WHO Admits! Pneumonia Vaccine Ineffective, Causes Cancer!

[Guest guest]

Publication: Bulletin of the World Health Organization;

Type: Letters

Article DOI: 10.2471/BLT.08.054692

 

Incidence of pneumonia

is not reduced by

pneumococcal conjugate

vaccine

Sona Chowdharya & Puliyela

a Department of

Pediatrics, St s Hospital, Tis Hazari, Delhi

110054, India.

Correspondence to

Puliyel (e-mail: puliyel@...).

(Published online: 1 September

2008)http://www.who.int/bulletin/publish_ahead_of_print/en/index.html

Madhi et al.1

write that the pneumococcal conjugate vaccine

(PCV) is an effective

instrument for pneumonia prevention in children. This is

not strictly true. WHO data2

suggest that there are 450 million cases of pneumonia each

year and that it causes 3.9

million deaths. In the sub-Saharan region of Africa, 1 022 000 die and 702 000

die in

south Asia.1

The pneumonia referred to is “clinical

pneumonia†– a diagnostic syndrome

within the Integrated Management of Childhood Illness – WHO

and United Nations

Children’s Fund (UNICEF) system for triage and clinical

management in developing

countries.3

The Cochrane database4 states

that PCV does not reduce the incidence of

clinical pneumonia, although it has been shown to reduce

vaccine-serotype bacteraemic

pneumonia and radiological pneumonia. The benefit of

reducing bacteraemic pneumonia

and radiological pneumonia is so minimal that it has no

effect on “clinical pneumoniaâ€.

Poor nations will need to assess its cost utility

carefully.

 

A study from the Gambia showed that mortality was

16% lower in a PCV

immunized group compared to placebo recipients (25.2/1000

children years versus

30.1/1000 children years).5 Data are also provided on

adverse effects and deaths within 1week of receiving any dose of the vaccine or

placebo. The

mortality benefit was seen inthe first week after injection, well before vaccine

efficacy could have been established.

There were 12 deaths in the vaccine group and 15 among

controls (23.8/1000 children

years versus 29.8/1000 children years). This suggests that

factors other than vaccine

efficacy are responsible for the difference in mortality

between the groups compared.

There is also another issue that we hope to raise here. The

paper states that the

vaccine programme would exceed the WHO threshold in 69

eligible countries. The

authors assert that these findings are conservative in the

sense that they did not assume

any herd protection and did not assume protection beyond

the age of 2.5 years

has cautioned against this trend of noting the “positiveâ€

uncertainties (herd immunity,

protection beyond 2.5 years) without reporting the “negativeâ€

ones (serotype

replacement,7

increased incidence of asthma),8 which

could dampen enthusiasm for the

intervention.

 

References

<jrn>1. Madhi SA, Levine OS, Hajjeh

R, Mansoor OD, Cherian T. Vaccines to

prevent pneumonia and improve child

survival. Bull World Health Organ

2008;86:365-372. PMID:18545739 doi:10.2471/BLT.07.044503</jrn>

<eref>2. Revised global burden

of disease 2002 estimates. Geneva:

WHO.

Available from:

http://www.who.int/healthinfo/bodgbd2002revised/en/index.html

[accessed

5 August 2008].</eref>

<bok>3. Integrated Management of

Childhood Illness. Geneva:

WHO; 2000.

</bok>

<jrn>4. Lucero MG, Dulalia VE,

Parreno RN, Lim-Quianzon DM, Nohynek H,

Makela H, et al. Pneumococcal conjugate

vaccines for preventing vaccinetype

invasive pneumococcal disease and

pneumonia with consolidation on

x-ray in children under two years of age.

Cochrane Database Syst Rev

2004;CD004977. PMID:15495133</jrn>

<jrn>5. Cutts FT, Zaman SM, Enwere

G, Jaffar S, Levine OS, Okoko JB, et al.;

Gambian Pneumococcal Vaccine Trial Group.

Efficacy of nine-valent

pneumococcal conjugate vaccine against

pneumonia and invasive

pneumococcal disease in The Gambia:

randomised, double-blind,

placebo-controlled trial. Lancet 2005;365:1139-46.

PMID:15794968

doi:10.1016/S0140-6736(05)71876-6</jrn>

<jrn>6. Beutels P. Potential

conflicts of interest in vaccine economics research: a

commentary with a case study of

pneumococcal conjugate vaccination.

Vaccine 2004;22:3312-22. PMID:15308354

doi:10.1016/j.vaccine.2004.03.001</jrn>

<jrn>7. Eskola J, Kilpi T, Palmu A,

Jokinen J, Haapakoski J, Herva E, et al.;

Finnish Otitis Media Study Group.

Efficacy of a pneumococcal conjugate

vaccine against acute otitis media. N

Engl J Med 2001;344:403-9.

PMID:11172176

doi:10.1056/NEJM200102083440602</jrn>

<jrn>8. Klugman KP, Madhi SA,

Huebner RE, Kohberger R, Mbelle N, Pierce N;

Vaccine Trialists Group. A trial of a

9-valent pneumococcal conjugate

vaccine in children with and those

without HIV infection. N Engl J Med

2003;349:1341-8. PMID:14523142 doi:10

" It is now 30 years since I have been confining myself to the treatment

ofchronic diseases. During those 30 years I have run against so many histories

of littlechildren who had never seen a sick day until they were vaccinated and

who, in the severalyears that have followed, have never seen a well day since. I

couldn't put my finger onthe disease they have. They just weren't strong. Their

resistance was gone. They wereperfectly well before they were vaccinated. They

have never been well since. " ---Dr. Hay

Get an email ID as yourname@... or yourname@.... Click

here http://in.promos./address