until one realizes that these are not US figures, but global

figures, meaning that they were taken primarily from Third World countries

because that's where the majority of hepatitis A is found! So that means

that these patients are trying to recover from a disease of poverty, filth,

and malnutrition in an environment of poverty, filth, and malnutrition.

Hardly applies in the rare instance of a patient in most of America. But

these are the studies and figures that the vaccine manufacturer has used to

convince the FDA that Hepatitis A is such a serious disease in the US that a

vaccine is necessary.

Numbers, numbers, numbers. Different sources, different stats. From the

American Academy of Pediatricians website we see only half the death rate

reported by the PDR:

" Mortality is rare, especially in children. The case-fatality rate has been

estimated as 3 per 1000 clinical cases in the United States.. " -

http://www.aap.org/policy/01207.html

Looking at the true incidence of the Hepatitis A in the US is an academic

artifice, a daunting challenge indeed. A standard government reference for

epidemiology is Statistical Abstracts. On p 137 of the most recent edition

(2000), we find that the overall incidence of Hepatitis A has been declining

for the past 2 decades:

1980 --- 29.1 cases per 100,000 1998 --- 23.2 cases per 100,000

This decline is good news, and of course has nothing to do with the vaccine.

The vaccine just came out.

But the figures still seem a little high, don't they? On closer inspection,

getting out the magnifying glass and reading the microprint footnote on that

same page, we read:

" Includes cases imported from outside the United States "

Huh? 'Cases imported from outside the United States'? We're not talking

Pinot Noir here. No one doubts that the vast majority of hepatitis A cases

are foreign. It's a disease of poverty, filth, and malnutrition.

Unfortunately, in a disease which only manifests symptoms less than 10% of

the time, and with the immense amount of immigration and international

travel going on, there is simply no way to separate foreign from domestic

origin.

To further illustrate the low credibility of government figures for

hepatitis A cases, we need only look at a CDC report which claimed more than

10 times higher incidence: 30,000 cases, which is about 300 cases per

100,000. (Hepatitis Surveillance Report No. 55)

That's a little different from 23 cases per 100,000. So which study is

right?

Who knows? Results depend on who funded it, who wrote it, and who was

responsible for verification.

The truth is no one can really say with authority how many cases of

hepatitis A occur in the US annually.

THE REAL NUMBER OF DEATHS

In an earlier part of that same reference - Statistical Abstracts, p 90 - we

find that the total number of annual US deaths from all 3 types of viral

hepatitis put together (Types A, B, and C) in 1998 was only 4700.

Remember this 4700 also includes complications of autoimmune diseases,

terminal infectious diseases, and other serious illnesses, most in

communities of poverty and malnutrition, alcoholics, drug addicts -

individuals of this nature. This lowest common denominator of life

supposedly represents the necessity of a vaccine for all.

Looking at the PDR's global figures above - a mortality of 6 out of

100,000 - we see the usual attempt by the vaccine manufacturers to grab the

credit for saving us from an already declining disease. As we learned from

the Alderson figures cited in The Sanctity of Human Blood (p 45),

virtually every infectious disease of the past century had almost

disappeared by the time vaccines came on the market.

This is the perfect time to make the same claim for Hepatitis A, before it

disappears completely on its own. Masterful PR in action, a la The Doors of

Perception - www.thedoctorwithin.com

We may be sure that future studies on US hepatitis A incidence will show

vast decreases, for which the vaccine will doubtless be given credit. Just

remember the virtual impossibility of determining incidence at this time,

when the vaccine is being introduced.

Stats game aside, almost all sources agree that children are not the group

dying from hepatitis A: " hepatitis with mortality occurs mostly in people

with underlying conditions, such as chronic liver disease, and in older age

groups " - http://www.aap.org/policy/01207.html

THE VACCINE ITSELF

This is fun. Hepatitis A vaccine is made from infected human connective

tissue cells. Not kidding. Not from just one guy, but rather each batch of

vaccine is made from an infected mass of cells which had 1000 donors.

(Pediatrics) Imagine that party. They are infected with hepatitis A virus,

the causative vector presumed to be present in every case of hepatitis A

disease.

The agents are filtered, and attenuated with aluminum, formaldehyde, and

phenoxyethanol - a synonym for ethylene glycol - a component in antifreeze.

Someday we're gonna pay for this.......

ALUMINUM AND FORMALDEHYDE

Just for the sake of argument, let's make the colossally irresponsible

concession that the attenuated viral agent in this vaccine is necessary to

stave off the " epidemic " of Hepatitis A about to sweep through our

children's bloodstreams. All right, we'll concede that unlikely situation.

So do the science wizards then want to explain the additional presence of

one of the most potent of all human neurotoxins and also of a well known

carcinogen in this supposed life-saving elixir? Of course I am now referring

to the aluminum and formaldehyde which GlaxoKline thought so vital to

the composition of Havrix. (PDR, p 1544) As Drs. Blaylock and Theo

Colburn have well explained, it is not just the connection with Alzheimer's

that makes aluminum such a danger to human physiology. It's that aluminum

can interfere with the formation, development and survival of virtually any

human nerve tissue in an unpredictable fashion, beyond any timetables yet

devised. (Excitotoxins, Our Stolen Future) We simply don't know.

As for formaldehyde, let's just ask how much danger of cancer is an

acceptable risk in the pure, perfect blood of a newborn? Cancer occurs first

in just one cell. So where are the studies that prove that this " trace " of

formalin or antifreeze will not be sufficient to cause that first cell

mutation that develops into cancer? Where are they?

As long as we're talking about scientific probability here, let's take the

discussion one step further. This single causative viral agent that has been

identified for hepatitis A is a presumption. Remember - diagnosis is often

by symptoms and by the presence of IgM in the blood. Viral infections are

not cultured for diagnosis - it's largely theoretical. So then doesn't the

isolation, concentration, and dissemination of an infectious viral agent

seem at least a little presumptuous if not enormously reckless, especially

when we're talking about the unformed immune systems of the newborn infant

population?

That seems like a reasonable question, doesn't it?

MASS DISSEMINATION OF AN UNPROVEN AGENT

Here's the key point -- is it really necessary to introduce an attenuated

infectious vector into our entire population of children in order to

theoretically prevent a disease which is extremely rare in the vast majority

of US communities, and getting rarer? And is self limiting, does not

contribute to chronic liver disease, and confers lifetime immunity to the

ones who get it? What are we doing?

Even the manufacturer does not claim that the vaccine confers immunity, but

only delay of the disease. Thus the need for boosters. Get the idea - if the

vaccine worked, we wouldn't need boosters after 6 months or a year.

Following this shaky logic, if the immunity only lasts a year, the child

should get boosters every year for the rest of his life. Now, the booster

shot and the first vaccination shot are identical. So why does the first

shot supposedly last for a year but the last one is going to be effective

for the rest of the patient's life?? Anybody ever think of that??

The other big issue is that the Hepatitis A virus is supposedly a specific

agent that has been photographed, sequenced, and catalogued, and occurs the

same in every case of the disease. Classical diagnosis is by symptoms and

the presence of the antibody, remember? IgM. But acute viral liver

infections can be of a variety of completely different agents and disease

scenarios. To pretend that they can all be cured by the dissemination of one

single type of attenuated viral agent is disingenuous at best and

scientifically ludicrous, even criminal, at worst. Mass inoculation must be

absolutely proven to be necessary, beneficial and free from side effects, or

else it shouldn't even be considered. Havrix meets none of these criteria.

THE NEW HIGH RISK CATEGORY

The most disconcerting - make that horrifying - aspect of the new Mandated

Vaccine Schedule that has just sneaked up on us will prove to be the

creation of this new High Risk category, in my opinion. As we would expect,

this ingenious addition was tacked onto the program with no fanfare, no

general public attention. Suddenly the most vaccinated children in the

history of the world are still not getting sufficient injections, even at 40

vaccines now mandated. So for further protection, the CDC has now created

the new High Risk category which they'll christen with just 2 vaccines:

Hepatitis A and influenza.

Now folks, these extra shots aren't really part of the mandated schedule,

but are intended for the child who needs that extra protection because he is

what we doctors call 'high risk.' Which according to the American Pediatrics

Association means any child who seems to have a tendency to get colds,

asthma, allergies, the flu, or is generally sick.

What percentage of kids does that include? Like, all of them?

Step right up. It's such a slick set-up. The script will go something like,

well, little ny and little Suzie just got their regular shots, so they

should be fine. By the way, Mrs. , do these children have a tendency to

get allergies, colds, or the flu? Oh, they do? Well, then the newest

recommendations, just to be on the safe side, are that for extra protection

for ny and Suzie we should add just two more shots today, while they're

here. And that's the new Hepatitis A shot and the flu shot. Yes, and then

they should be good for a year. Yes, all the other kids are getting the 2

extra shots. You can't be too careful these days, you know.

Who's going to argue with a rap like that? Only the most informed.

SET-UP FOR FUTURE VACCINES

The most insidious consequence of the new High Risk category, however, is

the door that it opens up for future vaccines. With all the hysteria

surrounding bioterrorism and anthrax, we've certainly been inundated with

beaucoup worries about coming vaccines:

anthrax AIDS smallpox and a whole string of others waiting in the wings.

That's where Hepatitis A vaccine was last year. Don't miss the implication

here: the High Risk Category is now providing the infrastructure for any new

vaccine that has to be rushed to the population in a hurry because of

supposed bioterrorist threats. This is the set-up for the administration of

the edicts which may come down if the draconian Health Emergency Powers Act

should ever pass through Congress.

(www.mercola.com/2001/dec/26/mehpa.htm)

As you may have read, by this Act the governor of any state would be given

absolute, dictatorial powers to proclaim virtually any situation a terrorist

emergency, and to summarily decree that all or any part of the population

must submit to whatever health measures are deemed necessary, including

experimental vaccines. Those who refuse may be quarantined, prosecuted,

imprisoned, or forced to submit, and property may be burned or confiscated.

Why not toss in the guillotine?

It seems unlikely that legislation this extreme would ever pass through

Congress. But just the fact that it is being considered at all should make

us ask ourselves - who is behind these totalitarian proposals and at what

point we might actually want to become involved in state politics... Given

these two options, Nazis-R-Us or Terrorists Might Pop Up Here and There,

give me the threat of terrorism any day of the week. We've seen how well the

government can protect us from anything. The answer is obviously not to give

them another bigger chance, in this writer's opinion.

THE ILLUSION OF HIGH RISK

The big trouble with the High Risk Category is that it doesn't target high

risk groups - it hoses down everybody. In a semantic bait-and switch,

typical of organized medicine, they will call the category High Risk, and

then proceed to hustle every possible individual into it by the absurdly

overbroad and indiscriminate criteria of anyone with a tendency towards

allergies colds the flu

Very selective. There are true high risk groups for hepatitis A, including

those living in overcrowded, unhygienic surroundings, improper diet, and

certain racial selections as well. But here's where politics controls

science - imagine the furor that would emerge if the vaccine were mandated

according to living environment and race. That would be interesting - trying

to convince those groups that the vaccine was for their own good. But if the

CDC recommends it for almost everybody, hey then everybody's equal - the

American way, right? And no one whines.

PROPAGANDA VS. INFORMATION

With uncharacteristic foresight, in 2000 the National Institutes of Health

published a booklet whose goal was to prepare the public for the addition of

Hepatitis A vaccine to the 2002 Schedule. As a study in language alone, the

book is a frightening representation of the NIH's presumptions about the

public's intelligence, which are probably accurate. Written in Basic Retard,

What I Need To Know About Hepatitis A spoonfeeds the ninth grade mentality

some idiotically simplistic propaganda, dumbing them down in the most

patronizing and condescending manner. Some excerpts:

" A vaccine is a drug that you take when you are healthy that keeps you from

getting sick. " Really? First of all vaccines aren't drugs, nor do people

" take " them. As for keeping people from getting sick, perhaps we should ask

the hundreds of VAERS parents whose children have suffered fatal injury or

permanent damage from vaccines about how well vaccines kept their child from

getting sick. This is classic L Bernays (Propaganda, 1928)

Or this gem:

" Vaccines teach your body to attack certain viruses, like the hepatitis A

virus. "

This myth has survived intact since Jenner first propounded it in 1799. If

it were true we would not have the ridiculous situation where the only cases

of diseases for the last 35 years have occurred in the vaccinated

population, as with smallpox and polio. (Salk, Sabin)

Here's another excerpt from the same NIH booklet:

" Children can get the vaccine after they turn 2. Children age 2-18 will need

3 shots. The shots are spread out over a year.... Adults get 2 shots over

6 -12 months. ... You need all of the shots to be protected. " Yes, 2 years

is the recommended age for the vaccine. And where are the studies showing

the absolute safety of injecting aluminum and formaldehyde into the unformed

neurophysiology of a 2 year old?

Where?

CALL IT IN THE AIR

What is shocking about these statements is the cavalier, arbitrary fashion

in which dosages are recommended. I mean, reading it like this, it seems so

scientific, doesn't it, and you assume that an enormous amount of scientific

study is behind this very sober recommendation for " 3 shots over a one year

period. " So why is it that in the PDR, the manufacturer has a totally

different dosage recommendation and the AAP still another?? (Policy

Statement)

On p 1545 of the new PDR, the manufacturer of Havrix states that the child

may get an initial dose, and then get one booster 6-12 months later.

What is this - Spin the Bottle?

Yes, actually it is. That's exactly what it is. These dose recommendations

are just guesswork - not the result of clinical trials. A year from now they

may change completely, as we just saw with other vaccines on the new

schedule. That's why different sources recommend different dosages.

Nothing is more obvious is studying government publications than

inconsistency and ignorance of the most fundamentally pertinent literature

and policies of related health offices, even within the same office. The

classic left hand and right hand thing. There's no real " oversight " which is

a bureaucratic word that means " watching over " an entire field of inquiry.

Each office just sort of says what it wants, and then the doctors or lawyers

or health officials quote the parts they can use. There's really no such

thing as objective science when it comes to legislated health policies.

Either you know this or you don't. The unfortunate thing for those who don't

is that they follow blindly what they assume to be health policies and

decisions made with the physical welfare of the child in mind. Discovering

their mistake too late, the consequences can be physically disastrous.

Some other arbitrary, unscientific recommendations by the AAP for the new

experimental hepatitis A vaccine include just-in-case shots for

· travelers to practically any destination that doesn't have a US zip

code

· military personnel

· Persons living in or moving to areas that have a high rate of HAV

infection.

· Persons who may be exposed to the hepatitis A virus repeatedly due

to a high rate of hepatitis A disease, such as Alaskan Eskimos and Native

Americans.

· Persons engaging in high-risk sexual activity, such as homosexual

and bisexual males.

· Persons who use illegal injectable drugs.

· Persons living in a community experiencing an outbreak of hepatitis A.

· Persons working in facilities for the mentally retarded.

· Employees of child day-care centers.

· Persons who work with hepatitis A virus in the laboratory.

· Persons who handle primate animals.

· Persons with hemophilia.

· Food handlers.

· Persons with chronic liver disease.

Again, this is just guesswork and does not have to make any particular

sense. No special studies of these groups with the vaccine were done. If the

vaccine doesn't confer true lasting immunity, then why would it be good for

any of the above groups? If the disease itself is mild and self limiting and

confers true lasting immunity, wouldn't it be better for that very low

number of people just to get the disease and forego the addition of

carcinogens and neurotoxins into their bloodstream?

Another question about the persons using illegal injectable drugs - how

would a virus know whether or not the injections were illegal? With all the

serious side effects from prescription drugs and vaccines, legal - illegal:

why would one be higher risk than the other? This is nonsense.

Why on earth would someone who already has chronic liver disease want to

take a risky vaccine that only claims to protect him from a mild, temporary

type of liver disease? Especially one which has a hepatitis as a possible

side effect and one which is going to further stress the liver with toxic

adjuvants? Even though the above bullets are pure conjecture, they do

represent groups that are being designated as High Risk. The question then

becomes - why isn't the vaccine recommended ONLY for these groups instead of

for the majority of the childhood population? What was that - one

billion...?

PREGNANT? DON'T EVEN THINK ABOUT IT

Under no circumstances should Hepatitis A vaccine be given in pregnancy. The

manufacturer states that pregnancy studies simply have not been done.

(www.aap.org/policy/01207.html) So unless you want to be in the experimental

group, when that doctor who has not read the manufacturer's insert tries to

give you this vaccine " just to be on the safe side " - pass.

WRAP UP

So what have we learned? Well, there's a new vaccine for hepatitis A being

recommended for most children over 2 years old, as part of a brand new

category in the Vaccine Schedule. And the disease itself - hepatitis A is

not a big problem because in the vast majority of cases the individual never

even knows the disease is present. And even if he gets the disease, it

almost always resolves in a few weeks with no permanent after effects

whatsoever.

And there are a few problems with the vaccine:

* aluminum

* formaldehyde

* ethylene glycol

* many side effects, including hepatitis itself

* the dosages are best guesses

* the manufacturers can pull in a billion new dollars per year

* the vast majority of hepatitis A occurs outside the US, yet no other

country has mass vaccines

* the mass dissemination of an infectious agent in to the childhood

population

* adding to the cumulative viral load of the most vaccinated children in

world history

Outside of that, everything should be fine.

SOMEWHERE MACHIAVELLI SMILES

Perhpas the darkest consequence of all the foregoing is that most of us have

lost our confidence in the inner curative power of Nature - the body's

inborn wisdom. A hundred media snippets a day, week after week, year after

year, have undermined our ability to even consider the notion that 99.9% of

infants may be perfect as they are. Or that their pure blood is the most

sacred medium in the universe, the crucible in which the human genome itself

was meant to be safeguarded and passed on from age to age. Or that the

immune system can only develop to its full potential if left to its own

devices, largely unknown to human science.

Such natural, vital postulates as these sound foreign to our ears, even

fanatical, cultist. Clear, rational independent thinking has become so rare,

so unwelcome, so feared in this world where Conventional Wisdom on all

topics of consequence is locked down tight, top to bottom. Adrift in this

gallery of manufactured illusion, no effort is spared to keep one idea from

surfacing: that we have all but lost the ability to trust our own instincts,

to find the truth, and then to act on it.

REFERENCES

NIH - What I Need To Know About Hepatitis A 2000 US Dept of Commerce -

Statistical Abstracts of the United States, p .137 2000 Medical Economics -

Physicians Desk Reference 2002 Beers & Berkow, MD - The Merck Manual,

Centennial Edition 1999 National Library of Medicine

http://www.nlm.nih.gov/medlineplus/druginfo/

hepatitisavaccineinactivatedsy202902 .html#Brands Blaylock, R MD -

Excitotoxins:

The Taste That Kills --- Health Press 1997. Colburn, T, PhD - Our Stolen

Future - Plume 1997. O'Shea, T - The Sanctity of Human Blood - New West

2002. American Academy of Pediatrics - Policy Statement: Prevention Of

Hepatitis A Infections: Guidelines For Use Of Hepatitis A Vaccine And Immune

Globulin Pediatrics, vol 98 no 6, p.1207-1215 Dec 1996. Committee on

Infectious Diseases - Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Hepatitis

Surveillance Report No. 55. p 1-34 1994. Bernays, E. Propaganda ---

Liveright, New York 1928. Micromedex - National Library of Medicine Sabin,

Albert MD - La Stampa, Torino Italia 8 Dec 1985. Model Emergency Health

Powers Act (MEHPA) Turns Governors into Dictators

http://www.mercola.com/2001/dec/26/mehpa.htm Salk, Jonas, MD quoted in

Science Abstracts 4 Apr 1977.

Copyright 2002 http://www.thedoctorwithin.com/newwest/index38.html