| Disclaimer: Any
information obtained here is not to be construed as medical
OR legal advice. The decision to vaccinate and how you implement
that decision is yours and yours alone.
Michael Belkin Testimony to Congress
Tuesday, May 18,1999
My daughter Lyla Rose Belkin died on September 16, 1998 at
the age of five weeks, about 15 hours after receiving her
second Hepatitis B vaccine booster shot. Lyla was a lively,
alert five-week-old baby when I last held her in my arms.
Little did I imagine as she gazed intently into my eyes with
all the innocence and wonder of a newborn child that she would
die that night. She was never ill before receiving the Hepatitis
B shot that afternoon. At her final feeding that night, she
was extremely agitated, noisy and feisty -- and then she fell
asleep suddenly and stopped breathing. The autopsy ruled out
choking, The NY Medical Examiner ruled her death Sudden Infant
Death Syndrome (SIDS).
But the NY Medical Examiner (Dr. Persechino) neglected to
mention Lyta's swollen brain or the hepatitis B vaccine in
the autopsy report. The coroner spoke to my wife and I and
our pediatrician (Dr. Zullo) the day of the autopsy and clearly
stated that her brain was swollen. The pediatrician Dr. Zullo's
notes of that conversation are "brain swollen ... not
sure cause yet ... could not see how recombinant vaccine could
cause problem."
SIDS is a diagnosis of exclusion .. "it wasn't this,
it wasn't that, everything has been ruled out and we don't
know what it was." A swollen brain is not SIDS. Through
conversations with other experienced pathologists, I subsequently
discovered that brain inflammation is a classic adverse reaction
to vaccination (with any vaccine) in the medical literature.
I set out to do an investigation of the hepatitis B vaccine
and attended a workshop at the National Academy of Sciences,
Institute of Medicine on "Neo-Natal Death and the Hepatitis
B Vaccine," the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices
(ACIP) February' meeting and a debate in New Hampshire between
the Chairman of the ACIP Dr. Modlin and Dr. Waisbren about
the safety of the hepatitis B vaccine. I also obtained the
entire Vaccine Adverse Events Reporting System (VAERS) database
on hepatitis B vaccine adverse reactions and have investigated
it thoroughly.
These are my conclusions, supported by the following pages
of text and analysis that are too lengthy to present in entirety
in the time allotted for this appearance. Please read the
results of my investigation, as it will help you understand
the magnitude of the hepatitis B vaccine issue.
Newborn babies are not at risk of contracting the hepatitis
B disease unless their mother is infected Hepatitis B is primarily
a disease of junkies, gays, and promiscuous heterosexuals.
The vaccine is given to babies because health authorities
couldn't get those risk groups to take the vaccine
Adverse reactions out-number cases of the disease in government
statistics
Nothing is being done to investigate those adverse reactions
Those adverse reactions include numerous deaths, convsions
and arthritic conditions that occur within days after hepatitis
B vaccination
The CDC is misrepresenting hypothetical, estimated disease
statistics as real cases of the disease
The ACIP is recommending new vaccines for premature infants
without having scientific studies proving it is safe
The US vaccine recommendation process is hopelessly compromised
by conflicts of interest with vaccine manufacturers, the American
Academy of Pediatrics and the CDC
Conclusion: If (as with the recently-recommended rotavirus
vaccine) hepatitis B vaccine was recommended in 1991 without
scientific proof that it was safe in a broad sample of racially
and genetically diverse babies less than 48 hours old before
they established that recommendation, then the CDC has been
experimenting on babies like guinea pigs and this Committee
should suspend that universal immunization policy.
The hepatitis B vaccine was effectively mandated in 1991
for universal immunization of newborn babies by the Advisory
Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) -- an adjunct of
the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). Paradoxically,
the CDC's own Fact Sheet on the hepatitis B disease does not
include newborn babies as a risk group for that disease. That
Fact Sheet lists the risk groups as injection drug users,
homosexual men, sexually active heterosexuals, infant/children
of immigrants from disease-endemic areas, low socio-economic
level, sexual/household contacts of infected persons, infants
born to infected mothers, health care workers and hemodialysis
patients NOT NEWBORN BABIES.
Question: Why then, did the ACIP establish a policy mandating
that newborn babies not at risk of the disease be automatically
administered the 3-shot hepatitis B vaccine as their first
involuntary indoctrination into the pediatric care of America?
Answer: Here is that rationale from the original ACIP 1991
statement establishing the official vaccination policy "Hepatitis
B Virus: A Comprehensive Strategy for Eliminating Transmission
in the United States Through Universal Childhood Vaccination
..." "In the United States, most infections occur
among adults and adolescents ... The recommended strategy
for prevent/rig these infections has been the selective vaccination
of persons with identified risk factors ... However, this
strategy has not lowered the incidence of hepatitis B, primarily
because vaccinating persons engaged in high-risk behaviors,
life-styles, or occupations before they become infected generally
has not been feasible ... Efforts to vaccinate persons in
the major risk groups have had limited success. For example,
programs directed at injecting drug users failed to motivate
them to receive three doses of vaccine ... In the United States
it has become evident that HBV transmission cannot be prevented
through vaccinating only the groups at high risk of infection
... In the long term, universal infant vaccination would eliminate
the need for vaccinating adolescents and high-risk adults
... Hepatitis B vaccination is recommended for all infants,
regardless of the HBsAg status of the mother ... The first
dose can be administered during the newborn period, preferably
before the infant is discharged from the hospital, but no
later than when the infant is 2 months of aqe ..." (emphasis
added).
So in the CDC and ACIP's own words, almost every newborn
US baby is now greeted on its entry into the world by a vaccine
injection against a sexually transmitted disease for which
the baby is not at risk '-because they couldn't get the junkies,
prostitutes, homosexuals and promiscuous heterosexuals to
take the vaccine. That is the essence of the hepatitis B universal
vaccination program.
Question: What are the risks and benefits for administering
this vaccine to infants?
Answer: Hepatitis B is a rare, mainly blood-transmitted disease.
In 1996 only 54 cases of the disease were reported to the
CDC in the 0-1 age group. There were 3.9 million births that
year, so the observed incidence of hepatitis B in the 0-1
age group was just 0.001%. In the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting
System (VAERS), there were 1,080 total reports of adverse
reactions from hepatitis B vaccine in 1996 in the 0-1 age
group, with 47 deaths reported. Total VAERS hepatitis B reports
for the 0-1 age group outnumber reported cases of the disease
20 to 1.
Question: Why don't they just screen the mother to see if
she is infected with hepatitis B (since that is about the
only way a baby is likely to get the disease), instead of
vaccinating infants?
Answer: Selling vaccines is extremely profitable and the
process of mandating vaccines is fraught with conflicts of
interest between vaccine manufacturers, the ACIP and the American
Academy of Pediatrics. The business model of having the government
mandate everyone must buy your product is a monopolist's delight.
Question: What studies are being done on the data from the
FDA's Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS)?
Answer: Absolutely nothing. The 25,000 reports are going
into a drawer and being forgotten. How many reports are enough
to show a drug or vaccine is dangerous -- 2,500? 25,000? 250,000?
Chen of the CDC and Ellenberg of the FDA monitor this data,
write reports and deliver speeches about how VAERS hepatitis
B adverse reaction reports show nothing out of the ordinary
and show "the relative safety of HB vaccine when given
to neonates and infants." VAERS shows nothing of the
kind. TAKE A LOOK AT THE VAERS DATA YOURSELF. The health authorities
continue to negligently downplay the steady stream of serious
adverse reactions to this vaccine and more infants and adults
continue to die and suffer central nervous system and liver
damage after HB vaccination.
Question: Why do the CDC, ACIP and Merck say that there are
140,000-320,000 new infections/yr (70,000-160,000 symptomatic
infections/yr) when their own CDC data shows only 1O,000 reported
cases year?
Answer: They are passing off estimated, hypothetical numbers
as actual cases. This is statistical fraud. In the financial
world such misrepresentation would lead to criminal charges.
If a company inflated its earnings or revenues by 300% (as
the CDC does hepatitis B disease statistics) and foisted those
figures off as official data (and not some back-of-the-envelope
guess-timate) - that company would be investigated by the
SEC and sued by shareholders. Why doesn't that happen in the
medical world? There's no regulator to keep the CDC honest.
They do not say those figures are hypothetical estimates,
they misrepresent the data. Go try to audit those 320,000
supposed new infections/yr. You will not find them. The whole
exercise is designed to increase public hysteria about the
risk of a low-risk disease so the CDC can extend it's pervasive
influence and Merck can increase its $900 million/year vaccine
revenues.
Question: What process does the Center for Disease Control
employ to make a vaccine recommendation?
I attended the February Advisory Committee on Immunization
Practices (ACIP) meeting in Atlanta and was absolutely appalled.
Every vote by the Committee on new vaccine mandates was unanimous
(except for one dissenting vote on Rotavirus vaccine for premature
infants). There was hardly any discussion of adverse reactions,
the ACIP simply rubber-stamped every proposal on the agenda.
I call it Vaccination Without Representation. In one instance,
the ACIP passed a recommendation for Rotavirus vaccine for
premature infants even though no scientific studies had been
done showing it was medically safe. Dr. Modlin, (Chairman
of the ACIP), said in a pro-hepatitis B vaccine debate in
New Hampshire "How do we determine whether something
is scientifically valid or not?... 1) Is the theory biologically
plausible? 2) Has it been tested by appropriate methods? 3)Is
the study well concluded? 4) Are the results statistically
sound? But at the February ACIP meeting, when it came time
for the ACIP to rubber-stamp approval of Rotavirus vaccine
for premature infants, here are Modlin's quotes from the official
transcript: ".. available data are insufficient to fully
establish the safety and efficacy of rotavirus vaccine in
premature infants ... there is a section under Adverse Events
that details what little information there actually are with
respect to premature infants ... To my knowledge we don't
have data from a clinical trial specifically ... Some bit
of information from Seattle, as I recall, that had suggested
that was a slight increase in relative risk for hospitalization
for premature infants ... Obviously a situation where we have
to make a judgment in the absence of data, and with a vaccine
that has not yet been tested in the group ..." (ACIP
transcript, pages 102-112) Modlin then held a vote and the
recommendation for premature infants passed nine to one --
Modlin voted yes, Dr. Glode against. This is a clear example
of how the medical bureaucracy (led by the CDC and ACIP),
is recommending vaccines without scientific evidence that
those vaccines are safe in a broad sample of racially and
genetically diverse infants.
What Should Be Done? This Committee should investigate the
1991 ACIP recommendation establishing universal hepatitis
B vaccination of newborn babies in the hospital -- and if
(as with the Rotavirus vaccine example above) no studies were
done to prove this was safe in a broad sample of racially
and genetically diverse babies less than 48 hours old before
they established that recommendation, then the CDC has been
experimenting on babies like guinea pigs and this Committee
should suspend that universal immunization policy.
VAERS ANALYSIS (Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System)
I studied statistics at the University Of California at Berkeley
and went on to develop sophisticated proprietary risk/reward
statistical models at Salomon Brothers from 1986-91 -- and
in my subsequent, ongoing business provide statistical economic
and financial forecasts to mutual funds, investment banks,
pension funds and hedge funds.
I studied VAERS hepatitis B vaccine data obtained by the
National Vaccine Information Center (NVIC) under the Freedom
of Information Act. The data has some flaws (incomplete fields,
some multiple reports) but any qualified, impartial quantitative
analyst or statistician not affiliated with Merck, Smithkline,
the CDC, the FDA or the AAP who examines these reports will
find a clear and undeniable pattern of central nervous system
(CNS) and liver disease striking thousands of people within
0-4 days after vaccination with hepatitis B vaccineany qualified,
impadial quantitative analyst or statistician not affiliated
with Merck, Smithkline, the CDC, the FDA or the AAP who examines
these reports will find a clear and undeniable pattern of
central nervous system (CNS) and liver disease striking thousands
of people within 0-4 days after vaccination with hepatitis
B vaccine. These reports have been ignored, explained away,
or considered "acceptable" by the FDA, CDC and drug
companies. This Committee should launch an investigation of
the VAERS hepatitis B data by a team of independent scientists
not beholden to vaccine manufacturers or the FDA/CDC bureaucracy.
The following is intended to be a starting point for such
an investigation. This does not profess to be a complete,
exhaustive analysis -- simply an overview, highlighting aspects
of the data that may not previously have been brought to your
attention.
The total 24,775 VAERS hepatitis B reports from July 1990
to October 31, 1998 show 439 deaths and 9673 serious reactions
involving emergency room visits, hospitalization, disablement
or death. Therefore, more than one third of total reports
were serious events. 17,497 of those total reports were for
hepatitis B vaccine only, the remainder were vaccine cocktails
where hepatitis B was administered along with DPT, HIB, IPV,
OPV, etc.
The hepatitis-B-vaccine-only reports show a shocking cluster
of reactions in females starting in their teenage years (the
male/female reporting ratio is balanced before age 16). For
ages 16-55, 77% of VAERS reports are women -- more than three
times as many women as men are reporting adverse reactions
to hepatitis B vaccine. The median onset of adverse event
after vaccination is one day, 70% of reactions happen within
four days of vaccination. independent scientists should investigate
why females are more disposed to have adverse reactions to
hepatitis B vaccine and/or report them to VAERS. One possible
explanation is that nurses have to take this vaccine for their
jobs and are thus more exposed than most adults to hepatitis
B vaccine adverse reactions. Rather than dismiss that factor
as an "over-reporting bias" as Dr. Chen of the CDC
did at the February ACIP meeting, perhaps investigators might
consider that nurses are alert health care workers and ought
to be listened to with regard to the dangers of adverse events
with any vaccine (rather than ignored). Personal case studies
reported to the author have showed many teenage girls getting
severe, debilitating adverse reactions to hepatitis B vaccine,
having nothing to do with nursing. Do women have a greater
vulnerability to auto-immune reactions to hepatitis B vaccine?
Is the government discriminating against women by administering
this vaccine without regard for genetic risk of CNS and liver
disease? Those are questions that independent scientists should
investigate.
A second area of concern is the VAERS reports involving hepatitis
B vaccine administered with other vaccines (vaccine cocktails).
Health officials are fond of dismissing those repeals as being
attributable to hepatitis B vaccine, because of the multiple
other antigens present (almost as if they wanted to cloak
hepatitis B vaccine reactions from scrutiny). Let's avoid
that controversy and focus on the extremely disturbing VAERS
data of hepatitis B vaccine with other vaccines. These reports
amount to only one third of total reports (7,275), but account
for two thirds of total deaths (291). The median onset of
those deaths was 2 days after vaccination -- displaying a
clear temporal association. The median age of death was 0.5
years in this group. 50% of all hepatitis-B-vaccine-cocktail
reports were serious (died, emergency room, hospitalized,
disabled). I grouped convulsive reactions together from the
hep-B-vaccine-cocktail data and found a deeply disturbing
pattern. These were anything labeled convulsions, seizures
or tremors in the VAERS hep-B-cocktail data. Of the 1189 such
reports, fully 80% (950) were serious (died, ER, hospitalized,
disabled) median age 0.5 years, median onset after vaccination
0 days (less than one day). Someone should do follow-up and
find out what happened to those poor infants who suffered
severe convulsions after a hepatitis B-multi-vaccine cocktail.
In the personal reports I've taken of similar adverse reactions,
the children were left brain damaged and developmentally disabled.
Looking beyond the debate over whether VAERS reports of vaccine
cocktails can be attributed to hepatitis B, the data strongly
suggests combining multiple vaccines may be convenient and
profitable for pediatricians -- but fatal or debilitating
for infants. Where are the scientific studies showing hepatitis
B vaccine is safe to administer with DPT, HIB, IPV, OPV, etc.?
Did anyone doing cost/benefit analysis for those studies include
data showing the higher mortality and serious reactions present
in the VAERS data? Why not? Is there an identifiable genetic
marker in those who suffered convulsive reactions to screen
out those vulnerable in the future? These are all matters
for independent scientists to audit.
Another area that leaps out of the VAERS database is something
I dubbed arthritic reactions. These are joint pains, tingling,
numbness, aching, fatigue, etc. I found 2,400 of those reports
in just a quick survey of the first reporting column of VAERS
(hepatitis B vaccine only). Almost one half of those are serious,
involving an ER visit, hospitalization, death or disablement.
These are the type of adverse reactions reported by many adults
who are forced to take the hepatitis B vaccine for their jobs.
In the reports of such adverse reactions I've taken, the symptoms
do not go away, most patients complain it gets worse over
time. Scientists not corrupted by drug company or CDC/FDA
institutional bias should examine the thousands of VAERS hepatitis
B arthritic reaction reports and develop a diagnosis of their
hepatitis B vaccine-related illness.
Anyone who doubts if hepatitis B vaccine adverse reactions
exist should sit down and read the symptoms and text comments
of a random selection of VAERS reports. When one does so,
they will find a similar but wide-ranging list of CNS and
liver reactions that occur within days of vaccination. The
Merck package insert claims "Injection site reactions
and systemic complaints were reported following 17% and 15%
on the injections, respectively." The standard rule of
thumb is only about 10% of reactions are reported to VAERS.
So the actual number and full horror of the hepatitis B vaccine
reaction story is potentially much larger than even VAERS
suggests.
read an angry letter by Belkin
to Nightline 10/14/99
back to top
back to vaccination index
page |
