40 Reasons – Part 2

6. Vaccinating infants is the most profitable business both for the manufacturers as well as the doctors.

Hooray! Vaccines make profits. If they didn’t we would have trouble getting our hands on them – who’d make them? Pharmaceutical companies are businesses with a bottom line and though some of their practices and policies can be highly questionable it is ridiculous to require them to be philanthropic enterprises when it comes to vaccines or any other product line.

Looking at the top ten most profitable drugs based on their pre-tax margin it seems to me, though I’m no economist or accountant, that treating disease rakes in a lot more money than preventing it. So, vaccines are not, “the most profitable” of products:

1   Effexor          antidepressant                  87 %

2   Arimidex       cancer drug                      85 %

3   Femara         cancer drug                      84 %

4   Detrol           bladder control                  84 %

5   Gemzar        cancer drug                      84 %

6   Xeloda          cancer drug                      82 %

7   Lipitor           lipid lowering                    82 %

8   Zometa         cancer drug                      81 %

9   Plavix           anti-clotting                      81 %

10 Taxotere       cancer drug                      80 %

(analysis by Tim Anderson,Sanford Bernstein)

But, “Ahh!” you might say. “Vaccines are recommended for almost everyone – the market is huge.” You’d be right however, vaccines are not given at anything like the frequency of other medicines. The ‘flu vaccine should be administered every year but when you compare that rate of consumption to drugs to control conditions like diabetes or epilepsy that have to be taken daily or even more often it puts a bit of perspective on things.
As for doctors boosting their income by offering infant vaccinations well, there are much better ways to pad out the pay cheque. A 2008 study in the peer reviewed journal, Pediatrics, came to the conclusion that many practices barely break even and others make a loss from offering vaccines:

http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/content/122/6/1319.full

“More than half (53% [n = 310]) of the respondents reported that their practice had experienced a decrease in profit margin from providing pediatric immunizations in the previous 3 years… A “significant decrease (>20%)” in profit margin was reported by 21% (n = 123) of respondents overall and by more decision-makers than non–decision-makers.”

and…

“A key finding from our study is that, in the previous year, 5% of pediatricians and 21% of family physicians (11% of all respondents) have seriously considered whether to stop providing all vaccines to privately insured patients.

7. The Government of India has warned parents not to vaccinate beyond the Government approved vaccines. Parents have been advised against vaccinating in private clinics and hospitals.

8.The Orissa Chapter of the Indian Association of Paediatricians has admitted in a letter to the CM, Orissa, that private clinics and hospitals are ill equipped to store vaccines and warned parents not to vaccinate upon the advice of private practitioners and hospitals.

I’ll take these two points as one because, essentially both amount to the same thing: beware of dodgy clinics – good advice wherever you may live. Care, of course, must be taken to store vaccines correctly but these two points really don’t amount to reasons against vaccinating as they are reasons to get your vaccinations from reputable health professionals.

In 2009, private clinics were warned not to imply or state that the year’s seasonal ‘flu vaccine would protect people from the H1N1 strain of the virus. Chatterjee states that there was, ” a quarter page advertisement in The Hindu warning parents not to vaccinate beyond the Government approved vaccines.” True. The government was warning against the use of homeopathic vaccines. Very sensible too. Here’s the article which was also accompanied by advertisements cautioning the same, Warning Against Sale of Homoeo Vaccines.

9. ALL THE VACCINE INGREDIENTS ARE EXTREMELY TOXIC IN NATURE.

This sentence is almost true. It’s just one word too long – I could’ve, perhaps, overlooked an “extremely” but not an “EXTREMELY.” As the old adage goes, it’s the dose that makes the poison. So, indeed, all vaccine ingredients are toxic. Let’s look at one of the main ones: water.
Hyperhydration can be deadly. It kills because the concentration of electrolytes circulating in the blood becomes too low which can lead to cardiac arrest. One group more susceptible to hyperhydration or water intoxication as it is sometimes known is athletes. Intense and/or prolonged work outs alters the balance of electrolytes and hyperhydration can occur if these are not replenished alongside rehydrating Now, in terms of toxicity, water is pretty low on the danger list as are polysaccharides (complex sugars ). So really not ALL vaccine ingredients are EXTREMELY or, even, extremely toxic.

10. Vaccines contain scary ingredients.

Taking each of Chatterjee’s list in turn:

Vaccines contain heavy metals – not elemental heavy metals they don’t (see point 13  – part 3 is a bit of a heavy metal fest).
Vaccines contain cancer causing substances – yes they do. Formaldehyde is a known carcinogen but, repeat after me: it’s the dose that makes the poison. The volume of formaldehyde in vaccines is less than the body makes each day in normal metabolism.
Vaccines contain toxic chemicals – see point nine and let’s repeat it one more time: it’s the dose that makes the poison. The toxic chemicals (I refuse to call them toxins because they are not) are present in tiny amounts, as the inimitable Mark Crislip puts it “in concentrations that would only worry a homeopath.”
Vaccines contain live and genetically modified viruses – Well duh! Some though, by no means all, vaccines rely on live viral components for the mode of action – the MMR is an example. Yes, the viruses in vaccines are modified so that they stimulate immunity without multiplying to give a recipient the disease against which it protects. However, not all vaccines contain live viruses but killed virus and viral particles.
Vaccines contain contaminated serum containing animal viruses and foreign genetic material – serum containing  viruses required to cause an immune response to a particular disease can hardly be called contamination! They’re in there on purpose, dear. The author also complains that vaccines contain, “extremely toxic decontaminants.” Well, forgive me if I’m missing something but if, let’s just assume vaccines do contain the contaminants Chatterjee fears (of course contamination can occur but stringent safety testing ensures that such batches rarely reach the market). Shouldn’t the decontaminants, “extremely toxic” as they are, also be “extremely toxic” to the viral interlopers? This links nicely to another vaccine ingredient Chatterjee fears…
Vaccines contain untested antibiotics – No they don’t Again, an example of a statement with a superfluous adjective, in this case “untested”. Antibiotics are used in the production of some vaccines and trace amounts may remain in the final  product. They are used to prevent or remedy bacterial contamination – the ‘flu virus is cultivated in chicken eggs, not a sterile environment. NEVER (look -he’s got me at the caps lock in my frustration) are untested antibiotics used. Why would they be? You need to know that they are safe and against which bacteria they work. Antibiotics most closely associated with allergic reactions, for example, penicillin are not used in vaccine production for this very reason. Typically,neomycin, polymyxin B, streptomycin and gentamicin are used. Each has a good safety record and have been very thoroughly tested indeed. All but, often undetectable, traces of antibiotics used in vaccine production are removed during purification.
Vaccines contain extremely toxic adjuvants – vaccines do contain adjuvants which will be discussed later: see point 19.

Of all these ingredients, Chatterjee states that “none of which can be injected without causing any harm.” Seeing as that, for the vast, vast majority of people who receive them, vaccines cause no harm then this statement is demonstrably false.

11, 12  and 22. Vaccines are behind the huge epidemic of autism (1 in 10 worldwide as per doctors in the USA), a fact that has been admitted by the US Vaccine Court. 

Autism is on the rise in India From 1 in 500 it has steadily climbed to 1 in 37 today.

The CDC’s Dr Julie Gerberding told CNN that vaccines can cause “autism like symptoms”. 

There is no “epidemic of autism”. It isn’t spreading and is certainly not something to be feared. I hate this type of stigmatising language. What I would really appreciate is a citation or two because, apart from simply making up figures (more of that to come) I have no idea where Chatterjee could’ve got the idea that autism affects 1 in 10 people world wide. Even the looniest of antivax scaremongers wouldn’t have the brass neck to use this figure. The truth is a little different.The prevalence of ASD worldwide is, simply, unknown because screening and treatment in developing countries is inconsistent or completely lacking. The best estimates put the rate of autism in India at 1 in 250 not 1 in 37.

Following the Omnibus Autism Proceedings ASD has been judged to be a condition that the US Vaccine Court absolutely will not attribute to vaccines. Much was made of the case of Hannah Poling, a child with ASD, who was compensated for vaccine injury by the court. However, it was not ASD that the court recognised could be vaccine related by encephalopathy – an unrelated condition. The Department of Health and Human Services agreed with Hannah’s parents that she had a reaction to vaccines that, “manifested as a regressive encephalopathy,” due to an “underlying mitochondrial disorder.” In his book, the Panic Virus, author Seth Mnookin summarises:

“This was not seen as particularly controversial decision: since encephalopathies are recognised by the Vaccine Court as table injuries, in the absence of overwhelming evidence to the contrary, the court is mandated to grant an award for any encephalopathy that follows a vaccine within a set period of time.”

I couldn’t find a video of Dr Gerberding’s CNN interview that wasn’t chopped up with really annoying comment screens trying to tell me what to think, so here I’ll be quoting the from the transcript on CNN’s website. What the former head of the CDC says is,

“But my understanding is that the child has a — what we think is a rare mitochondrial disorder. And children that have this disease, anything that stresses them creates a situation where their cells just can’t make enough energy to keep their brains functioning normally. Now, we all know that vaccines can occasionally cause fevers in kids. So if a child was immunized, got a fever, had other complications from the vaccines. And if you’re predisposed with the mitochondrial disorder, it can certainly set off some damage. Some of the symptoms can be symptoms that have characteristics of autism.”

The Autism epidemic is found only in those countries that have allowed mass vaccinations. 

Countries with well implemented and far reaching vaccine mandates tend to be the better developed countries. With that development comes health services and expertise both of which mean that developmental disorders can be picked and diagnoses made at ever younger ages. Better detection of autism is the primary reason why the rates of the condition seem so high. In fact, a study carried out by the CDC noted that autism prevalence to be at its highest  in states with the best autism health and support services, such as Arizona and Missouri (121 in 10,000) and lowest in states with fewer services  such as Alabama (60 in 10,000) and Florida (42 in 10,000).

It’s not just developing countries that have low autism rates. An INSERM study puts the French rate for ASD  at around 27 in 10,000. Here is a country with a generally excellent health service and a “mass vaccinations” programme that has a rate of ASD far smaller than its cross-channel neighbour, the UK. The National Autistic Society estimates the rate of ASD in the UK to be around 1 in 100. So what’s the difference?

Autism is seen very differently in France compared to how it is viewed in the UK or even USA. It is still thought of as a psychological condition that can respond to psychotherapy, hence the continued use of the torture labelled as a treatment that is Le Packing.  The vast majority of people with an ASD diagnosis receive it after the age of six. On the other hand, childhood schizophrenia and childhood depression are still  relatively common diagnoses. Further proof that is diagnostic expertise and autism awareness that strongly determines prevalence.

<<<Part 1                                                      Part 3>>>