Healthy trial babies &
[back] medical mind control [back] Medical study ploys
[Numerous babies are excluded from vaccine trials, eg any with health problems, yet they then go on to inject the vaccine into all and sundry, while declaring it is safe for anyone. Why exclude sick children if that was true? Think about that.]
See: Never unvaccinated controls Inadequate safety studies Underlying conditions
See: DPT Mouse tests Mouse toxicity test Kendrick mouse test Hist test
MMR: It's safe when you remove the damaged kids
Our health officials continue to pump out junk science, for example the recent, seriously flawed NIAID study on H1N1 vaccine safety in pregnant women reported over the major media, to deceive Americans and enroll them in their national vaccination campaigns. The protocol in that study listed any pregnant woman who had a history of alcohol or drug abuse during a 6 year period, diabetes, compromised immune systems, asthmatic and allergic conditions, history of cancer-treatment drugs for 3 years, prescription to psychiatric drugs, and many other conditions as unqualified for the study. These conditions alone would disqualify the large majority of the nation’s pregnant women. Furthermore, any pregnant woman who enrolled in the trial, who spiked a temperature of 100 degrees or greater during the first 72 hours following vaccination, were excluded from the trial. Nevertheless, the CDC and its cronies in the media, particularly the pharmaceutical shills at The New York Times, touted this deranged trial as conclusive evidence that the swine flu vaccine was safe for all pregnant women. These are the kinds of medical distortions we have come to expect from the Federal health agencies. [2009 Nov] Federal Health Agencies Continue to Deceive Americans: Congressional Report on a Vaccine Mercury-Autism Link Ignored for Six Years by Richard Gale and Gary Null, Ph.D
pdf] Vaccination of Very Premature Infants By F. Edward Yazbak,
MD, FAAP All clinical trials of
pediatric vaccines only enroll healthy infants and
children and everyone makes certain that the infant or child is healthy
at the time the vaccine is administered.
There are no studies where sick or “slightly sick” infants are
It is therefore strange that pediatricians are asked to vaccinate less than perfectly healthy infants and even stranger that they insist to do so. In the recent Rochester study, the 16 ex-small preemies and the 16 normal infants used as controls received the MMR and chickenpox vaccines at the age of 15 months. In real life, the CDC recommends that these two vaccines be administered at 12 months of age when the ex-preemies are often more vulnerable.
[Nov 2007] Dissecting A Thimerosal Study
by Heidi Stevenson Any child
with a preexisting neurological condition was eliminated from the
test. However, is it not possible—in fact, probable—that these children are the
most at risk from exposure to thimerosal? Any child who developed certain
neurological conditions was excluded. These conditions included encephalitis and
meningitis. The possibility that thimerosal might cause these conditions was
eliminated from consideration.
Of the 3,648 originally selected for the study: 959 dropped out. Of these, 68% cited a lack of time. However, there is no consideration for why they couldn't spend the time. The possibility that some of these mothers were overburdened by having children with neurological problems, which is, of course, the focus of the study, simply isn't considered.
13% of these mothers are reported to have been distrustful or ambivalent about the research, but what their bias was is not indicated. Could they have decided not to take part because they noted a bias on the part of the researchers? 512 were eliminated because they "did not meet one or more of the eligibility requirements". (The aforementioned issue of conditions that might predispose to harm from thimerosal or be caused by thimerosal are not considered.) Thus, 1288, 35%, of the children, were eliminated from the study for reasons that, at best, are not adequately documented.
Other children were eliminated for various other reasons. One group excluded was children whose birth weight was under 2,500 grams, about 5.5 pounds. How many babies were eliminated for being underweight is not stated. Babies of this weight are hardly rare and they are not excluded from vaccinations. What legitimate reason could be given for this exclusion?
Extract from Just A Little Prick by Peter and Hilary Butler p119-123
"The Immunization Awareness Society requested all information pertaining to the development, data from trials, documents relating to licensing and administration of the Meningococcal Meningitis Group B vaccine for the current meningitis vaccination programme, under the Official Information Act. Almost everything we asked for, even the protocols, were withheld under confidentiality provisions of section 9(2)(ba)(i) of the Act. We only got to see the clinical trial applications aid information to volunteers.
Your baby will be excluded from either group if any
of the following apply.
• You, the mother, are a Hepatitis B carrier, or have AIDs or syphilis. Or have had Hepatitis B vaccine yourself.
• Your doctor gave you drugs that suppressed your immune system in the last three months of pregnancy.
• You were given blood, blood products, Hepatitis B immune globulin, or antibiotics for infection.
• You have diabetes.
• If you had a pregnancy problem such as the placenta coming away suddenly, or pre-eclampsia (which is a problem with toxaemia), something in the pregnancy that might cause known congenital defects or you are requesting cord blood to be retained for stem cell preservation.
• A member in your family has an immune system that doesn't work normally.
• You had problems before or in labour, such as prolonged rupture of membranes lasting longer than 18 hours.
Your baby will be rejected from the trial if it:
• was born before 37 weeks' gestation, and weighed less than 2500 grams at birth;
• needed resuscitation, received IV medication antibiotics for suspected infection, or might have any suspected medical, congenital, developmental, or surgical disease involving the immune system, central nervous system, congenital abnormalities, seizures or multi-organ dysfunction that they can't see, but could be a possibility;
• has any other health problem after examination by doctors that is considered sufficient for your baby to be excluded.
Each Phase trial (which takes a vaccine closer to being given to every baby on the planet) has very similar strict criteria to refuse babies where there is any whiff of a family health problem. That means that while a vaccine may end up being considered safe, it's ONLY safe in that tiny segment of people it was tested on, within larger society."
All trial participants have to be healthy. You won't find babies
in these trials who have ongoing health issues, family history of
immunodeficiency, failure to thrive, or any ill health.
....If it's not acceptable to vaccinate babies with any possible health problem in any vaccine study, why does it become acceptable after the vaccine has been licensed to vaccinate premature babies? Or to vaccinate at birth, babies from at risk mothers who have exactly these problems that excluded them from the study in the first place, or babies who have just come out of intensive care?
If these researchers stopped studying vaccines in some Utopian mini-bubble
that doesn't make up the whole real-life planet Earth, and trialled vaccine in
all the babies these vaccines will eventually be given to, might they find out
that there were safety issues they had not seen before?
We don't know, because the first time that happens is when the vaccine is
let loose on the general public. That's why the
data which say vaccines are safe, looks so good. Researchers don't take the risk
that a vaccine might somehow tip sick babies over the edge, and make them worse.
The don't include sick babies in the trial, because the not-quite-normal babies
and children might suddenly die in larger numbers, and make the study look bad.
Think about this for a minute. Think about those animal safety tests as well.
.......We, the public, and ordinary doctors, are left to assume that the test results are comprehensive, cover all possibilities, and would address every concern. Why should I consider injecting any vaccine into my baby when the company selling it, and the doctors mailing it, won't release all of the safety and efficacy data?
....... Patent monopolies outlaw competition, so there is no logical reason for the safety and efficacy data to be withheld from the public, except that the information contained in them could motivate parents to avoid the vaccine.
BUT parents believe the health authorities when they say:
"By the way, the vaccine is also safe for all the sick (especially for the sick, because they need it the most), the premature, babies with congenital defects and, if the vaccine is not live, immunodeficient children also need it."
Does that make sense when none of these categories of babies were
included in the trials at any point, because they were too unhealthy?
So parents are reassured that if they turn up at the surgery with
their apathetic child who has a little bitty fever, to be vaccinated,
that's fine. So long as they are not too sick.
Exactly what is this mild sickness? The beginning of meningitis maybe, but you don't know that yet? Developing flu maybe, but not quite there yet? Perhaps your child's mild sickness is the beginning of something much bigger, and you don't know it right then?
.......And if something unusual happens to your child after the vaccine, it must be something else because they didn't see that in the trials.
Somehow, the following recommendations for giving the measles vaccine to sick children in hospitals, from the World Health Organization, didn't come as a surprise. My emphasis is added to the text:
"Since there are virtually no contraindications to measles vaccination, measles vaccine should be administered regardless of the patient's health status. Measles vaccination is particularly important for malnourished children and for those with chronic illnesses, as they are at increased risk of complications due to measles. An exception to this recommendation are children who on admission are so ill that they are at serious risk of dying. Although administration of measles vaccine is not dangerous in such cases, parents may incorrectly attribute a death to the vaccination."