Combining Multiple Childhood Vaccines Not Safe

Full title of article at link (too long for subject line):

Combining Multiple Childhood Vaccines Not Safe, According to Article in the Journal of American Physicians and Surgeons

TUCSON, Ariz., June 14, 2016 (GLOBE NEWSWIRE) -- Multiple childhood vaccines are often given at one visit, but contrary to the claims of public health officials there is evidence that this practice is unsafe, writes medical research journalist Neil Z. Miller in the summer issue of the Journal of American Physicians and Surgeons.

Using data in the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS), jointly operated by the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) and the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA):

Miller looked at the percentage of reported reactions that involved hospitalization or death as related to the number of vaccine doses the infant had received, and to the age of the infant.

“Our study showed that infants who receive several vaccines concurrently…are significantly more likely to be hospitalized or die when compared with infants who receive fewer vaccines simultaneously,” he writes. “It also showed that reported adverse effects were more likely to lead to hospitalization or death in younger infants.”

In infants receiving five or more vaccines concurrently, 5.4% of reported reactions were fatal, compared with 3.6% in those receiving four or fewer, the study shows.

Do note that these figures represent only those infants who had adverse reactions reported to VAERS; they do not represent all infants receiving the vaccines.

And do also note we're not talking about autism here; we're talking hospitalizations and even death of these infants.

And, finally, do please note that many medical professionals have expressed concern about giving infants so many vaccinations at once, and have been attacked by the establishment as quacks and opportunists and -- gasp! -- the most dreaded "Anti-Vaxxer."

I think this is what I find most disturbing:

“Although CDC recommends polio, hepatitis B, diphtheria, tetanus, pertussis, rotavirus, Haemophilus influenzae type B, and pneumococcal vaccines for two-, four-, and six-month-old infants, this combination of eight vaccines administered during a single physician visit was never tested for safety in clinical trials,” Miller writes. “This is at odds with a CDC report which found that mixed exposures to chemical substances and other stress factors, including prescribed pharmaceuticals, may produce ‘increased or unexpected deleterious health effects.’”

A pdf of the Journal of American Physicians and Surgeons article is here.

I should probably point out here that --

The Journal of American Physicians and Surgeons is published by the Association of American Physicians and Surgeons (AAPS), a national organization representing physicians in all specialties since 1943.

-- and is almost as vilified as Natural News for health information (who writes about this study here). From the Association of American Physicians and Surgeons' website:

President’s Page: What is Our Mission
Apr 30, 2016
By: Melinda Woofter, M.D.

We practice the art and science of medicine every day. We have witnessed an accelerated transformation of our profession away from individualized patient care toward politicized and collectivized “evidence-based medicine.” Without a doubt, this one-size-fits-all approach does not work and never can. Every patient is unique, with a unique set of circumstances. Our responsibilities to our patients include counseling them against ALL threats to their health. We recognize tobacco use, drug addiction, and excessive alcohol consumption as such threats, yet one danger towers above them all: our own dysfunctional “healthcare system.” Government intrusion into the exam room is at the heart of this threat. Not only has the government camel’s nose poked through the door, the giant clumsy beast is halfway in and smashing our tools about. We have no time to waste to sound the alarm and warn patients of this threat!

So no, they do not worship at the altar of Big Gov... nor Big Pharma... but that's not a problem for me. Not even a little bit. In fact, I like that

You have to remember, the reasoning it was considered ok was because there was no evidence to show it was unsafe. That in no way even implies that it ever was safe. Nobody is liable unless there is evidence beforehand to show they were aware of it. The lawyers write the regulations, many of the lawyers have ties to the Pharma industry as do some of the high ranking people in the FDA.

Legally, they were not lying, they layed it out perfectly, people who can't understand the difference between "there is no evidence to show something is unsafe" and "it is safe" should take a few law courses in college. It is deception not a lie.

a reply to: rickymouse

And that legalese (not to mention crony capitalism) may very well be the death of us...

a reply to: Boadicea

You have to look at the evidence yourself, there are many people who misquote the writings and pass rumors to others saying these things are safe. I think this kind of rumors originally came from either not too smart people or some that would benefit by us being deceived to think it was safe.

That kind of stuff goes on in Pharma all the time. What the doctors imply and people think are often not correct. All medicines have some sort of side effect, it is how bad the side effect that should be looked at. These side effects differ from person to person depending on how a person metabolizes and detoxes the meds, both metabolic issues, not actually allergies.

originally posted by: rickymouse
a reply to: Boadicea

You have to look at the evidence yourself...

LOL! I'm one of those weird people that actually enjoys reading clinical studies -- at least most of the people I know think it's weird. My problem is that I don't understand nearly as much as I'd like to, no matter how many words I look up in medical dictionaries!

...there are many people who misquote the writings and pass rumors to others saying these things are safe. I think this kind of rumors originally came from either not too smart people or some that would benefit by us being deceived to think it was safe.

That kind of stuff goes on in Pharma all the time. What the doctors imply and people think are often not correct.

Yes, sadly. One of the reasons I appreciate those willing to challenge the medical status quo, like the folks who conducted this study -- always keeping in mind that they are fallible (and corruptible) as well of course. Eternal vigilance, right?

All medicines have some sort of side effect, it is how bad the side effect that should be looked at. These side effects differ from person to person depending on how a person metabolizes and detoxes the meds, both metabolic issues, not actually allergies.

This is the stuff that fascinates me. I read an interesting study from 2007 or 2008 recently which showed an increase in autism after vaccination in kids with family medical histories of diabetes, and others that I don't remember right now. There could be so many different ways that different people can react to the same substance.

I recently learned that the CDC wants US children to have 49 shots before the age of 6 and 69 shots before 18.

As a grown man, that makes me tremble.

Lunacy.

a reply to: Boadicea

You may find this thread of interest:

www.abovetopsecret.com...
.

Will put your thread's link on that one.

Cheers and thanks for this thread.

a reply to: Boadicea

Hi Boadicea, hope you are ok!

Now, I don't believe a word the AAPS say as over the years they have demonstrated they are, not just antivax, but also HIV denialists and they have also published papers saying abortions cause breast cancer, without any evidence whatsoever of course (I remember they've also published articles regarding global warming, I have their stuff saved somewhere if you wish to read).

Let's concentrate on this article: Miller picked three articles to do his review (which probably suited his ideology as he is known for cherry picking and telling lies). The frst article is Adverse Events Following Measles, Mumps, and Rubella Vaccine in Adults. What Miller failed to say is that the 7 deaths were caused by other factors but not the MMR: 2 deaths were due to cardiovascular disease, 1 was a drug overdose, 1 existing myocarditis, 1 due to arrhythmia, 1 due to pulmonary embolus and one had a transplant, had a very weak immune system and died of chicken pox. See table 3 in the article, whatever Miller didn't mention is there. You can read it yourself.

The second article he chose was Intussusception After Rotavirus Vaccines Reported to US VAERS, 2006–2012. Once again Miller didn't mention something really important that's in the original article: "We estimated there is an overall risk of 0.79 intussusception per 100,000 children vaccinated which is substantially lower than the number of diarrhea hospitalizations prevented since the rotavirus vaccine introduction". Please go read it yourself in the original article. This is why it's so important people go to the original source.

I haven't read the 3rd article, but I can do so and analyze it if you want me to.

He comes to a conclusion (in his article) that does not fit what the original articles said. This is why he is not taken seriously by any health professional.

a reply to: Boadicea

In infants receiving five or more vaccines concurrently, 5.4% of reported reactions were fatal, compared with 3.6% in those receiving four or fewer, the study shows.

Five concurrent shots is still a lot imo. I'm willing to bet the difference between children who only get 1 or two shots vs those who get 5 or more is even higher. As a kid I don't remember ever getting more than 2 shots at a time, there's no way I would sit through 5 in a row. Nor would I agree to have that many shots at one time because it just seems dangerous. They even admit they didn't do any studies to see if it was safe to mix so many vaccines together, which is completely insane. Who ever thought it was ok to skip testing should be put in prison.

Nobody is liable unless there is evidence beforehand to show they were aware of it.

This seems like a very dumb argument to me, even if it's legally valid. Imagine if a pharmaceutical company decided to mix together a bunch of their pills and market it as a one-pill-solution for everything, but they didn't do any testing on it because each individual component in the pill is known to be safe. If that pill turns out to be dangerous then the company should very well be liable for any damages caused by the pill since they didn't test it. I imagine if that actually happened it would go down like that.

However vaccines are a different story because there are specific laws which give vaccine manufacturers immunity from any damages their vaccines cause. It was passed a few years back if I recall correctly, that's the real reason these scum bags will get away with it. They don't have to justify crap, they are protected regardless of how many people they kill.

a reply to: Boadicea

Slightly off topic, but I've done a lot of research on dog vaccines and the same holds true for them. Not only are multiple vaccines sometimes dangerous, but certain vaccines are more dangerous than others, even if given alone.

By the way, did you know that the 1-year rabies vaccine is EXACTLY the same as the 3-year rabies vaccine? The ONLY difference is the label!

“There is no benefit from annual rabies vaccination and most one year rabies products are similar or identical to the 3-year products with regard to duration of immunity and effectiveness.

Source 1 Source 2

originally posted by: SlowNail
I recently learned that the CDC wants US children to have 49 shots before the age of 6 and 69 shots before 18.

As a grown man, that makes me tremble.

Lunacy.

It sure is. Especially because in order to give that many shots before 18, they have to give multiple vaccinations at once -- just as this study is warning against. There is also much to be said for natural immunities and processes, which bestow its own benefits. Just because we can doesn't mean we should.

I'm so glad my kids are grown and I don't have to worry about all this, but it doesn't help my nieces and nephews' kids... and I still hope to have my own grandkids...

a reply to: BO XIAN

Thanks for the heads up -- I'll check it out!

originally posted by: Agartha
a reply to: Boadicea

Hi Boadicea, hope you are ok!

Hi Agartha! I'm muddling through

Now, I don't believe a word the AAPS say as over the years they have demonstrated they are, not just antivax, but also HIV denialists...

As in they say HIV doesn't exist? How so? Isn't there an identifiable virus? I don't get that...

...and they have also published papers saying abortions cause breast cancer without any evidence whatsoever of course...

I was about to say that is well established... but I think it was birth control I'd been reading about that causes (estrogen dominant) breast cancer. Right now I don't actually remember reading any specific studies about abortions, but I do know I've read that it does many times... maybe I should start a thread about that so you can school me! (If I could, I'd shrink you down and put you in my pocket for technical reference every time I go down these paths!!!)

Let's concentrate on this article: Miller picked three articles to do his review (which probably suited his ideology as he is known for cherry picking and telling lies). The frst article is Adverse Events Following Measles, Mumps, and Rubella Vaccine in Adults. What Miller failed to say is that the 7 deaths were caused by other factors but not the MMR: 2 deaths were due to cardiovascular disease, 1 was a drug overdose, 1 existing myocarditis, 1 due to arrhythmia, 1 due to pulmonary embolus and one had a transplant, had a very weak immune system and died of chicken pox. See table 3 in the article, whatever Miller didn't mention is there. You can read it yourself.

But isn't that the whole point?

“This is at odds with a CDC report which found that mixed exposures to chemical substances and other stress factors, including prescribed pharmaceuticals, may produce ‘increased or unexpected deleterious health effects.’”

I read it as these underlying conditions or illnesses were "stress factors" creating that "mixed exposure." That the combinations of pharmaceuticals and existing conditions created the deleterious effects.

The second article he chose was Intussusception After Rotavirus Vaccines Reported to US VAERS, 2006–2012. Once again Miller didn't mention something really important that's in the original article: "We estimated there is an overall risk of 0.79 intussusception per 100,000 children vaccinated which is substantially lower than the number of diarrhea hospitalizations prevented since the rotavirus vaccine introduction".

I have to show my ignorance here... why is that significant? As I understand it, intussusception can occur with diarrhea, but not all diarrhea cases lead to intussusception, so wouldn't we expect the intussusception rate to be much lower than the diarrhea rate?

(I'm not making light of it... I've had the rotavirus and it's sheer unmitigated hell!)

Please go read it yourself in the original article. This is why it's so important people go to the original source.

Now I have to admit my embarrassment! I did read the original article!!! But it was late and I was tired and was only online cause it was too hot to sleep...

I haven't read the 3rd article, but I can do so and analyze it if you want me to.

Maybe... but let's get through this first!

He comes to a conclusion (in his article) that does not fit what the original articles said. This is why he is not taken seriously by any health professional.

Are you familiar with this guy specifically? I hadn't heard of him before -- but that doesn't mean too much. I thought it was refreshing to see a vax study about something other than autism though.

a reply to: ChaoticOrder

They even admit they didn't do any studies to see if it was safe to mix so many vaccines together, which is completely insane. Who ever thought it was ok to skip testing should be put in prison.

This is what really caught my eye -- and my ire! -- absolutely no testing!!! I don't understand how anyone thought this was a good idea. Especially with infants.

However vaccines are a different story because there are specific laws which give vaccine manufacturers immunity from any damages their vaccines cause. It was passed a few years back if I recall correctly, that's the real reason these scum bags will get away with it. They don't have to justify crap, they are protected regardless of how many people they kill.

I was horrified at the time -- I knew it would be abused. We were told that if we didn't do this, that vaccines would be too expensive for manufacturers due to liability issues, so we just had to give them immunity from adverse reactions... and, of course, at the time, we were just talking about a handful of vaccines -- not dozens before 18!

And now, the way this is set up, people seeking compensation have to fight our government and all its resources -- NOT the actual vaccine manufacturers who are covered and protected by our government. It's all upside down and inside out.

originally posted by: Benevolent Heretic
a reply to: Boadicea

Slightly off topic, but I've done a lot of research on dog vaccines and the same holds true for them. Not only are multiple vaccines sometimes dangerous, but certain vaccines are more dangerous than others, even if given alone.

Thank you -- I'm glad you added that! My daughter was telling me about that just this weekend, after one of the dogs at her work reacted badly to a vaccine and went into convulsions. Apparently too some breeds are more susceptible to adverse reactions than others.

By the way, did you know that the 1-year rabies vaccine is EXACTLY the same as the 3-year rabies vaccine? The ONLY difference is the label!

“There is no benefit from annual rabies vaccination and most one year rabies products are similar or identical to the 3-year products with regard to duration of immunity and effectiveness.

Source 1 Source 2

Now that just makes me angry. So not only are we over-vaccinating our dogs, we are required to do so every year by law. Just pathetic.

a reply to: Boadicea

As in they say HIV doesn't exist? How so? Isn't there an identifiable virus? I don't get that...

Yep, they say the HIV virus does not cause AIDS which contradicts conclusive evidence that's available for anybody to read.

But isn't that the whole point?

If you read table 3 you will see that all those who have died had underlying pre-existing conditions, have a look: the man who died of cardiovascular disease already had cardiovascular disease, pulmonary emphisema and hypertension, he was already a very ill man. The one who died of pulmonary embolism already had lung cancer and polyneuropathy, and so on with all others, have a look yourself. We all know that vaccines are not indicated for very ill people or those with a compromised immune system. A healthy person (as seen with the rest of the sample) would not suddenly develop myocarditis after the MMR or we would see this as a very common reaction, and we don't.

Besides this, Miller was very dishonest. Read the whole original article (tables and all) and then read what he said about the article, which is this:

In May 2015, the CDC published a study in Clinical Infectious Diseases that analyzed the VAERS database for reports of serious adverse events after MMR vaccination in adults. CDC researchers found that the vaccine was often administered to pregnant women, a group in whom the vaccine is contraindicated, “suggesting the need for continued provider education on vaccine recommendations and screening.” Although 5% of reports were serious, including several deaths, CDC researchers concluded that “in our review of VAERS data, we did not detect any new or unexpected safety concerns for MMR vaccination in adults.”4

As I've said he reports deaths, but he cleverly omitted what caused them and the past medical history of those patients. He concludes that there were no unexpected safety concers for MMR vaccination in adults, and yet he used this article to back up his own result which said that 'infants who received multiple vaccines are more likely to be hospitatlized or die when compared with children who had less vaccines'.

Please explain to me how that article we have just analyzed helped him reach his conclusion?

I have to show my ignorance here... why is that significant? As I understand it, intussusception can occur with diarrhea, but not all diarrhea cases lead to intussusception, so wouldn't we expect the intussusception rate to be much lower than the diarrhea rate

The rotavirus virus causes serious diarrhea and sickness; since the vaccine the deaths caused by the Rotavirus virus have declined, in India (as an example) deaths amongst children under 5 have decreased from 47,100 to 5 per year (LINK). The vaccine can cause intussusception, which is when a section of the intestines folds into another section causing a blockage. This happens to 0.79 per 100,000 children which is very low risk compared to the possible deaths caused by the virus. I hope this makes sense.

originally posted by: ChaoticOrder
They even admit they didn't do any studies to see if it was safe to mix so many vaccines together, which is completely insane. Who ever thought it was ok to skip testing should be put in prison.

a reply to: Boadicea

This is what really caught my eye -- and my ire! -- absolutely no testing!!! I don't understand how anyone thought this was a good idea. Especially with infants.

And that's not true, that's anothe lie by Miller and his pals. There have been various studies that have shown the safety of multiple vaccines, Here is a very detailed one.

An article by Neil Z Miller which cites several debunked references by the Geiers...which in turn cite references by the Geiers.
You couldn't make it up.
Actually, they have!

It's like whack-a-mole.

originally posted by: Boadicea
So not only are we over-vaccinating our dogs, we are required to do so every year by law.

All states now have a 3-year law. Check with your vet. If he says no, find another vet. 3-year rabies valid in all states

My second source (above) has an interview with Dr. Schultz. He's a HUGE name in vaccination research and truth. Your daughter may be familiar with him.

And avoid Leptospirosis vaccine if you can. In the desert, we can get away with not getting it, because it's so dry. We simply don't have the disease here... But in moister climates, if your dog goes anywhere where wildlife has been drinking or may leave urine or vomit behind, I would go ahead and risk it.

a reply to: Benevolent Heretic

Thanks. I hope all dog owners hereon notice your post.

It's one thing to be abusive to fellow humans . . . seems to be our bent.

The dogs don't deserve it. Not that XYZ individual humans do . . . not saying that.

a reply to: Agartha

Oh dear... you may have to draw me a picture cause I'm just not getting what you're saying!

If you read table 3 you will see that all those who have died had underlying pre-existing conditions... We all know that vaccines are not indicated for very ill people or those with a compromised immune system.

I originally read the article as saying that it is because of possible underlying conditions -- the "other stress factors" -- that multiple vaccinations at once could cause adverse effects. So are you saying that these underlying conditions are a known risk and that these were known conditions prior to vaccination, so established proper protocol should have prohibited these people receiving the vaccinations? Or am I still misunderstanding?

And in that case, would proper protocol be to space the vaccinations out? Or not to administer at all?

A healthy person (as seen with the rest of the sample) would not suddenly develop myocarditis after the MMR or we would see this as a very common reaction, and we don't.

I do understand that much -- that vaccines do not cause the underlying conditions -- and probably should have pointed that out in the OP.

As I've said he reports deaths, but he cleverly omitted what caused them and the past medical history of those patients.

Ugh!!! I'm just not seeing the discrepancy. Again, the report read to me as "We know that multiple vaccines given simultaneously, and in combination with other stress factors (like underlying conditions), increases adverse reactions including hospitalization and death," including and perhaps especially in infants, as demonstrated in these numbers.

And it seems to me that infants and toddlers in particular may have undiagnosed underlying conditions, increasing their risk.

The rotavirus virus causes serious diarrhea and sickness; since the vaccine the deaths caused by the Rotavirus virus have declined, in India (as an example) deaths amongst children under 5 have decreased from 47,100 to 5 per year (LINK). The vaccine can cause intussusception, which is when a section of the intestines folds into another section causing a blockage. This happens to 0.79 per 100,000 children which is very low risk compared to the possible deaths caused by the virus. I hope this makes sense.

Yes, that makes perfect sense! Both the virus and the vaccine have risks... but the deaths from the virus are astronomically higher(!!!) than from the vaccine. Risk vs reward -- Got it!

And that's not true, that's anothe lie by Miller and his pals. There have been various studies that have shown the safety of multiple vaccines, Here is a very detailed one.

Well dammit. Just... dammit. That might make me even madder. Let me read it and I'll comment -- with my head hanging in shame if necessary...