July 12, 2002

Babies Exposed to Toxic Vaccines

FYI

Several recent articles focus on unsafe vaccines:

ABC News reports (below) that 3,400 people, half of them children, “received the questionable vaccines from Park Nicollet Clinic in the Minneapolis metropolitan area. The vaccines included polio booster shots, hepatitis A and B shots and Prevnar, a vaccine for infants and toddlers.”

The U.K. Observer reports (below) that “after a long and fierce battle with the drug giant” GlaxcoSmithKline finally admited that it is ‘highly probable’ that 60,000 doses of toxic batches of the whooping cough vaccine were injected into thousands of British and Irish babies. The parents of one Irish boy who suffered brain damage after being innoculated with a dose 14 times more potent than normal, had been awarded L 2.7 million in 1992.

Other articles on RedFlaggs Weekly raise concerns about the safety of the flu vaccine for babies http://redflagsweekly.com/features.html

And an Australian report indicates that babies may soon be innoculated with anti- herpes vaccines! “BABIES may be vaccinated against such sexually-transmitted diseases as herpes and genital warts along with the standard childhood shots for measles, whooping cough and rubella.”

Since when are babies at risk of sexually transmitted diseases????

The number of adverse reactions reported to the FDA under The VACCINE ADVERSE EVENTS REPORTING SYSTEM (VAERS). which is said to represent ONLY 1% of serious drug reactions: From January 1, 1990 – March 6, 2001, VAERS received 30,180 reports of serious adverse reactions and 5, 284 reported deaths. http://www.vaccineawareness.org/information/VAERS_statisticsnov01.htm

When babies are exposed to new biomedical interventions without medical justification–those babies are involuntary test subjects of experimental treatments.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

http://printerfriendly.abcnews.com/printerfriendly/Print?fetchFromGLUE=true&GLUEService=ABCNewsCom

Minn. Clinic Warns of Faulty Vaccine

Clinic Warns Thousands in Minnesota That Vaccines May Be Faulty but Says No One in Danger

The Associated Press

MINNEAPOLIS July 10 — Freezing temperatures may have ruined thousands of doses of vaccines, meaning patients may need new injections, but the clinic that gave the shots said no one was in danger. About 3,400 people, half of them children, received the questionable vaccines from Park Nicollet Clinic in the Minneapolis metropolitan area. The vaccines included polio booster shots, hepatitis A and B shots and Prevnar, a vaccine for infants and toddlers. There have been no signs of illness so far among the patients, though some probably weren’t protected against disease, said Dr. Hal Martin, medical director of Park Nicollet’s travel clinic. The patients received their vaccines on days when temperatures in storage rooms fell below freezing. The vaccines are supposed to be kept at 35 to 46 degrees. The problem came to light at a Park Nicollet clinic in suburban Minnetonka. A check of storage logs revealed the same problem at eight other Park Nicollet sites since December. The same cold-storage problem has also been found at five or six other unidentified clinics in Minnesota, state epidemiologist Kristen Ehresmann said. It also has been happening around the country, according to the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention in Atlanta. Park Nicollet said it was spending about $300,000 to correct the problem, including providing replacement shots. Getting a second vaccine is safe, medical officials said. “It might cause a sore arm, but you cannot be overvaccinated,” Martin said. Copyright 2002 The Associated Press. Copyright © 2002 ABC News Internet Ventures

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

http://www.observer.co.uk/uk_news/story/0,6903,746568,00.html

UK babies given toxic vaccines, admits Glaxo

Antony Barnett and Tracy McVeigh
Sunday June 30, 2002
The Observer

British drug giant GlaxoSmithKline has finally admitted that thousands of babies in this country were inoculated with a batch of toxic whooping cough vaccines in the 1970s.

Some experts believe that these Trivax vaccines – which had not passed critical company safety tests – may have caused permanent brain damage and even fatalities in young children.

In 1992, the family of an Irish boy, Kenneth Best, who suffered brain damage from one of these toxic vaccines, was awarded £2.7 million in compensation by the Irish Supreme Court.

Despite a long and fierce battle with the drug giant, the boy’s family finally won this historic case after his mother Margaret made a startling find when sifting through tens of thousands of company documents.

She discovered that the Trivax vaccine used on her son, from a batch numbered 3,741, had been released by the company despite it having failed to pass a critical safety test. Documents revealed that the 60,000 individual doses within this batch were known to be 14 times more potent than normal.

At the time the Irish judge accused GlaxoSmithKline – then known as Glaxo Wellcome – of negligence and attacked the company’s poor quality control at its Kent laboratory. Immunology experts condemned Glaxo in court for what one US scientist described as an ‘extraordinary event’.

Last year an investigation by The Observer found evidence to suggest that vaccines from this faulty batch, which may have wrecked Kenneth Best’s life, had also been used in Britain.

Liberal Democrat MP Norman Baker raised questions in the House of Commons, asking whether vaccines from this batch had been given to British babies. Then Health Minister Yvette Cooper wrote to the company asking for information.

Now, almost a year later, GlaxoSmithKline has replied that it is ‘highly probable’ the toxic batches had been used in Britain.

The Department of Health is under pressure to make efforts to trace the children who received the suspect vaccines.

Last week in the House of Commons, Health Minister Hazel Blears said: ‘Unfortunately they no longer have details of the quantitites of vaccine or the places where the vaccine was supplied.

‘Since vaccines were not centrally purchased and distributed at that time there are no central records either. Information on individuals who received these vaccines will only exist if the general practioner at the time of the immunisation recorded the batch number and the patient’s notes are still available.’

Baker will now write to the Minister to demand that she asks health authorities to check the records to find out who received the vaccine. It is believed that at least one boy from Wales died after receiving a jab from toxic batch 3,741, although the parents have never been informed.

A spokesman for GlaxoSmithKline told The Observer : ‘We do not accept that these batches were harmful.’ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

SCANDALS: Mercury In A Flu Vaccine For Infants?
By Sandy Mintz
http://redflagsweekly.com/features.html

Are wolves in sheep’s clothing trying to pull the wool over our eyes?

Are we in the “twilight zone”, or what? As the evidence against thimerosal, the mercury which contaminates infant vaccines and is supposedly being phased out (but not recalled – and why not?), mounts, “Public Health” announces that flu vaccine is now “encouraged” for infants, with the expectation being that it will soon be “recommended”.

The justification for doing so remains elusive at best. Infants have historically had few significant problems with the flu – they have never been considered at high-risk for serious flu complications. Either they still are not considered at high-risk, and thus have no business getting the flu vaccine, or for some as yet unknown reason are now at high-risk, and we should do everything in our power to understand the reasons for this change. What we should not be doing is cavalierly adding another vaccine to the already heavy infant vaccine schedule, without understanding if it is true that infants can no longer handle the flu and why. The “why” is as important as the “if”, because if, as some people suspect, it is the vaccines themselves that are undermining infant immune systems, adding the flu vaccine could well end up contributing to the very problem it is supposedly designed to prevent. While this new policy is allegedly based on two New England Journal of Medicine (NEJM) studies which purport to show that flu hits infants harder than previously thought (although not causing deaths), it begs the question: “Who paid for these studies?” (Remember, the NEJM is the journal that just gave up on trying to control conflict of interest.) ….full article at: http://www.vaccinationnews.com/Scandals/June_28_02/Scandal22.htm

——————————————————————————–

http://www.theadvertiser.news.com.au/printpage/0,5942,4451888,00.html

Herpes vaccine for babies in `four years’ By JUDY SKATSSOON in Sydney June 5, 2002

BABIES may be vaccinated against such sexually-transmitted diseases as herpes and genital warts along with the standard childhood shots for measles, whooping cough and rubella. A vaccine for the herpes simplex virus type two "genital herpes" could be as little as four years away, Professor Lawrence Stanberry, a pediatrics and vaccine specialist at the University of Texas, told a health conference yesterday. Progress also was being made on developing a vaccine for the human papillomavirus, which causes genital warts and can be a precursor to cervical cancer. Professor Adrian Mindel, a director of Westmead Hospital’s Sexually Transmitted Infections Research Centre in Sydney, also said Australia had collaborated with the US to develop the herpes vaccine and was the second largest patient contributor in a recent international trial. Professor Mindel estimated it would be a “bare minimum” of four years before a herpes vaccine became available here, saying significant improvements needed to be made on the current candidate. The latest trial of the vaccine, being developed by GlaxoSmithKline, found it protected women against genital herpes but had no effect on men. A final study, involving 7500 women, begins in the US shortly in a bid to come up with an improved second or third generation vaccine.

© Advertiser Newspapers Ltd

FAIR USE NOTICE: This may contain copyrighted (© ) material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. Such material is made available to advance understanding of ecological, political, human rights, economic, democracy, scientific, moral, ethical, and social justice issues, etc. It is believed that this constitutes a ‘fair use’ of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, this material is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior general interest in receiving similar information for research and educational purposes. For more information go to: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml If you wish to use copyrighted material for purposes of your own that go beyond ‘fair use’, you must obtain permission from the copyright owner.