NVIC: Information that’s not. Exhibit C.

It’s one of the most widely used tricks to misinform the public. Take a quote from an official source and splice it to your advantage. One of the people associated with NVIC did just that. As always, I don’t name names, but here is the article. Here is the key part of that article:

“Researchers noted: “Despite widespread childhood vaccination against Bordetella pertussis, disease remains prevalent. It has been suggested that acellular vaccine may be less effective than previously believed. Our data suggests that the current schedule of acellular pertussis vaccine doses is insufficient to prevent outbreaks of pertussis.””

The writer then goes on an anti-pertussis vaccine rant. Read more below to see what he did.
The writer quoted the “Background” “Conclusions” section of this research paper. If you click on that link, you’ll read the ENTIRE “Conclusions” section. It reads (with the part that the writer failed to include in bold):

“Our data suggests that the current schedule of acellular pertussis vaccine doses is insufficient to prevent outbreaks of pertussis. We noted a markedly increased rate of disease from age 8 through 12, proportionate to the interval since the last scheduled vaccine. Stable rates of testing ruled out selection bias. The possibility of earlier or more numerous booster doses of acellular pertussis vaccine either as part of routine immunization or for outbreak control should be entertained.”

Here is the “Background” section (with the part that the writer failed to include in bold):

“Despite widespread childhood vaccination against Bordetella pertussis, disease remains prevalent. It has been suggested that acellular vaccine may be less effective than previously believed. During a large outbreak, we examined the incidence of pertussis and effectiveness of vaccination in a well-vaccinated, well-defined community.

Then he writes the following about “cocooning” and another research paper:

“Known as “cocooning,” this controversial practice is being promoted by the AAP and government health officials as a way of protecting babies from whooping cough and other infectious diseases like influenza by vaccinating their parents and other adult caregivers. However, there is little evidence to show that this works! In fact, research from Canada showed just the opposite. The Canadian study investigated how many parents would need to be vaccinated in order to prevent infant hospitalizations and deaths from pertussis using the cocoon strategy, and the results were dismal. They found the number needed to vaccinate (NNV) for parental immunization was at least 1 million to prevent 1 infant death, approximately 100,000 for ICU admission, and >10,000 for hospitalization.iv Researchers concluded: “… the parental cocoon program is inefficient and resource intensive for the prevention of serious outcomes in early infancy.””

What did the actual study conclude? In addition to destroying the writer’s assertion that the whooping cough vaccine doesn’t work by showing that the use of vaccine reduced both the number of cases and the number of deaths from whooping cough, the Canadian study had this conclusion (again, I bolded the part the writer failed to include):

“In the context of low pertussis incidence, the parental cocoon program is inefficient and resource intensive for the prevention of serious outcomes in early infancy. Regions contemplating the cocoon program should consider the NNV based on local epidemiology.

Imagine that! If your rates of whooping cough are high, or the burden of the disease is heavy, based on local epidemiology, then you should take those things into consideration in your cocooning program. In other words, don’t commit the ecological fallacy in applying Canada-level data to your local community. This is exactly what the writer does, only in reverse. He wants to apply “the incidence of pertussis and effectiveness of vaccination in a well-vaccinated, well-defined community” to the entire [expletive] country’s immunization program.

In conclusion, the writer – who is constantly associated with NVIC and whose opinion has been used by NVIC in its practices to misinform the public – took two studies and failed to include the complete “conclusions” part of the studies in his assessment of whooping cough vaccination practices. I’m sure it was just an oversight. After all, if you truly want to inform the public, you put all your cards on the table, even the science that disagrees with your theory, and then let the public decide. Right?


NVIC: Information that’s not. Exhibit B.

So I’ve already told you about VAERS and how it’s not really true “evidence” of how mean and bad vaccines can be (because they’re not). I also told you that the National Vaccine Information Center (NVIC) takes information on vaccines and seems to only be presenting you, the consumer, with the bad parts about vaccines. Very seldom do they present the good side of vaccines. In fact, I’m yet to read anything from them that shows how vaccines have vanquished two viruses (one very bad for humans and one bad for cattle) and reduced the incidence of some very horrible diseases. For exhibit B in this little “indictment”, let’s look at how they misuse VAERS data themselves.
First, let’s look at the official page for VAERS, which you can find here. It has several sections. First, the guide to interpreting the data:

“When evaluating data from VAERS, it is important to note that for any reported event, no cause-and-effect relationship has been established. Reports of all possible associations between vaccines and adverse events (possible side effects) are filed in VAERS. Therefore, VAERS collects data on any adverse event following vaccination, be it coincidental or truly caused by a vaccine. The report of an adverse event to VAERS is not documentation that a vaccine caused the event.”

Did you read that? It reads “any adverse event following vaccination, be it coincidental or truly caused by a vaccine”. Furthermore, just to re-emphacize, a “report of an adverse event to VAERS is not documentation that a vaccine caused the event“. One more time, just to be clear: is not documentation that a vaccine caused the event. And again: is not documentation that a vaccine caused the event.

Are we clear?

This is what the NVIC page about VAERS, with access to the data, has to say about VAERS:

Oh, they’ll send you to the official link, like I did, but no where do they say that reports are not documentation that vaccines caused the events. Of course not. Also not that they write that the reports are of “adverse health events that follow the administration of vaccines”.

Let’s continue our comparison.

The official page reads the following:

“More than 10 million vaccines per year are given to children less than 1 year old, usually between 2 and 6 months of age. At this age, infants are at greatest risk for certain medical adverse events, including high fevers, seizures, and sudden infant death syndrome (SIDS). Some infants will experience these medical events shortly after a vaccination by coincidence.
These coincidences make it difficult to know whether a particular adverse event resulted from a medical condition or from a vaccination. Therefore, vaccine providers are encouraged to report all adverse events following vaccination, whether or not they believe the vaccination was the cause.”

Did you catch that last part? They state that “vaccine providers are encouraged to report all adverse events following vaccination, whether or not they believe that vaccination was the cause.” Again, “whether or not they believe that the vaccination was the cause”.

NVIC? What do they say about causality?

Well, nothing. The two previous screenshots are all that NVIC has to say about causality as it relates to VAERS reports. Well, all they have to say before you access the data.

CDC, on the other hand, has one more section for you to read:

“When reviewing data from VAERS, please keep in mind the following limitations: VAERS is a passive reporting system, meaning that reports about adverse events are not automatically collected, but require a report to be filed to VAERS. VAERS reports can be submitted voluntarily by anyone, including healthcare providers, patients, or family members. Reports vary in quality and completeness. They often lack details and sometimes can have information that contains errors.
 “Underreporting” is one of the main limitations of passive surveillance systems, including VAERS. The term, underreporting refers to the fact that VAERS receives reports for only a small fraction of actual adverse events. The degree of underreporting varies widely. As an example, a great many of the millions of vaccinations administered each year by injection cause soreness, but relatively few of these episodes lead to a VAERS report. Physicians and patients understand that minor side effects of vaccinations often include this kind of discomfort, as well as low fevers. On the other hand, more serious and unexpected medical events are probably more likely to be reported than minor ones, especially when they occur soon after vaccination, even if they may be coincidental and related to other causes.
 A report to VAERS generally does not prove that the identified vaccine(s) caused the adverse event described. It only confirms that the reported event occurred sometime after vaccine was given. No proof that the event was caused by the vaccine is required in order for VAERS to accept the report. VAERS accepts all reports without judging whether the event was caused by the vaccine.
 DISCLAIMER: Please note that VAERS staff follow-up on all serious and other selected adverse event reports to obtain additional medical, laboratory, and/or autopsy records to help understand the concern raised. However, in general coding terms in VAERS do not change based on the information received during the follow-up process. VAERS data should be used with caution as numbers and conditions do not reflect data collected during follow-up. Note that the inclusion of events in VAERS data does not infer causality.”

Wow, that’s a lot of information before you even start looking at the data! I thought information was NVIC’s job, being the “information” center and all. But, no, they link to the official site, but then they allow you to dive into the data.

We’re going to dive into the data as well, comparing the two systems for accessing the data. For [expletive] and giggles, let’s look at reports of deaths following the HPV vaccine, a subject that’s all the rage lately. The official site has one more thing for you to acknowledge:

NVIC doesn’t ask you to read and understand the statements about causality. Those “pharma shills” from CDC do.

Here is CDCs search page. And here is NVICs search page. Using the same criteria, death associated with any of the three HPV vaccines, the official page gave me 74 entries. NVICs page gave me 110 or 143 entries, depending on what you’re counting. So, either CDC is hiding something or…

Ah, the “information center” database is counting a single event as multiple entries “because some events have multiple vaccinations and symptoms”. The HPV vaccine is given in a series of shots, so they’re counting one associated death several times, depending on how many of the vaccine’s series shots were given.

To be fair, let’s look at the first five reports from both systems, and you tell me if they’re definitely caused by the vaccine, as many anti-vaccine advocates would want you to believe.

First case is VAERS ID 275428-1:

“presented to ED with Ventricular tachycardia. Preliminary autopsy finding of myocarditis. 4/3/07 Spoke w/ME who stated prelim COD as acute myocarditis, presumably viral. States patient had PMH of heart murmur which was evaluated by ped cardiologist who found mild aortic & mitral valve insufficiency & regurgitation. ME states did not see evidence of that on autopsy but did find cardiomegaly. Also states patient had been taken to ER on day of death for abdominal pain w/fever & was dx w/gastroenteritis. CXR at that time revealed cardiomegaly. No EKG or cultures were done. Was d/c to home & continued to not feel well. Parent found patient in bathroom unresponsive at approx 2AM & was transported to a second ER where she expired. ME states patient had approx 2 week hx of cough & runny nose prior to death. 6/12/07 Received final Autopsy Report which reveals COD as acute probable viral etiology myocarditis & manner of death as natural. 6/29/07 Received ER records from hospital where patient expired which reveal patient was in respiratory arrest & had been intubated by EMS. ACLS measures were unsuccessful & patient pronounced. 8/24/07 Received cardiology consult which reveals patient evaluated for heart murmur in 2005 which had been diagnosed for long time but never evaluated. Patient admitted to palpitations & nervousness. Patient history did not reveal any evidence of rheumatic fever. Antibiotic endocarditis prophylaxis recommended prior to dental & surgical procedures. Patient was to f/u w/cardiology in 2-3 yearrs to document progress of valvular insufficiency. FINAL Cardiology DX: Aortic & mitral valve insufficiency of unknown etiology.”

So we have a patient who unfortunately died of myocarditis causing a ventricular tachycardia. Ventricular tachycardia is a heart malfunction where the heart beats are irregular. This is not a good thing. The patient’s heart was not right. Was it caused by the vaccine? Well, look at this part: “Received cardiology consult which reveals patient evaluated for heart murmur in 2005 which had been diagnosed for long time but never evaluated. Patient admitted to palpitations & nervousness. Patient history did not reveal any evidence of rheumatic fever. Antibiotic endocarditis prophylaxis recommended prior to dental & surgical procedures. Patient was to f/u w/cardiology in 2-3 yearrs to document progress of valvular insufficiency.”

Without knowing more, we can still infer that this patient had heart problems for a while. Did the vaccine aggravate these problems? Was it mere coincidence? Would this lethal heart condition have caused the patient’s death eventually, vaccine or not? We will never know, but that doesn’t stop conspiracy theorists from declaring the vaccine culpable:

The second case is VAERS ID 275438-1:

“Given Gardasil vaccine dose #1 3/12/07. No adverse reaction reported. Collapsed and died on 3/26/07 secondary emboli (records unavailable). 4/3/07 Spoke w/investigating deputy who stated autopsy done at Medical Center. T/C to physician at Medical Center who is actually a cardiologist, not pathologist, who had responded to the code & pronounced. Spoke w/secretary who states from Death Certificate COD is sudden cardiac death and pulmonary embolism. Echocardiogram revealed very enlarged right ventricle & small left ventricle as well as large blood clots within both the right atrium & right ventricle. 6/25/07 Received Autopsy Report which reveals following anatomic diagnosis: 1. Pulmonary embolism, occlusive a. pulmonary trunk, left hilar & peripheral vessels b. acute cor pulmonale (by echocardiogram) 2. Pulmonary congestion & edema, bilatera a. no evidence of anomalous coronary artery distribution b. no evidence of ventricular dysplasia This is in follow-up to report(s) previously submitted on 6/11/2007. Information has been received on request from the FDA under the Freedom of Information Act and from a physician who presented at the “”Global Advisory Committee on Vaccine Safety World Health Organizaqtion”” concerning a 19 year female nonsmoker with no history who on 12-MAR-2007 was vaccinated IM into the left arm with a first dose of GARDASIL lot #655849/0263U). Concomitant therapy included oral contraceptives. There was no adverse reaction reported. Subsequently on 26-MAR-2007 the patient, while exercising on a field collapsed, began convulsing and died secondary to emboli. An autopsy was done and on the death certificate the following is documented “”sudden cardiac death and pulmonary embolisem.”” An Echocardiogram revealed a very enlarged right ventricle and small left ventricle as well as large blood clots within both the right atrium and right ventricle. Coronary artery thrombosis and thrombosis were alsor reported. Upon internal review convulsing was considered an other important medical event. The original reporting source was not provided. A standar lot check investigation was performed. All in-process quality checks for the lot number in question were satisfactory. In addition, an expaned lot check investigation was performed. The testing performed on the batch prior to release met all release specifications. The lot met the requirements of the Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research and was released. No further information is available. This report was filed with the FDA. The VAERS number is 275438.”

Here is another unfortunate death from a blood clot to the lung (pulmonary embolism). The patient was vaccinated on March 12 and collapsed and died on March 26. But, did you catch one key piece of information? It’s right there, and it’s significant. Here it is:

“Concomitant therapy included oral contraceptives.”

Why is it key? It’s key because oral contraceptives (“the pill”) are associated with increased risk of – you guessed it – blood clots. But the conspiracy theorists won’t tell you this. Instead, they’ll paint a scary picture that this patient got the shot and died two weeks later, so it must have been the shot. No similar line of reasoning with regards to the pill.

The third case is VAERS ID 275990-1:

“Information has been received from a physician’s assistant (PA), via a company representative, concerning a female patient who was vaccinated (date unspecified) with a dose of Gardasil the PA reported that “”the patient died of a blood clot 3 hours after getting the Gardasil vaccine.”” The PA clarified that the patient was not vaccinated at her office. Additional information has been requested.”

A rumor. Let’s go to the fourth.

The fourth case is VAERS ID 278865-1:

“Onset of symptoms on 3/1/07: fever, sore throat, cough, and myalgia. Respiratory failure on 3/6/07. 6/1/07 Received Death Certificate from epidemiologist which reveals COD asmultiorgan system failure and influenza B viral sepsis with contributing cause of staphyloccoccal secondary infection. Medical records included w/death certificate indicate patient was transferred to higher level of care on 3/6, was intubated & in PICU w/pneumonia & ARDS. Reportedly had been in good health until 3/1/07 when she developed sore throat, nasal congestion, rhinnorhea & low grade fever. COntinued to worsen & developed myalgias, chest pain & nonproductive cough w/higher fever. Seen by PCP on 3/5 & rapid strep was neg & dx was probable influenza. Sent home & developed nausea, vomiting & diarrhea as well as petechial rash over abdomen. Taken to outlying ER on 3/6 & found to be in respiratory failure, intubated & transferred to higher level of care. Respiratory status declined further & was placed on oscillator & ECMO. Peds ID consult done. Consult states had HPV vax at PCP on 3/2 & no other recent vaccines. 6/1/07 Received fax medical & vaccine records from CDC who had contacted provider. Reveals that on 1/2/07, patient received TDaP & HPV. On 3/2/07 received HPV #2. VAERS database updated w/same. On day of vax patient also dx w/right CTS, migraine HA, scoliosis. She was referred to Neuro & PT for the CTS & HA.”

This one is simple. The patient had influenza B sepsis and a secondary Staph infection. This is not unheard of. In Maryland, there was a recent cluster of cases where several people died from influenza and Staph. Why are they linking it to the vaccine? Because the patient had the vaccine on June 2, a day after the onset of symptoms and four days before the patient died.

Last case is VAERS ID 279592-1:

“Information has been received from a licensed visiting nurse via a nurse practitioner. The nurse practitioner was told by a friend that a female patient was vaccinated with Gardasil and two weeks alter developed a blood clot. Subsequently the patient died. The cause of death was from the blood clot. The reporting licensed visiting nurse considered the blood clot to be immediately life-threatening and disabling. Additional information has been requested.”

But wait. Isn’t the medical establishment in league with Big Pharma? Why would a nurse report something against a product from Big Pharma? Never mind that. Notice that this one is also a bit of a rumor. The patient is somehow related to a person who told the nurse that someone died of a blood clot two weeks after the vaccine. The nurse then reported it to VAERS. And this is somehow evidence. For all we know, this case could be the second one in our analysis, leading to a question of how many of these cases are duplicates. (And don’t even get me started on how many of these blood clots may have been due to contraceptive use.)

But let’s look at a bonus case, VAERS ID 287888-1:

“Information has been received from a nurse practitioner concerning a 22 year old female patient with no pertinent medical history or drug allergies who on 21-MAY-2007, was vaccinated IM with a 0.5ml dose of Gardasil (Lot# 657736/0389U). Concomitant therapy included hormonal contraceptives (unspecified) (“”MERCET””). On 23-MAY-2007, the patient died suddenly. The cause of death was unknown. Unspecified medical attention was sought. Laboratory diagnostic studies included an autopsy which showed no findings. No product quality complaint was involved. The reporter stated that Gardasil did not cause the patient’s death. Additional information is not expected. 7/2/08-records received-Adverse effect of drugs.Toxicology survey findings:urine positive for methadone, benzodiazepines, benzoylecgonine (from cocaine), cannabinoids, nicotine, diphenhydramine and naproxen.”

Did you read the last part? “Cocaine, cannabinoids, nicotine, diphenhydramine and naproxen.” No, no, no, I’m sure it was the vaccine.

One more thing…

There is this guy who claims that he analyzes the data in VAERS and puts together some fancy graphs. He writes for the NVIC blog about VAERS. Here is his entry on the HPV vaccine and pregnant women. He created this very scary tree of symptoms and conditions associated with pregnancy and HPV vaccine (click to see larger):

Without placing ANYTHING in context, he makes it look like all these horrible things are caused by the HPV vaccine if you give it to a pregnant woman. He even writes:
“As you can see, the most common issue is “Foetal complications” followed by “Abortions and stillbirth” and “Maternal complications”. The graph continues deeper, showing more symptom detail. So it appears that, according to VAERS reports involving pregnant women who received the HPV vaccine, they indeed had substantial pregnancy-related difficulties and the pattern of symptoms appears to be different than what is generally reported to VAERS.”

Information? Maybe. The correct information, one that includes the risks of HPV-related tumors – or other vaccine-preventable diseases – and the real numbers (nominators and denominators) as well as the fact that studies (case-control ones) have been done on vaccines and have not found them to be unsafe… That information seems to be somehow missing from NVIC, the “information” center.

Exhibit C coming soon.

NVIC "Information". Exhibit A

If you don’t know who or what the NVIC is, I suggest you read the Wikipedia page for it. Don’t bother yourself with their “about” page. You won’t get the whole story there. You’ve got to Google it and do your own research, man. (See what I did there?) Seriously, thought, we can talk all day about who runs the NVIC or what kind of agenda they have, but it is all meaningless without evidence of their anti-vaccine slant.

So I have the evidence here of that anti-vaccine slant, right out of their own webpage.
Exhibit A is their own page on Hepatitis A. Let me tell you about Hep A. It is an infection of the liver that is very infectious. It doesn’t take a lot of virus to get you sick. And, when you get sick, you get really sick. You get so sick that you better make sure that your liver is up to code. If you are on certain medications of have had other liver infections like Hep B or Hep C, you better get yourself to a doctor immediately. Heck, you better get yourself to a doctor even if you don’t have underlying liver disease. Why?

Hepatitis A causes a liver infection that really messes with the liver’s ability to function. The liver is integral in “cleaning” your blood by removing toxins. The classic example of what the liver does is its ability to clear out alcohol. You drink alcohol, a toxin, and the enzymes in your liver turn the alcohol to more water-soluble compounds so you can just pee it out before it harms your brain. If you get Hep A, your liver is not able to do this with alcohol or any other toxin (or medication), placing you at risk for the most severe of complications.

Of course, Hep A is totally manageable, and most people who get it recover from it in time and live a long life afterward. But, seriously, why would you want to gamble with it? So there’s a vaccine that is safe and effective for you to protect yourself from Hep A if you are traveling to countries where it is endemic, work in group settings such as prisons or hospitals, work with it in the lab, or use/abuse IV drugs, or have an underlying condition like Hep B or Hep C that would make Hep A a very deadly ordeal. The vaccine is licensed in the United States for people age 1 and older.

Okay, so now you know about Hep A, and you know there is a vaccine. What about that vaccine? Merck and GlaxoSmithKline (GSK) both make a Hep A vaccine. Merck’s vaccine is given in two doses. GSK’s vaccine is given in up to four doses because one of the two GSK vaccines combines Hep B vaccine as well. Studies show that the immunity lasts about 25 years for adults and 14-20 years in children. Immunity may last longer if you get “boosted” through exposure. Natural immunity after infection is not known to last any differently, mostly because there just haven’t been the studies where we intentionally infect someone and follow them for years while preventing them from being boosted.

What about the vaccine’s safety? Well, it can cause pain, redness, and maybe swelling at the site of the injection. Death? Nope. Disability? Nope. Autism? Nope.

At least that’s what the science tells us. What does the NVIC tell us? Here:

“The following information is provided to as a public service by the National Vaccine Information Center to help you understand the disease hepatitis A and the hepatitis A vaccine so you can make an informed decision regarding the use of this vaccine. This information is not intended to serve as medical advice but as background information that you can use to educate yourself and ask your doctor questions.”

Alright. Sounds reasonable. What else?

“On December 1, 2004 Hepatitis A vaccine was added to the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program’s (VICP)  Vaccine Injury Table, as published in the Federal Register.  If you feel that your health problems are related to the Hepatitis A it is your right to file for compensation.  To learn more about the VICP and how to file a claim, please visit our injury compensation webpage.”

Ah. They want you to know that there is a vaccine injury table, almost as if to say that the vaccine is known to cause injuries. Their link, by the way, is broken. Here is the live link. I’m sure it’s just an oversight. After all, when you’re misinforming the public, you might not have time to check your webpage much. And NVIC won’t tell you what the table states about Hep A vaccine. Go check it out yourself and tell me if it’s worthwhile to scare people by saying that the vaccine is on that table.

Alright, I’ll show you. Here is what the table says about the vaccine:

In other words, contrary to what NVIC will tell you about the table, you will get NO compensation immediately if you claim the Hep A vaccine did something because it has not been shown to be even remotely associated with anything.

Okay, what else?

“Hepatitis A is a viral disease of the liver that is contracted through contact with, or swallowing of human fecal waste, generally through eating or drinking contaminated food and/or water.
Hepatitis A thrives in areas with poor sanitation and is spread when people eat or drink something that has been contaminated with human body waste products. Children often show no symptoms and the disease is more serious in adults.”


“Hepatitis A is spread almost exclusively by the fecal-oral route and is most often associated with poor sanitation and hygiene, and overcrowded living conditions.
It also is associated with lower socioeconomic status, certain sexual practices, and injected drug use. However, outbreaks of hepatitis A have also occurred in restaurants, daycare centers, nursing homes, and other institutions and community settings.
Some outbreaks of hepatitis A have been traced to contaminated food, water, milk, frozen raspberries and strawberries, and shellfish.
Among adults with identified risk factors, the majority of cases are among men who have sex with men, persons who use illegal drugs, and international travelers. Because transmission of hepatitis A during sexual activity probably occurs because of fecal-oral contact, measures typically used to prevent the transmission of other STDs (e.g., use of condoms) do not prevent hepatitis A transmission.
Hepatitis A infections also have been linked to children adopted from certain countries.”

See what they did there? They’re setting it up so that God-fearing, all-American, heterosexual, drug-free, church-going, money-making people have nothing to fear. I mean, you might get it from contaminated food, but that’s a low risk and you’re better off just washing your hands, having sex only with women, staying away from needles, and not traveling to those countries. Just wash your hands and you’ll be okay, they seem to say. (My opinion.)

In case you didn’t catch that last part about who is at risk and why, they mention it once again:

“Poor personal hygiene can increase the chances of spreading hepatitis A. That is why frequent hand washing with soap and water, particularly after using the bathroom, changing a diaper, and before preparing or eating food, is very important in preventing the spread of hepatitis A.
It also has been identified as a risk factor in daycare centers and intensive care neonatal units.
Travel to Third World countries, where hepatitis A is more prevalent, also is an identified risk factor for getting this infection.”

Wash your hands, Jose! Wash your [expletive] hands!

What about the vaccine? Well, I’m trying to get there, but NVIC keeps hammering the whole hygiene, not in my America, and sexual practices thing. I mean, they mention it again:

“In 2007 (the latest year for which data are available) 18 percent of all cases of Hepatitis A were attributable to international travel. Approximately 85 percent of all travel-related cases were associated with travel to Mexico and to Central or South America.”

And again:

“Waterborne outbreaks, though infrequent, are usually associated with sewage-contaminated, or inadequately treated, water.”

Dammit! What about the [expletive] vaccine?

“The ACIP has approved three inactivated , injectable vaccines for hepatitis A: Havrix; Twinrix; and Vaqta.”

Thank you!

But here is where NVIC gets all weird. Remember that the vaccine is not associated with adverse events. It only causes redness and swelling at the site of the injection in some people. It hasn’t caused death. It hasn’t caused disability. It hasn’t caused tumors, autism, or anything else. It has only prevented Hep A. But NVIC, true to form, wants to scare us with the ingredients:

“Havrix contains viral antigen and aluminum hydroxide (an adjuvant) with amino acid supplement in a phosphate buffered saline solution, polysorbate 20 (an emulsifier). The virus is propagated in human diploid cells. It also has neomycin (an antibiotic) in it. It does not contain preservatives.
The tip cap and the plunger on the syringe have latex in them.
Twinrix is a combination vaccine that is intended to protect against both hepatitis A and hepatitis B. It is manufactured using MRC-5, which was derived from a cell line that was developed in 1966 from lung tissue taken from a 14-week aborted fetus and contains viral antigens, yeast, aluminum phosphate, aluminum hydroxide, neomycin and formalin (formaldehyde and water). It does not contain preservatives.
The tip cap and the plunger on the syringe have latex in them.
Vaqta contains inactivated whole virus grown in human MRC-5 human diploid fibroblasts from lung tissue taken from an aborted fetus.
It is formalin inactivated and adsorbed onto amorphous aluminum hydroxyphosphate sulfate. It also has traces of bovine albumin and formaldehyde. It does not contain preservatives. The tip cap and the plunger on the syringe have latex in them.”

I’m not going to deny that it contains all of these things. What NVIC is not telling you is HOW MUCH of these things does it have? Further, they mention latex to scare away people with latex allergies. (Guess what? The latex never comes into contact with you, or goes into you.) And then there’s the whole “cells from an aborted fetus” gambit.

So, back in 1966, a fetus was aborted. For research purposes, some lung tissue was taken. During research, scientists discovered that the fetus’ lung cells worked really well in the lab to grow viruses in it. It was stable, the cells multiplied well, and the viruses really liked it. Instead of just discarding the fetus, scientists decided to give that irreversible abortion meaning by using those cells to create vaccines and therapies that have saved thousands if not millions of lives. It’s been 46 years and counting. I’m pretty sure those cells are not from the fetus anymore than the house dust on my window sill is any part of me. (House dust is mostly dead skin cells.)


NVIC also mentions all those adjuvants and emulsifiers because… Well, because they want to link them to adverse reactions. But remember what I wrote up there about known complications. They just don’t exist. They don’t.

That doesn’t stop NVIC from this:

How Effective Is the Hepatitis A Vaccine?All three Hepatitis A vaccine package inserts warn that the vaccines may not, or cannot, prevent or treat the disease in someone who is already infected or has been infected with hepatitis A. They also warn that some immunocompromised individuals may not be fully protected, either.”

That doesn’t answer the question about effectiveness, does it? The question was how effective the vaccine is, but the answer was that it doesn’t cure the infection once the infection occurs. It’s a clever play with words to say that “vaccines may not, or cannot, prevent or treat the disease in someone who is already infected or has been infected with hepatitis A.” In fact, that last part is puzzling. There is a difference between “someone who is already infected” and someone who “has been infected with hepatitis A”.

Confused? I am.

Oh, and then there is this:

Can the Hepatitis A Vaccine Cause Injury and/or Death?There is a gap in medical knowledge in terms of predicting who will have an adverse reaction to the hepatitis A vaccine and who will not.
However, reading the manufacturer’s product package inserts (see below) under “contraindications, warnings and precautions, and adverse reactions,” will help you weigh the vaccine’s benefits and risks before making a decision for yourself or your child.
Within the hepatitis A manufacturers’ vaccine package inserts, some of the adverse events reported ranged from fever, to nausea and loss of appetite, to dizziness, and neuromuscular symptoms, including Guillian Barre Syndrome.”

Followed by this:

“Since the vaccine was licensed in 1996, there have been thousands of serious adverse events to this vaccine reported to the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS), including deaths.”

I don’t get it. Either there have been no known deaths associated with the vaccine or there have. But you, dear reader, should already know how anti-vaccine groups use VAERS to their own aims. But let’s humor NVIC and look at VAERS for those deaths associated with Hep A vaccines.

I found 57 VAERS reports of death and any of the Hep A vaccines. Here are some chosen ones:

VAERS ID 113911-1: “pt recv vax DEC96 & JUL97 blood work in MAR showed no sign of disease;cancer of colon w/advanced metastases to liver detected in AUG because of rapid onset, want this on record;”

VAERS ID 160423-1: “Post vax, the pt was playing badminton in high school physical education class when he collapsed. CPR started by PE teacher and school nurse until paramedics arrived. Expired at hospital. Autopsy performed. Pathology tissues of heart sent for conduction studies.”

VAERS ID 166212-1: “Pt was given Hep-A vaccine at 18:00-18:15. He was a chaplain with the Police Dept and was riding with a Police Officer. The Police Officer took the pt home at 23:30. States that the pt had no complaints at that time. At 02:15, the Police Dept was informed by the pt’s wife that he had been sent to the hospital and died. Autopsy states cause of death as atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease. Other significant conditions: diabetes, hypertension, obesity.”

VAERS ID 175712-1: “The parent reported some fever the evening of the vaccine. Normal day of 09/21/01. The family put the child down to bed, no symptoms 09/21/01 at 8:00 pm. Family checked at 9 pm, the child’s color was white, unresponsive. Rushed to the hospital, the child arrested. Autopsy findings for cause of death were bronchopneumonia, laryngitis, cerebral edema.”

VAERS ID 207834-1: “administered on 11/14/02. All vaccines were administered on the same date. The patient died on 12/15/02. The CDC investigation confirmed that the patient was positive for serogroup C, Meningococcal infection. The onset date of signs and symptoms were not reported… From additional information received on 08/12/2003 from a pathology department, it was reported that the patient presented with an acute onset of a rash on his feet that spread to his face over a period of a few hours, after a 3 day history of a cough and sore throat. The symptoms progressed rapidly to severe respiratory distress and shock. The patient was treated with advanced cardiac life support in the ICU (intensive care unit) and died within three hours of presenting to the hospital. The patient died at 1:01 pm on 12/15/2002; the autopsy was done the following day and showed that the cause of death was Neisseria Meningitidis Septicemia (Meningococcemia). Gross autopsy findings included evidence acute shock syndrome with diffuse petechia and hemorrhage to multiple organs, visceral congestions, shock kidneys, and a blothcy erythematous rash to the organs and a few scattered foci of acute inflammation within the myocardium and meninges. The clinical presentation, autopsy findings, and laboratory PCR results were consistent with Neisseria Meningitidis (meningococcal) Septicemia.”

VAERS ID 211782-1: “Pt did vigorous physical training session just before dinner, went to dinner, didn’t feel well (upset stomach), went to baracks, apparently fell out of top bunk, was unresponsive. CPR started promptly with physician assistant attending. EMS arrived, pt was in asystole with no response to ACLS protocols. Transported to ER and ACLS continued with no response. Post-mortem x-ray showed no skeletal fracture or dislocation. Well known to unit PA; high blood presure; 15-year smoking history, new heart murmur 1/6 systolic. Diagnosed with URI on 09/30/2003 and treated with Deconamine SR BIDx 10d. Preliminary autopsy findings: ASCVD with left main coronary artery occluded 90%, left anterior descending cornonary artery occluded 85%. Final autopsy report awaits tissue and toxicology findings. Nurse follow up on 11/08/04 states: “”Severe Atherosclerotic Cardiovascular Disease.”””

VAERS ID 252079-1: “The subject is a female with the date of birth of 10/18/2000, who expired due to cancer while enrolled in a comparative post marketing safety study of Daptacel (Diphtheria and Tetanus toxoids and Acellular pertussis vaccine absorbed) administered with other recommended vaccines according to standard of care at 2, 4, and 6 months of age in infants and as a booster to toddlers. The subject received the study vaccine on 5/13/2003. Other vaccines administered on that day included a dose of IPOL, lot number W01972, a dose of hepatitis A vaccine, lot number 0498N, a dose of MMR/measles, mumps and rubella vaccine, lot number 0858M, and a dose of VZV, lot number 0485N, manufacturer unknown…”

Of course, there are rumors like this one:

VAERS ID 271331-1: “I read the patient’s obituary in the newspaper, please refer to primary care physician for more details. I never received any call regarding any adverse event regarding actual vaccines.”
Not that it will stop NVIC from saying this is an adverse event to a vaccine.

Of course, there are many more cases in there for which we don’t have the whole story. But you know from my previous post that VAERS is not evidence. It’s a good jump-off point to form theories or watch out for patterns. Evidence it is not.

So let’s finish reading what NVIC has to say about the Hep A vaccine, namely, why it should not be given:

“Hepatitis A does not cause chronic, long term infection and very rarely causes death. Infection with hepatitis A gives a person lifelong immunity and, in some populations around the world, close to 100 percent of all inhabitants have antibodies to hepatitis A.
The CDC states that persons at high risk for hepatitis A are household and sexual contacts of infected persons; drug users; persons traveling to countries where hepatitis A is common; and persons living in regions where there are “consistently increased rates of hepatitis A.”
The best tool for prevention of hepatitis A is to wash your hands with soap and water after using the bathroom, changing a diaper or preparing and eating food.
While the National Vaccine Information Center (NVIC) supports the availability of hepatitis A vaccine for all who choose to use it, NVIC opposes the mandated use of hepatitis A vaccine for the following reasons:

  • Hepatitis Does Not Cause Chronic Infection and Rarely Causes Death:
  • Hepatitis A has a mortality rate of less than one percent (0.6) and over 70 percent of deaths occur in adults over the age of 49. Almost everyone who gets hepatitis A recovers from it without any treatment. Plus, it is so rarely fatal that the CDC does not show a record of deaths from it some years.

  • Hepatitis A Gives Lifelong Immunity But the Vaccine Does Not:
  • Children often show no symptoms if they get hepatitis A and then develop lifelong immunity to the infection, but nobody knows how long vaccine-induced immunity will last. (All vaccines give only temporary immunity).

  • Child-to-Child Transmission in School is Rare:
  • According to the CDC, “Child-to-child disease transmission [of hepatitis A] within the school setting is uncommon.”  

  • Hepatitis A Vaccine Can Cause Reactions:
  • The vaccine can cause unpleasant or even health- or life-threatening conditions, such as Guillian-Barre Syndrome (see vaccine side effects under “Can the Hepatitis A Vaccine Cause Injury and/or Death”).”

There you have it, folks. Hep A is nothing to worry about if your lifestyle is the right one, or just wash your [expletive] hands. Hepatitis A vaccine has “caused” death and disability (in obituaries, apparently), and it contains toxins and aborted cells. NVIC doesn’t mention the concentrations of these chemicals in the vaccine. They don’t mention the real story behind those “aborted” cells. They won’t mention that there are more people than ever with conditions that could be enormously exacerbated by an infection with Hepatitis A.
It’s all cons, cons, cons. No pros.
That, dear reader, seems to be their idea of “information”. But this is only exhibit A.