JISCMail - EVIDENCE-BASED-HEALTH Archives

I agree with Wouter that vaccine safety is a major problem.

Multiple vaccines being delivered together are a particular risk.

In India deaths (within 48 hours of vaccination) doubled when the country switched to the Pentavalent vaccine (DPT + Hep B + Hib) replacing DPT.

http://www.mjdrdypv.org/downloadpdf.asp?issn=2589-8302;year=2018;volume=11;issue=2;spage=99;epage=105;aulast=Puliyel;type=2

I recently published in F1000 Research a rather lengthy paper on how the WHO revised its methodology of evaluating adverse events following immunization (AEFI) in a clear attempt to cover up AEFI. https://f1000research.com/articles/7-243/v2

The EMA was supplied doctored safety data on Infanrix hexa (a 6 valent vaccine DPT + Hep B + Hib and IPV) and this was exposed here.

http://ijme.in/articles/infanrix-hexa-and-sudden-death-a-review-of-the-periodic-safety-update-reports-submitted-to-the-european-medicines-agency/?galley=html

Professionals are scared to speak up, as you say.

Journals are petrified and won't publish 'anti-vaccine' data

All of us are bound by some omertà which is all purvasive and nearly world-wide.

Japan is a partial exception. And Japan perhaps has the worlds safest immunisation programme.

Evidence Based Medicine is welcome, but only as long as it reports vaccine supportive data!

The rest is simply ignored

Jacob Puliyel MD MRCP M Phil

Head of Pediatrics

St Stephens Hospital

Delhi India

On Wed, Aug 22, 2018 at 6:19 PM, Wouter Havinga <[log in to unmask]> wrote:

I booked for last year's the Evidence Based Heathcare for Teachers and Developers Conference 2017 in Taormina in order to ask the great and the good in EBM about vaccines. To enable a discussion I brought a poster.

My experience seem to confirm to me that the administration of vaccines is based on fear rather than critical thinking.

Critical thinking appears not to be allowed in the field of vaccines. A minimal amount of people came up to me to talk at my poster with the title: "A call for proper worldwide vaccine side-effect studies".
https://www.ebhcconference.org/previous_editions/2017/posters/Havinga_Wouter.pdf

When asking people away from my poster about vaccine issues, one mentioned that if he would look into the vaccine area he would lose his credibility.
One person who did briefly questioned me about something at my poster, when I asked what kind of work he did, walked away mentioning only the the country he came from. Later I realised he was a much celebrated Public Health individual, but seemed too afraid to discuss things?
A physician from the US told me when he, in his workplace, questioned the flu vaccine for health care workers, that he was taken out of a committee he was in.
One person was furious about my poster and with whom I couldn't have an exchange due to the emotion it invoked in that person.

This inability to discuss vaccines, other than condoning continued additions of more and more vaccines to national schedules, leads me to think that this lack of vaccinovigilance, is based on fear of losing one's job or credibility when addressing something where the aim is to inject each and every person on this planet.

Compare that with tablets. Rather than for each and every person on the planet, these are only for a selection of people, for example statins. With reference to tablets it is the norm to debate the pros and cons (at length). With tablets the aim is to enable shared decision making (SDM). The aim for vaccines seem to be the opposite: making it mandatory.

Hence my observation that "eminence" based medicine rules for vaccines. It does not to tolerate any questioning. The ultimate aim is to deliver the growing number of vaccines in one shot at birth, unquestionably. http://www.bbc.com/news/health-41269196

Wouter Havinga, locum GP (family doctor) South West England. UK

To unsubscribe from the EVIDENCE-BASED-HEALTH list, click the following link:
https://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/cgi-bin/webadmin?SUBED1=EVIDENCE-BASED-HEALTH&A=1