WaPo Writer Brazenly Lies About Vaccine Safety, Refuses to Issue Correction

by Jan 23, 2018Health & Vaccines79 comments

Entrance to the headquarters of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention in Atlanta, Georgia (Daniel Mayer/CC BY-SA 3.0)

To persuade parents to follow the CDC's routine childhood vaccination schedule, Lena H. Sun in the Washington Post lies that every vaccine is studied for safety when given in combination with every other vaccine on the schedule. Confronted with her lie, she's refused to issue a correction.

In my article “Washington Post Lies about Safety of Giving Multiple Vaccines at Once“, I demonstrate how Lena H. Sun, in an article titled “Why it’s a bad idea to space out your child’s vaccination shots“, outright lies about the safety of the CDC’s routine childhood vaccine schedule.

Her purpose in writing that article is to reassure parents that no harm can come to their children from strictly following the CDC’s schedule. To support that reassurance, Ms. Sun asserts:

The effectiveness of the vaccine schedule is tested extensively to ensure that the vaccines in the combination don’t interfere with one another and can be easily handled by the infant and the child’s immune system. No new immunization is added to the schedule until it has been evaluated both alone and when given with the other current immunizations.  

That is a lie.

I don’t need to prove no such studies have been done. It is up to Ms. Sun to support her claim with supporting evidence. Where are these studies? She cannot present any evidence to support her claim because those studies don’t exist.

But you don’t have to take my word for it.

Here is the Institute of Medicine (IOM) in its 2013 report on “The Childhood Immunization Schedule and Safety“:

In summary, few studies have comprehensively assessed the association between the entire immunization schedule or variations in the overall schedule and categories of health outcomes, and no study has directly examined health outcomes and stakeholder concerns in precisely the way that the committee was charged to address in its statement of task. No studies have compared the differences in health outcomes that some stakeholders questioned between entirely unimmunized populations of children and fully immunized children. Experts who addressed the committee pointed not to a body of evidence that had been overlooked but rather to the fact that existing research has not been designed to test the entire immunization schedule. The committee believes that although the available evidence is reassuring, studies designed to examine the long-term effects of the cumulative number of vaccines or other aspects of the immunization schedule have not been conducted.

Now, I have emailed Ms. Sun as well as the Washington Post editors to request that they issue a correction to her article. In my email, I cited this IOM report.

I also cited Neil Z. Miller writing in the Journal of American Physicians and Surgeons in 2016:

Although CDC recommends polio, hepatitis B, diphtheria, tetanus, pertussis, rotavirus, Haemophilus influenza 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…. The safety of CDC’s childhood vaccination schedule was never affirmed in clinical studies. Vaccines are administered to millions of infants every year, yet health authorities have no scientific data from synergistic toxicity studies on all combinations of vaccines that infants are likely to receive.

Just this morning, I managed to get through to Ms. Sun on the phone. She informed me that the Washington Post had received my request for a correction and that this was under review.

She was willing to leave it at that, but I reminded her that she has a personal responsibility as a journalist, apart from the Post’s review process, to correct her false claim. I reminded her of what she wrote and then once again referred her to the 2013 IOM report.

So how did that go?

Well, importantly, Ms. Sun said that she’d looked at that report. Yet she stood by her claim by accusing me of taking the relevant quote from the IOM “out of context”.

Well, you can read what she wrote and compare it to what the IOM acknowledges for yourself. You can decide to yourself who is being dishonest here.

Sun cannot offer any evidence to support her claim. She cannot produce any of the studies she says exist showing the safety of the CDC’s childhood vaccine schedule because, as the IOM admits, such studies “have not been conducted.”

If she wishes to stand by her claim, it is not enough for her to accuse me of quoting the IOM report “out of context”. She must produce the studies she says exist.

So will she do the right thing? Will she show journalistic integrity by either producing the supporting evidence or issuing an apology and correction? And will the Washington Post do likewise?

To help put pressure on the Post to do the right thing and acknowledge its error, you can email [email protected]. You can also email Ms. Sun at [email protected]. Additionally, you can write a letter to the editor at [email protected].

I will continue to update you about this matter. Stay tuned.

Also be sure to follow me on Twitter, where I’m continuing to keep up the pressure on Sun and her editors to do the right thing. Please retweet and help me make some noise to hold the mainstream media accountable for their lies about vaccine safety!

Did you find value in this content? If so and you have the means, please consider supporting my independent journalism.

About Jeremy R. Hammond

About Jeremy R. Hammond

I am an independent journalist, political analyst, publisher and editor of Foreign Policy Journal, book author, and writing coach.

My writings empower readers with the knowledge they need to see through state propaganda intended to manufacture their consent for criminal government policies.

By recognizing when we are being lied to and why, we can fight effectively for liberty, peace, and justice, in order to create a better world for ourselves, our children, and future generations of humanity.

Please join my growing community of readers!

 

Download my free report 5 Horrifying Facts about the FDA Vaccine Approval Process.

Download my free report 5 Horrifying Facts about the FDA Vaccine Approval Process.

Related Articles

79 Comments

    • Jeremy R. Hammond

      The IOM report was not a clinical safety study of the CDC’s schedule. You are not being serious.

      Reply
      • Sheila Fitzgerald

        Uhh…are you serious? It was the most comprehensive safety study on the entire childhood vaccination study that has ever been done by the most respected and unbiased medical organization in the world. I’m sorry the results don’t agree with your agenda.

        Do you also ask for “clinical” studies of air bags using child subjects?

        You are not serious.

        P.S. If the study isn’t valid you can’t use other parts of it for your blogs, which you have. You can’t have it both ways.

        P.P.S. If you really wanted to be fair you would at least mention the study and show that it has been studied. Then, if you want, you could mention it wasn’t a “clinical” trial. But why intentionally not mention it?

      • Jeremy R. Hammond

        Yes, I am being quite serious. You simply don’t know what you are talking about. The IOM did not conduct a study to determine the safety of any of the vaccines on the CDC’s schedule when given along with all the other vaccines on the schedule. Rather, the IOM reviewed the available vaccine safety studies and observed the fact that no such studies have ever been done.

      • Sheila Fitzgerald

        Until the IOM’s.

      • Jeremy R. Hammond

        The IOM report was not such a study. It was a review of studies on the safety of the childhood vaccine schedule. And as the IOM report noted, zero studies exist that examined the safety of each vaccine when given in combination with every other vaccine on the schedule. The IOM did not itself conduct such a study.

      • Sheila Fitzgerald

        It was a full review of all the studies and found the schedule was safe. You don’t have to believe their conclusions and findings but please don’t deny their hard work that has led to so many children being protected from infectious diseases and has saved lives.

      • Jeremy R. Hammond

        Where did I say I don’t believe the IOM’s conclusions? On the contrary, I am citing the IOM to prove my point. To once again quote the IOM, “studies designed to examine the long-term effects of the cumulative number of vaccines or other aspects of the immunization schedule have not been conducted.” It is you who has continually rejected this conclusion of the IOM review, you silly troll. Go troll elsewhere. Your idiocy is not welcome here.

    • Jeremy R. Hammond

      If you’d like to argue that Miller’s observation is wrong, then you are also arguing that the IOM’s same observation is likewise “from outer space”. You are welcome to try to produce a study showing that Miller’s observation is wrong. I challenge you to do so. In other words, do better.

      Reply
      • Jeremy R. Hammond

        So you’re arguing that an internet meme and some blog carries more weight than a peer-reviewed paper in the medical literature? Seriously?

        Once again, if you’d like to argue that Miller’s observation is wrong, then you must also maintain that the IOM is wrong. So I challenge you once again to produce a study showing that Miller and the IOM are wrong.

        Good luck with that. You’ll find you’re not able to do so.

      • Sheila Fitzgerald

        The meme and blog state facts. If you want to refute them, you’d need to state facts of your own.

        It’s more a question of why you’re quoting him than what he’s saying. If you want to be credible you should quote credible people.

        I can quote something David Duke says that is 100% true but how does that make me look to do so?

        As far as what he’s saying it’s like saying we don’t have data from clinical trials that eating 10 different fruits is safe for children. That we don’t have scientific data from synergistic toxicity studies on all combinations of vegetables. It’s a false argument that is created by someone who, as the blog shows, is an anti-vax loon.

      • Jeremy R. Hammond

        Neil Miller and the IOM also state facts. If you want to refute them, you’d need to produce one of the studies you claim exist. You won’t because you can’t, because, as Neil Miller and the IOM observed, they don’t exist.

        No study on the CDC’s childhood vaccine schedule has ever been studied for safety when given as part of that schedule. That is a fact.

      • Sheila Fitzgerald

        The IOM report is a study of safety on the childhood vaccination schedule.

        We can play semantics games if we want but it stands as a pretty thorough review of the schedule.

        Hitching your horse to a guy who talks to aliens is not a great idea.

      • Jeremy R. Hammond

        The IOM report is a review of studies on the safety of the childhood vaccine schedule. And as the IOM report noted, zero studies exist that examined the safety of each vaccine when given in combination with every other vaccine on the schedule. The IOM did not itself conduct such a study.

        Hitching your horse to a Washington Post journalist who blatantly lies to you is not a great idea.

      • Sheila Fitzgerald

        An intense and thorough review of studies by the most respected and independent medical and scientific group on the globe is more than we can ask for.

        What exactly do you suggest instead? Performing a clinical trial and see who dies in the unvaccinated group? Exactly what board of ethics would approve such a test?

        You’re not being realistic or sane.

        We don’t have clinical trials on children taking antibiotics combined with insulin. We don’t have clinical trials on children eating GMOS who also take aspirin.

        Doing a clinical trial of the full vaccine schedule (which changes year to year) is not only unrealistic, it’s also unethical. Anti-vaxxers know this. Stop being disingenuous.This is a fake talking point.

      • Jeremy R. Hammond

        False. It is not too much to ask that if the CDC is going to recommend all the vaccines it does on its childhood schedule that that studies should be done to determine the safety of administering vaccines according to that schedule

        And as the IOM pointed out, no such studies have ever been done. We are talking about the health of our children. That’s not nearly good enough.

      • Sheila Fitzgerald

        False. 100% false.

        You are asking for an unethical study that is proven to harm kids.

        You’re asking for science to authorize child abuse.

        Science has ethics for a reason. You apparently don’t understand this concept. A clinical trial will never be approved so you need to stop asking for something so utterly dumb. Even if the CDC wanted to do it, it wouldn’t be approved.

        That’s why we have groups like IOM to study the schedule and declare it safe.

        I’m sorry you think you’re above the IOM & every major medical and scientific organization in the world.

      • Sheila Fitzgerald

        Read the link. It’s fully evidence based.

        A call for a “clinical trial” of the schedule is only something an antivaxxer asks for because they know it’s unethical and can’t be done.

        It’s an argument tactic only. You’re better than that, right?

      • Jeremy R. Hammond

        I would merely observe how you’ve declined to answer my question, “How can the schedule be evidence based when it’s never been properly studied for safety?”

        For the obvious reason: It can’t.

        But nice of you to finally acknowledge the fact that “studies designed to examine the long-term effects of the cumulative number of vaccines or other aspects of the immunization schedule have not been conducted.”

      • AutismDadd

        sciencebasedmedicine? Why not sketicalratturd?

      • roscoe

        What a typical stupid statement from you once again.

      • AutismDadd

        Sorry wrong.

      • roscoe

        No just stupid as usual

      • White_and_Nerdy

        Actually, AD isn’t advocating sexual violence against…so far anyway…so he is doing less dishonest/immoral than usual.

        W&N

      • AutismDadd

        So you concede you are wrong AND stupid. OK

      • ciaparker2

        Hey, AD,

        I had a study I put up in answer to MS taken down today. I thought it was the moderator, and I put it up at another site where he was with a further comment on homeopathy, and it was taken down from there too. I think it’s MS himself who took them down, because it proves that he was saying is false. Look at this (below). He says having the gene deletion in itself causes autism, and schizophrenia, too, I guess, except that it doesn’t manifest for many years. I say what the experts at Kennedy Kruger say, that it takes a trigger first, like vaccines. I’m a little surprised, I didn’t think he would be flagrantly dishonest.

        https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3591860/

        NRXN1 microdeletions occur at a relatively high frequency and confer increased risk for
        neurodevelopmental and neurobehavioral abnormalities. The mechanism that makes NRXN1
        a deletion hotspot is unknown…

        This suggests that the disruption of
        NRXN1 is among the strongest ASD susceptibility candidates
        identified to date.5–14
        NRXN1 deletions have also been linked to schizophrenia (MIM 181500),15–27
        intellectual disability and language delay, epilepsy (MIM 614325),
        and attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (MIM 143465),7,28–35
        suggesting that these
        deletions confer genetic risk across a broad range of neurodevelopmental and/or
        neuropsychiatric disorders.

      • AutismDadd

        My suspicions are that this is all known to be related to vaccines, but of course it would never be admitted. I believe the strongest evidence is parental reports and the World Wide Incidence. Imagine a genetic epidemic that ranges from South Africa to Alaska, Britain to Argentina? In all groups ( except Amish) . There IS a common denominator.

      • ciaparker2

        Well, as I said yesterday, can he find another trigger that greatly increased world-wide around 1990, the beginning of both the vaccine and autism epidemics? We KNOW that vaccines are often the trigger, and hundred of scientific studies have confirmed this. Dr. Moskowitz’ book discusses it at some length. CDC head Julie Gerberding ADMITTED in an interview with Sanjay Gupta that vaccines can cause autism. So at this time those who want to stay in the good graces of their pharma lords have to just say SOMETHING triggers the disorders. But the important thing here is that they say the gene creates a RISK and a SUSCEPTIBILITY, but not automatically the disorder. And THAT’S what he doesn’t want people to see, and THAT’S why he says he took down my comments as spam, because it shows he’s —-.

      • White_and_Nerdy

        We know that Gerberding did NOT admit that vaccines can cause autism.

        We also know that you grossly and systematically misrepresent the facts.

        The important thing here is that anyone that reads the words from your link will see that you are as usual not being truthful.

        W&N

      • ciaparker2

        I didn’t realize your son was so young, only in preschool. You have an opportunity to try to reconstruct the circuits in the language center of his brain which were damaged by the vaccine encephalitis. I’ve been using Cambridge University ESL texts with my daughter for nearly five years, but she was a lot older than preschool when we started. It’s helped her a lot, but would have been better if we had started earlier.
        Cambridge has a series of ESL texts for preschoolers called Super Safari, excellent textbooks, workbooks, flashcards, posters, puppets. Three levels of that, then Super something else, I’ve forgotten what, for grade schoolers. Very scripted, which I like and think is appropriate for constructing the neuronal connections necessary. I like that the teacher uses complete sentences and the students have to use complete sentences too. My daughter was really good at one-word things, learned the colors, months, seasons, etc., really fast, but couldn’t use them in complete sentences. At all. Ever. STILL doesn’t.
        You’ll see. Language therapy for the autistic does NO GOOD AT ALL, if it’s conventional. They just use “chat” therapy, assuming that all the structures are intact and really there, that it’s mainly a strange anxiety disorder and not brain damage, which it is.
        Check it out. cambridge.org/supersafari. I got a number of them fairly cheap on Amazon.

      • AutismDadd

        My son is adult. I was talking about another person’s toddler.

      • ciaparker2

        OK, sorry. I had THOUGHT your son was adult, then thought I must have been mistaken.

      • White_and_Nerdy

        “I must have been mistaken”

        Today’s nomination for irony of the year!

        Thanks,
        W&N

      • White_and_Nerdy

        Image a person acting with integrity and with the best interest of their own children….well then they would get their science from actual scientists…then there are folks like you….

        W&N

      • White_and_Nerdy

        Hey Cia,

        Thank you for the link to the study that shows:

        1. Some cases of autism are caused by mutations in NRXN1 gene.
        2. These mutations occur at conception.
        3. Provides mechanistic explanations as to why these mutations keep occuring at a unusually high frequency.

        The assertion any trigger…much less a vaccine… is totally dishonest.

        W&N

      • White_and_Nerdy

        Enter facts exit Cia….

        It is like matter and anti-matter….they just can’t exist together!

        W&N

      • Jeremy R. Hammond

        False. 100% false.

        Sheila, your are embarrassing yourself. Anyone can see that it is true that the IOM review found that “existing research has not been designed to test the entire immunization schedule”; that “studies designed to examine the long-term effects of the cumulative number of vaccines or other aspects of the immunization schedule have not been conducted.”

        Now, I’ve been patient with you, but if you continue this trolling behavior of denying plain facts right in front of us all for anyone with eyes to see, the privilege that I’m granting you to participate in this discussion will be revoked.

        A modicum of good faith is a requirement of the terms of use of this comments section.

      • Sheila Fitzgerald

        In my opinion you’ve embarrassed yourself beyond repair. I don’t think you can ever go back to real science after this blunder.

        If you consider someone trolling calling out your lies, mistruths, deceptions, propaganda and conspiracies that have been debunked, so be it.

        If censorship is the only way you continue to keep your echo chamber from the truth, then do it.

        Science doesn’t care whether you censor someone or don’t.

        What did the conclusion of the IOM say as far as recommending or not recommending the schedule after their exhaustive review?

        At the end of the day, that’s all that matters.

        So did they recommend the schedule or reject it?

      • Jeremy R. Hammond

        Who do you think you’re kidding? You have not identified even a single factual or logical error in anything I’ve ever written on the subject of vaccines. The only person you’re fooling here is yourself.

        I have invited you repeatedly to identify even a single error in my article. You have demonstrably failed to do so. I’ve invited you to make an effort to do so, yet you’ve refused. Instead, you’ve simply come back with this ridiculous claim to have “debunked” alleged “lies, mistruths, deceptions, propaganda and conspiracies” I’ve supposedly propagated in my above article — even after I’d just shown that your one attempt to support that charge falls flat on its face.

        Once again, anyone can see that it is true that the IOM review found that “existing research has not been designed to test the entire immunization schedule”; that “studies designed to examine the long-term effects of the cumulative number of vaccines or other aspects of the immunization schedule have not been conducted.”

        I have politely invited you to reason with me. I have patiently asked that you demonstrate a modicum of good faith and warned you that this trolling behavior violates the terms of use of this website. Inasmuch as you’ve proven incapable of reasonable discourse and insisted instead with violating the terms, your commenting privilege is hereby revoked.

      • John Dmico

        Why do you ignore the IOM conclusion? Why do you censor people who point our your misinformation?

        The only thing parents care about is the IOM conclusion. All the other nonsense is just noise designed by people to provoke others.

        You’re the one fooling yourself if you think “banning” someone will change facts or the IOM conclusion on the vaccination schedule and whether or not they found it safe.

        You keep cherry-picking parts of the review but ignoring the most important part. The conclusion!

        It seems this entire blog is trolling. Can you ban yourself?

      • Jeremy R. Hammond

        Why do you ignore the IOM conclusion?

        I am not ignoring the IOM conclusion. I presented the IOM conclusion, and it was ignored by Sheila Fitzgerald, who continually denied it.

        I am not interested in dealing with another troll. Please demonstrate a modicum of good faith by first acknowledging that the Washington Post is guilty of spreading misinformation about vaccines.

        Or are you, too, going ignore the IOM observation “studies designed to examine the long-term effects of the cumulative number of vaccines or other aspects of the immunization schedule have not been conducted”?

      • John Dmico

        They said that as a reason FOR THEIR EXAMINATION OF THE SCHEDULE!

        That would be like me saying “nobody has studied the effects of space flight on urine frequency…and then showing my conclusions once I examined it.”

        The only important part of their report is the conclusion. You keep repeating WHY they felt the need to examine and study the schedule and issue their findings.

        Yes, I acknowledge why they did it.

        Now acknowledge what they concluded.

        Or else you are the troll.

      • Jeremy R. Hammond

        Thank you for acknowledging that, as the IOM observed:, “studies designed to examine the long-term effects of the cumulative number of vaccines or other aspects of the immunization schedule have not been conducted”.

        And hence that the WaPo’s claim that “No new immunization is added to the schedule until it has been evaluated both alone and when given with the other current immunizations” is a lie.

        Just as I accurately observed.

      • AutismDadd

        I read this week that table injuries have not been updated even though many new vaccines have been introduced. That’s telling. The NVICP seems to do much to victimize victims once again.

      • AutismDadd

        She does this on all forums. Sounds familiar and likely a person who has trolling down pat.

  1. White_and_Nerdy

    Please review page 2 (summary) of the IOM report.

    “Each new Vaccine…is tested within the context of the existing schedule….thus, each new vaccine is approved on the basis of a detailed evaluation of both the vaccine itself and the immunization schedule.

    You simply didn’t read the report correctly.

    W&N

    Reply
    • Jeremy R. Hammond

      You haven’t reconciled the contradiction and so therefore have demonstrated nothing, other than that there is a contradiction needing reconciling.

      So I’ll do that for you.

      When the IOM report says “Each new vaccine considered for inclusion in the immunization schedule is tested within the context of the existing schedule”, it does not mean that studies are actually conducted to test the safety of each vaccine when given in combination with every other vaccine on the schedule.

      It actually explains what it means in the paragraphs that follow, but I guess you didn’t keep reading. Specifically:

      To recommend new vaccines, ACIP uses a process in which it reviews a comprehensive set of data associated with the vaccine, including illnesses and deaths associated with the disease and specifc high-risk groups; the results of clinical trials, including indicators of safety, effcacy, and effectiveness; cost-effectiveness; information on vaccine use provided by the manufacturer in the product’s labeling or package insert; and the feasibility of incorporation of the vaccine into the existing immunization schedule. Ongoing surveillance systems are the primary source of data on vaccine safety postmarketing.

      And that is how the IOM report can on one hand say “Each new vaccine considered for inclusion in the immunization schedule is tested within the context of the existing schedule” while on the other admitting that, as I observed above, “studies designed to examine the long-term effects of the cumulative number of vaccines or other aspects of the immunization schedule have not been conducted.”

      Reply
      • White_and_Nerdy

        Please take ~2 minutes and look at section 6.1 from Prenvar that I referred you to above.

        You will see the exact combinations of vaccines that were safety tested together and see that they exactly safety tested the recommended vaccine schedule.

        There is no contradiction, you simply are not reading correctly.

        W&N

      • Jeremy R. Hammond

        If you are claiming to have evidence showing that what I wrote in the article is false, please produce it. Quote it.

      • White_and_Nerdy

        Again I did.
        Did you not bother to read the words from my reference?
        W&N

      • Jeremy R. Hammond

        If you are claiming that the Prevnar product insert shows that it was studied for safety by giving it in combination with every other vaccine on the schedule in accordance with that schedule, you know you are lying.

      • White_and_Nerdy

        Could you please make a better effort at reading correct? Instead of name-calling….

        I have posted nothing, zip, not a single word here on the insert.

        Since you brought up the insert, here it is:
        https://www.fda.gov/downloads/BiologicsBloodVaccines/Vaccines/ApprovedProducts/UCM201669.pdf

        Please note section 7.1
        “In clinical trials with infants and toddlers, Prevnar 13 was administered concomitantly with the following US licensed vaccines: Pediarix [Diphtheria and Tetanus Toxoids and Acellular Pertussis Adsorbed, Hepatitis B (Recombinant) and Inactivated Poliovirus Vaccine Combined] (DTaP-HBV-IPV) and ActHIB [Haemophilus b Conjugate Vaccine (Tetanus Toxoid Conjugate)] (PRP-T) for the first three doses and with PedvaxHIB [Haemophilus b Conjugate Vaccine (Meningococcal Protein Conjugate)] (PRP-OMP), M-M-R II [Measles, Mumps, Rubella Virus Vaccine Live] (MMR) and Varivax [Varicella Virus Vaccine Live], or ProQuad [Measles, Mumps, Rubella and Varicella Virus Vaccine Live] (MMRV) and VAQTA [Hepatitis A vaccine, Inactivated] (HepA) for dose 4”

        Further details on these trials and how prenvar was tested in combination with the entire schedule is posted above in the link to the FDA clinical review.

        W&N

      • Jeremy R. Hammond

        So, like I said, no vaccine on the schedule has ever been studied for safety when given in combination with every other vaccine on the schedule.

      • White_and_Nerdy

        Interesting….

        Not one word from you about the fact that your comments about the insert demonstrate that you didn’t read my words correctly.

        And not one word from you about the details from the insert about the other vaccines tested with prenvar.

        Seriously….do you have anything rational to offer?????

        W&N

      • Jeremy R. Hammond

        The fact remains that no vaccine on the schedule has ever been studied for safety when given in combination with every other vaccine on the schedule.

  2. White_and_Nerdy

    For completion….about Miller….he didn’t count the number of vaccines given concomitantly correctly.

    If you read Clinical Review of Biologics Application for Prevar (Feb 17, 2009) on the FDA site you will see that the safety of giving the combination of vaccines was exactly tested. E.g. section 6.1.

    I am sure we can count on you to correct your numerous factual errors.

    Cheers,

    W&N

    Reply
    • Jeremy R. Hammond

      Please provide us with the exact quote you are claiming says that Prevnar was studied for safety given in combination with every other vaccine on the schedule.

      Go on, I challenge you.

      Reply
      • White_and_Nerdy

        I already did.
        Did you look at section 6.1?
        W&N

      • White_and_Nerdy

        Really…e.g. what exactly do you think this means (page 24)?

        Trial #: 6096A1-004
        “Evaluation for concomitant antigens”
        “Pediarix, ActiHIB (2,4,6 months) PedvaxHib, ProQuad, and VAQTA (12-15 months)”

        Thanks,
        W&N

      • Jeremy R. Hammond

        It means Prevnar was not studied for safety when given in combination with every other vaccine on the schedule.

      • White_and_Nerdy

        To me this seems pretty simple.

        Here is the vaccine schedule:
        https://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/schedules/hcp/imz/child-adolescent.html

        The first dose of prevnar is given at 2 months with IPV….with Hib….etc.
        So you look in the clinical review document…starting with the chart on page 24 and look at that…prevnar was safety tested with IPV….and Hib….etc.

        All one has to do is to keep going month by month…dose by dose through the schedule and see the facts….

        W&N

      • Jeremy R. Hammond

        You use “etc” as though it meant Prevnar was studied for safety when used in combination with every other vaccine on the schedule.

        Yet the fact remains that, as the IOM observed, “studies designed to examine the long-term effects of the cumulative number of vaccines or other aspects of the immunization schedule have not been conducted.”

      • White_and_Nerdy

        Fact remains that you continue to not read the words correctly.

        W&N

      • Jeremy R. Hammond

        Read these words, and understand them: “studies designed to examine the long-term effects of the cumulative number of vaccines or other aspects of the immunization schedule have not been conducted.”

      • White_and_Nerdy

        One other point.

        In all your many responses, you haven’t once given an example of a vaccine that was on the schedule…but wasn’t included in the safety testing of the new experimental vaccine.

        W&N

      • Jeremy R. Hammond

        And in all of our many responses, you haven’t once given an example of a randomized, placebo-controlled trial that studied the safety of the new vaccine when given in combination with every other vaccine on the schedule according to the schedule.

        You can’t product such a study because none exist. I have lost patience with your trolling.

      • White_and_Nerdy

        Oh dear,

        You claim Sun lied by claiming vaccines are safety tested with the combinations of other vaccines in the schedule.

        You quoted Miller who asserted the combination of vaccines given with the pneumococcal vaccine (prevnar) had never been safety tested together in clinical trials.

        I referred you to the 270 page clinical summary for prevnar.

        Section 6.1 has this really helpful table. It lists:
        The clinical trials,
        The vaccine schedule by month,
        The other vaccines given and at which months!

        If you would please read the document you will see that you and Miller are simply wrong.

        W&N

      • Jeremy R. Hammond

        Please stop pretending as though the Prevnar product insert shows that it was studied for safety by giving it in combination with every other vaccine on the schedule according to the schedule. Because you know that insinuation is a lie.

      • White_and_Nerdy

        Hey,

        I have been 100% clear.

        I have referred you to the 270 page clinical summary from the FDA site—NOT the insert!

        Here is the link: https://www.fda.gov/downloads/BiologicsBloodVaccines/Vaccines/ApprovedProducts/UCM206341.pdf

        And section 6.1 (starting on page 24) is very, very clear. It exactly lists the clinical trials, the dosing schedule and the other vaccines tested in combination with Prenvar.

        The facts are plainly stated and you and Miller are simply wrong.

        Free advice: you should stop using words like lie and liar while you are not reading correctly.

        W&N

      • Jeremy R. Hammond

        So like I observed in the article, no vaccine is studied for safety when given in combination with every other vaccine on the schedule.

      • White_and_Nerdy

        Interesting….all these comments from you….but not one word about the facts from the clinical summary…..

        W&N

      • Jeremy R. Hammond

        If you were capable of producing an actual argument, you would. Like I said, the fact remains that no vaccine is studied for safety when given in combination with every other vaccine on the schedule.

  3. Adam Ringham

    Great article my friend.

    I too personally wrote the CDC asking for these “rigorous safety studies” – to which they sent me three studies that were 30+ years old, 3 days long, with an oral polio vaccine (of which we don’t even use), and had under 150 participants.

    Only one of the three bothered to monitor for reactions (for 3 days).

    They also sent me a small Paper by “Offit for Profit” who claims infants should theoretically be able to handle 10,000 vaccines at once.

    I kid you not – this is their “proof” of safety when giving 8 shots at once or 70+ vaccines before 18.

    Keep spreading more awareness sir!

    (P.S. – never mind the trolls, thinking hurts)

    Reply

Share your thoughts.

Pin It on Pinterest

Shares
Share This