Baby Dies After 9 Vaccines in One Day
By Christina England | January 19th, 2012 | Category: Christina England, Recent Articles, Recent Articles, Top Stories | 229 comments
The end of last year was masked with sadness for Belgium parents Raphaël Sirjacobs & Béatrice Dupont, as their nine week old daughter Stacy Sirjacobs lost her fight for life.
Vaccinating premature babies is always fraught with danger. Their bodies are not mature enough to develop 'proper' antibodies - even if you accept that antibodies are an indication of immunity (which I don't). But study after study has linked vaccination according to birth date to be dangerous as opposed to vaccination according to gestational age.
This story is so sad because not only were these premature tiny twins vaccinated according to their birth date (and one of them had needed resuscitation at birth!), but they were given NINE VACCINES in one day and one of them subsequently became ill and died.
It is not surprising that she died. It is also not surprising that doctors deny any involvement in her death.
Accountability for its errors has never been a strong point of Western medicine.
Do people think neonatal ICU staff are just benign disingenuous people who are not very smart about being conned by drug companies? Do you think they make the same disingenuous “errors” with antibiotics, steriods, IV devices, ventilators and every other manufactured product they use?
PLEASE LOOK UP http://www.vaccineinfo.net/issues/conflictofinterest/index.shtml
POLY-VI-SOL TO INFANTS WHY IT SAYS NOT TO TAKE WITH MILK (INFANT MILK)
DR. DID NOT KNOW THE LABEL SAYS NOT WITH MILK WHY?
THAT’S WHAT HE WAS TAUGHT. SO STUDY ON YOUR OWN LEARN THE TRUTH (SUE) IF YOU ARE A NURSE PLEASE DO NOT TAKE EVERYTHING A SCHOOL SAYS FOR TRUE READ, STUDY PLEASE READ ABOUT THE VACCINES THAT ARE OUT NOW 23 BY THE AGE OF TWO WHY MONEY.
AT OUR CHILDREN’S EXPENSE
The department recommends that all newborns and children up to the age of 12 be vaccinated against hepatitis B, which can lead to chronic liver diseases, including cancer. This year, all children entering public school in Texas had to be immunized against hepatitis B, and the shots were offered to seventh-graders in Austin public schools this month.
The effort did not come about because hepatitis B poses great risks to children. The virus is primarily transmitted among adults who have unprotected sex, share drug needles or are exposed to contaminated blood. There is also evidence that it can be passed through saliva and tears and from a mother to a child in the womb. Locally, only a few cases of hepatitis B in children are reported each year.
Still, immunizing all infants is widely considered the only way to protect against an outbreak of the disease. Health departments complain that they cannot get teen-agers and adults to be vaccinated once they have begun risky behavior or other exposure to the virus. Better to immunize them while they’re young and receiving other vaccines, the logic goes, and it’s an argument supported by the American Academy of Pediatrics, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and the World Health Organization.
Baylor College of Medicine immunologist Bonnie Dunbar also believes in universal immunizations and has worked for two decades developing vaccines to protect public health. But since watching two people suffer neurological failures after taking the hepatitis B vaccine, she has spoken out against its further use.
The vaccine, developed by drug companies Merck and Co. and SmithKline Beecham, was the first recombinant DNA vaccine put on the market in the United States. Unlike conventional vaccines for measles, mumps and polio, the genetically engineered hepatitis B shot does not contain a live form of the virus. Theoretically, the shot won’t give you hepatitis B, as sometimes happens with vaccines that contain a live virus. But Dunbar is convinced that in some people, a protein in the recombinant mixture triggers an autoimmune reaction, provoking the body to attack its own nerves and tissue.
She has cataloged more than 100 cases of autoimmune disorders found by other scientists, but she can recall two other cases from memory: her brother, whose rashes, joint pain and chronic fatigue have been determined to be side effects of the hepatitis B vaccine; and one of her students, who suffered temporary blindness in one eye and deteriorating eyesight in the other after taking the shot. The CDC and both drug companies acknowledge hearing of similar cases, but they call them extremely rare.
Dunbar worries that newborns who are given the vaccine are even more vulnerable to that risk because of their less formidable defenses. Under Merck guidelines, newborns and teen-agers receive the same dose of the vaccine.
“We know from our animal lab experiments that the immune system of the neonate is very different from the adult,” Dunbar said. “It has to be studied.”
The CDC says it’s looking into the effects of the vaccine and will have results to report next year. Drug companies are also trying to determine how long the immune response to the vaccine lasts before booster shots are needed. That has yet to be established.
Please don’t be afraid to do some reading. Start here:
http://njvaccinationchoice.org/about-2/
Then: http://canaryparty.org/
and finally: http://www.greatergoodmovie.org/home
Also this book: The Vaccine Epidemic
Dr. Richard Halvorsen in England has written books on the vaccine issue and he administers vaccines!
Knowledge is power.
It is a pity that a news-story about a premature twin who died of sepsis is headed “babies killed in hospital by super dose of vaccines”. Misinformation about vaccination does not lead to informed choice.
I agree Sue. So why do you continue to misinform? What is more important – protecting the ‘good name’ of vaccination or protecting the children? I know what my answer would be – what’s yours?
Ms Dorey – please point out specifically where you feel I “continue to misinform”. Did you read the paper I posted that showed the safety of vaccinating neonates? Are you accusing early childhood nurses and NICU nurses of “misinforming”?
As someone who provides health care to children, I back my care for children with action.
So I assume that you do all your work pro-bono hey Sue?
Clearly you and all the I heart vaccine crowd will always look to blame something other than your beloved vaccines. That makes sense given that for the medical profession it is the greatest vested in history. But for those of us who don’t share that interest and who like to look at things independently we can see that when you start to question the safety of vaccines an awful lot of pieces of a jigsaw are put in place.
Kids aren’t healthy right now. You can deny this all you like we can all see what we see. When you realise the astonishing fraud that is vaccine safety testing the idea that they could be largely responsible for the situation regarding the health of today’s children seems remarkably plausible.
Incredible how much evidence medical professionals have learned to ignore in their desperate attempt to support one of the cornerstones of medical science. When will evidence-based medicine live up to its name?
Also, before asking me for studies, please cite the studies which you refer to above, which demonstrate that premature infants should be immunised by their corrected age, not chronological age.
Carolyn, show me the studies showing that premature infants are able to develop antibodies when vaccinated according to birth age rather than gestational age. There are none. But there are studies showing that babies cannot develop true immunity from vaccines until their immune system is mature (that’s if you agree that antibodies equal immunity – which I don’t – but let’s assume for now this is correct). So we are vaccinating premature infants – exposing them to an increased risk from the vaccine for no potential benefit. Does that sound right to you?
Safety of DTaP–IPV–HIb–HBV hexavalent vaccine in very
premature infants
Giacomo Faldella ∗, Silvia Galletti, Luigi Corvaglia, Gina Ancora, Rosina Alessandroni
Istituto di Pediatria Preventiva e Neonatologia, S. Orsola-Malpighi Hospital, University of Bologna, Via Massarenti 11, 40138 Bologna, Italy
Received 9 May 2006; received in revised form 5 September 2006; accepted 21 September 2006
Available online 6 October 2006
Abstract
Objectives: To assess the clinical safety of DTaP–IPV–HIb–HBV hexavalent immunization in very premature infants and to verify if the first
administration of vaccine is by itself a reason for close monitoring hospitalized VLBW infants born at less than 31 weeks’ gestation.
Patients and methods: Eighty-one preterm newborns less than 31 weeks’ gestational age, admitted in the NICU, were eligible to be immunized
with hexavalent vaccine under close monitoring, including pre-and post-immunization continuous monitoring of heart rate, oxygen saturation,
respiratory rate, resistance index at the anterior cerebral artery and ECG cQT interval.
Results: Of the 81 eligible premature newborns, 36 were graduated from the NICU before the least date for immunization, at 7 weeks of age.
The other 45 were vaccinated in the NICU and entered the study. Twenty-three of them were under medical treatment for chronic disease at
the time of the immunization while 22 were healthy and stable. Five infants (11%) had apnoea/bradycardia/desaturation, related to vaccine
administration and required medical support. All five infants were in the group of newborns with chronic disease (21.7% prevalence of adverse
reactions in this group). No significant variation of cQT or RI before and after the immunization was observed either in the whole groups of
patients or in the five infants who showed cardio-respiratory events related to vaccination.
Conclusions: HexavalentDTaP–IPV–HIb–HBV immunization is not associated with cardiac electric activity and cerebral blood flowvariations
in both stable and unstable very premature infants. However, it can cause apnoea/bradycardia/desaturation in premature babies with chronic
disease. Therefore, if the baby is in the NICU for chronic diseases at 2 months post-birth, it should be monitored for apnoea, bradycardia
and desaturation in association with vaccination. Hospitalized healthy preterm infants without chronic disease and therapy seem to be less
vulnerable to cardio-respiratory adverse reactions. Nevertheless, it is advisable to immunize and monitor them at 8 weeks before discharge
instead of possibly delaying immunization for several weeks and not monitor them.
© 2006 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
Keywords: Preterm newborn; Immunization; Apnoea; Bradycardia; Desaturation; Adverse reactions; cQT; Resistance index
Adverse events following vaccination in premature infants
S Sen, Y Cloete, K Hassan1 and P Buss
Department of Paediatrics and Neonatology , Royal Gwent Hospital, Newport, UK; Nevill Hall Hospital1, Abergavenny, UK
Sen S, Cloete Y, Hassan K, Buss P. Adverse events following vaccination in premature infants.
Acta Pædiatr 2001; 90: 916–920. Stockholm. ISSN 0803-5253
The aims of this study were to study the frequency, severity and types of adverse reactions
following DPT/Hib (diphtheria and tetanus toxoids and pertussis/Haemophilus in uenzae type B
conjugate) immunization in very preterm infants and to identify possible risk factors. Case notes
of 45 preterm babies vaccinated in the neonatal intensive care unit between January 1993 and
December 1998 were studied retrospectively. Birthweight, gestational age, duration of ventilation,
oxygen dependency, timing of vaccination, weight, corrected gestation at vaccination and apparent
adverse effects were noted. Apparent adverse events were noted in 17 of 45 (37.8%) babies: 9
(20%) had major events, i.e. apnoea, bradycardia or desaturations, and 8 (17.8%) had minor
events, i.e. increased oxygen requirements, temperature instability, poor handling and feed
intolerance. Babies with major events were signi cantly younger (p < 0.05), had a lower
postmenstrual age (p < 0.05) and weighed less (p < 0.05) at the time of vaccination compared with
babies without major events. No differences in the mean birthweight, gestational age, duration of
ventilation or oxygen dependency were found between the two groups. Age at vaccination of
70 days or less was signi cantly associated with increased risk (p < 0.01). Of 27 babies vaccinated
at 70 days or less, 9 (33.3%) developed major events compared with none when vaccinated over
70 d.
Conclusion: Vaccine-related cardiorespiratory events are relatively common in preterm babies.
Problems were much more common if vaccine is administered at or before 70 d. These babies
should therefore be monitored postvaccination. Further prospective studies are needed to clarify
whether delaying vaccination offers protection against these adverse events.
Key words: Adverse reactions, apnoea, prematurity, vaccination
Acta Pñ diatr 90: 916± 920. 2001
Ms Dorey – both of the papers you posted advocate the vaccination of premature newborns.
They would not have been published, otherwise Sue.
“They would not have been published, otherwise Sue.” So, you are saying that these researchers (who battle to make outcomes better for tiny babies) don’t really support vaccination, but they say so just to get their research published? Do you honestly think that is true, Ms Dorey?
Do you honestly think that all researchers are angels who are just doing this for the benefit of mankind? Come on! Pull the other one.
Oh, and as for balling to make outcomes better for tiny babies, why do you think parents whose children have been vaccine injured work so hard on this issue?
Skeptic logic no 32:
If a paper comes out and provides data showing that vaccines cause instant death in 100 per cent of their recipients but the conclusion is that vaccines rock, its the tacked on conclusion that matters not the data.
So sad – but so true Punter!
These babies, according to the article, were 1 month premature, or 36 weeks. One more week and they would’ve been considered term. Mildly premature, or “late premature” infants. “Resuscitation” in neonates born by caesarean section is not uncommon, and covers a variety of interventions, most commonly a few puffs of air via mask. 4 days in an incubator suggests that they were unwell although not particularly so.
The title is also misleading as has been pointed out. I assume they had been home for weeks prior to their vaccinations. Stacy unfortunately acquired late onset sepsis. Rare in mildly premature and term infants, and tragic. The usual culprit is group B strep and is not covered by any immunisations.
As Scott says, don’t misuse this. Just because parents are grieving and want to blame vaccinations doesn’t mean you should mislead the general public.
And I stand by my statement that your comment “it’s not surprising this baby died” is ridiculous. it is. We immunise millions of these babies with multiple vaccines. Why don’t they all die? Well, they don’t all get unrelated sepsis.
These babies were only mildly premature. We immunise much more premature babies according to their birth date and I would like to see your studies showing that this is dangerous. This baby clearly died of an infection. I hope an autopsy was performed since it appears that the parents did not consent to at least one appropriate investigation being done while she was deteriorating. If they are going to blame immunisations they should have sought autopsy evidence or at least had this done to disprove the far more likely diagnosis of sepsis/meningitis. I hope that this baby was treated appropriately for sepsis and I hope the parents were not obstructive to antibiotic therapy. It is difficult to pass judgement when the story is muddied by understandable emotional distress. Please do not spread misinformation like this. THousands of babies are given 9 vaccines in one day without any adverse effects and saying “it is not surprising that she died” is therefore ridiculous.
Carolyn, it is not ridiculous to say that administering 9 drugs in one day – most of which have never been tested for either their synergistic or cumulative effects in adults – let alone in newborns or premature babies – could be dangerous. Where are the safety studies on the use of 9 vaccines in one day? Can you provide me with this information or are you just making an assumption that because one vaccine was thought to be safe, 9 vaccines must also be safe? It’s just not good enough. And because of this overstepping by doctors, babies are dying and being permanently injured. Show us the science!
“And because of this overstepping by doctors, babies are dying and being permanently injured. ” Truly, Ms Dorey? Show us the science!
Please see above Sue – these are two of dozens of articles I have in my database on the issue of serious events in premature infants following vaccination – there are doubtless many, many more. Why don’t you do a search yourself? I’m sure you must have access to medical journals online?
Here is a relevant paper from the European journal of immunology Dec 2008: Safety and efficacy of neonatal vaccination – at
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/eji.200838620/abstract
This comment is relevant: “Given the potentially significant benefit of vaccinating at birth, availability of a broader range of more effective neonatal vaccines is an unmet medical need and a public health priority.”
Considering the fact that neonates cannot physically develop proper antibodies (even if you want to assume that antibodies mean that one is immune – which they don’t), the idea that this is an unmet need would only relate to the need of pharmaceutical companies to make more money. Vaccinating premature babies has been associated with a far higher risk of seizures, brain damage, severe apnoea and SIDS. Where is the duty of care towards the child when so many vaccines are administered at one time without any safety testing having been done and without any evidence of either necessity or effectiveness in this age group?
This story – about a premature baby who died of sepsis (infection) has been discussion on the AVn FB page before. The baby was significantly premature, needed resuscitation at birth, developed a high fever and was diagnosed with meningitis, which the baby did not survive. This condition – neonatal sepsis – has a high mortality in the premature.
Neonatal specialists – nurses and doctors – battle with the lives of tiny premature babies every day. The are trained and experienced in the conditions of prematurity – lungs, immune system, heart – there are so many aspects of physiology that they manage every day.
These are the same nurses and doctors – practising a very exacting specialty – who recommend and administer the vaccines. I have never udnerstood why people consider that these people, who are experts in keeping tiny babies alive – might not know what they are doing with vaccination. Why would they have a blind spot in one particular area? Whatever vested interests you might speculate about do not apply here – this is a hospistal-based specialty, with high stress levels, shift work and a high emotional toll. What would motivate these people to intentionally harm the tiny babies they battle to protect?
Do people think neonatal ICU staff are just benign disingenuous people who are not very smart about being conned by drug companies? Do you think they make the same disingenuous “errors” with antibiotics, steriods, IV devices, ventilators and every other manufactured product they use?
No human being is immune to error – but to selectively think that the same nurses and doctors who dedicate their lives to tiny sick babies are somehow killing them with vaccines without realising it is just disingenuous in itself.
The title of this is quite misleading given the baby died of meningtis. Its pretty poor to misrepresent the tragic death of baby to promote ones cause.