Michael Belkin

8/3/2019 Michael Belkin

1/7

Hc^bMeryl Do reyFrom: Michael Belkin [[email protected]]Sent: Saturday, 22 May 1999 2:21To : karin SchumacherSubject: MICHAEL BELKIN'S WRITTEN TESTIMONY TO CONGRESS #1

M I C H A E L B E L K IN ' S W R I T T E N T E S T T M O N Y T O CONGRESS # 1 Tuesday May 18,1999My daughter Lyla Rose Belkin died on September 16,1998 at the age offive weeks , about 15 hours a f t e r receiving her second Hepatitis vaccine booster shot. Lyla was a lively, alert fiveweekold baby when Ilast held her in my arms. Litt le did I imagine as she gazed intentlyinto my eyes with all the innocence and wonder of a newborn child thatshe would die that night. She was never ill before receiving theHepatitis shot that afternoon. At her final feeding th at night, shewas extremely agitated, noisy and feis ty and then she fell asleepsuddenly and stopped breathing. The autopsy ruled out choking. The NYMedical Examiner ruled her death Sudden Infant Death Syndrome (SIDS).But the NY Medical Examiner (Dr. Persechino) neglected to mention Lyla'sswollen brain or the hepatitis vaccine in the autopsy re port. Thecoroner spoke to my wif e and I and our pediatrician (Dr. Zullo) the dayof the autopsy and clearly stated that her brain was swollen. Thepediatrician Dr. Zullo's notes of that conversation are "brain swollen... not sure cause yet... could not see how recombinant vaccine couldcause 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 swollenbrain is not SIDS. Through conversations with other experiencedpathologists, I subsequently discovered that brain inflammation is aclassic adverse reaction to vaccination (with any vaccine) in themedical literat ure.I set out to do an investigation of the hepatitis vaccine and attendeda workshop at the National Academy of Sciences, Institute of Medicine on"NeoNatal Death and the Hepatitis Vaccine," the Advisory Committee onImmunization Practices (ACIP) February meeting and a debate in NewHampshire between the Chairman of the ACIP Dr. Modlin and Dr. W aisbrenabout the safety of the hepatitis vaccine. I also obtained the en tireVaccine Adverse Events Reporting System (VAERS) database on hepatitis vaccine adverse reactions and have investigated it thoroughly.These are my conclusions, supported by the following pages of text andanalysis that are too lengthy to present in entirety in the timeallotted for this appearance. Please read the results of myinvestigation, as it will help you understand the magnitude of thehepatitis vaccine issue.Newborn babies are not at risk of contracting the hepatitis diseaseunless their mother is infected.Hepatitis is primarily a disease of junkies, gays, and promiscuousheterosexuals.The vaccine is given to babies because health authorities couldn't get

1
mailto:[email protected]:[email protected]


2/7

those risk groups to take the vaccine.Adverse reactions outnumber cases of the disease in governmentstatistics.Nothing is being done to investigate those adverse reactions.Those adverse reactions include numerous deaths, convulsions andarthritic conditions that occur within days a f t e r hepatitis vaccination.The CDC is misrepresenting hypothetical, estimated disease statistics asreal cases of the disease.Th e ACIP is recommending new vaccines for premature infants withouthaving scientific studies proving it is safe.The US vaccine recommendation process is hopelessly compromised byconflicts of interest with vaccine manufacturers, the American Academyof Pediatrics and th e CDC.Conclusion: I f (as with the recentlyrecommended rotavirus vaccine)hepatitis vaccine was recommended in 1991 without scientific proofthat i t was safe in a broad sample of racially and genetically diversebabies less than 48 hours old before they established thatrecommendation, then the CDC has been experimenting on babies likeguinea pigs and this Committee should suspend that universalimmunization policy.

The hepatitis vaccine was effectively mandated in 1991 for universalimmunization of newborn babies by the Advisory Committee on ImmunizationPractices (ACIP) an adjunct of the Centers for Disease Control andPrevention (CDC). Paradoxically, the CDC's own Fact Sheet on thehepatitis disease does not include newborn babies as a risk group forthat disease. That Fact Sheet lists the risk groups as injection drugusers, homosexual men, sexually active heterosexuals, infants/childrenof immigrants from diseaseendemic areas, low socioeconomic level,sexual/household contacts of infe cte d persons, infants born to infect edmothers, health care workers and hemodialysis patients NOT NEW B O RNBABIES.Question'. Why then, did the ACIP establish a policy mandating thatnewborn babies not at risk of the disease be automatically administeredth e 3shot hepatitis vaccine as the ir f ir st involuntary indoctrinationinto the pediatric care of America?Answer: Here is tha t rationale from the original ACIP 1991 statementestablishing the official vaccination policy "Hepatitis Virus: AComprehensive Strategy for Eliminating Transmission in the United StatesThrough Universal Childhood Vaccination ..." "In the United States,most infections occur among adults and adolescents ... The recommendedstrategy for preventing these infections has been the selectivevaccination of persons with identified risk factors ... However, thisstrategy has not lowered the incidence of hepatitis B, primarily becausevaccinating persons engaged in highrisk behaviors, lifestyles, oroccupations be fore t he y become in fec ted generally has not been feasible... Effo rts to vaccinate persons in th e major risk groups have hadlimited success. For exam ple, programs d irect ed a t injecting drug users

2


3/7

failed to m otivate them to receive th ree doses of vaccine ... I n theUnite d Sta tes i t has become evident t ha t HBV transmission cannot beprevented through vaccinating only the groups at high r isk of infection... I n th e long t e r m , universal infa nt vaccination would el iminate th eneed for vaccinating adolescents and high r isk adults ... Hepatit is vaccination is recommended for al l infants, regardless of the HBsAgstatus of the mother ... The f i r s t dose can be administered during thenewborn period, preferably before the infant is d ischarged f rom thehospital, but no later than when the infant is 2 months of age ..."So in the CDC and ACIP's own wo rds , almo st every newborn US baby is nowg r eet ed on its entry into the world by a vaccine injection against asexual ly tra ns mi tte d disease fo r which the baby is not at r isk because they couldn't get the junkies, prostitutes, homosexuals andpromiscuous heterosexuals to take the vaccine. T h a t is the essence ofthe hepat i t is universal vaccination program.Q uest io n: What are the r isks and benefits for administering this vaccineto infants?

Answer: Hep at i t is is a rare, mainly blood transmitted disease. In 1996only 54 cases of the disease were reported to the CDC in the 0 1 agegroup. There were 3.9 mil l ion births that year, so the observedincidence of hepatit is in the 01 age group was j us t 0.001%. I n t h eVaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS), there were 1,080 totalreports of adverse react ions f rom hepat i t is vaccine in 1996 in the 01age group, with 47 deaths r e p o r te d. T o t a l VAERS hepat i t is reports forthe 01 age group outnumber re por ted cases of t he disease 20 to 1.

Quest ion: Why don' t they just screen the mother to see i f she isinf ec t ed w i t h hep at i t is (since that's about the only way a baby isl ikely to get the disease), instead of vaccinating al l infants?Answer: Sell ing vaccines is extremely profitable and the process ofmandating vaccines is fraught with confl icts of interest between vaccinemanufacturers, the ACIP and the American Academy of Pediatr ics. Thebusiness model of having the government mandate everyone must buy yourproduct is a monopolist 's del ight.Q uest io n: What studies are being done on the data from the FDA's VaccineAdverse Event Reporting Sys tem (VAERS)?Answer: Abso lutely nothin g. The 25,0 00 rep ort s are going into a drawerand being f o r g o t t e n . How many reports are enough to show a drug orvaccine is dangerous 2,500? 25,000? 250,000? Chen of the CDC andEllenberg of the FDA mon itor th is data , wr ite re por ts and del iverspeeches about how VAERS hep at i t is adverse reaction reports shownothing out of the ordinary and show "the relative safety of HB vaccinewhen given to neonates and infants." VAERS shows nothing of the kind.TAKE A LOOK AT THE VAERS DATA YOURSELF. The health authorit ies continueto negligently downplay the steady stream of serious adverse reactionsto this vaccine and more infants and adults continue to die and suffercentral nervous system and l iver damage after HB vaccination.Que stion: Why do th e CDC, ACIP and Merck say that there are140,000320,00 0 new nfections/yr (70,000-160,000 symptomaticinfections/yr) when thei r own CDC data shows only 10,000 reported casesyear?

3


4/7

Answer: They are passing o ff estimated, hypothetical numbers as actualcases. This is statistical fraud. In the financial world suchmisreprese ntation would lead to criminal charges. I f a company inflatedits earnings or revenues by 300% (as the CDC does hepatitis diseasestatistics) and foisted those figures o f f as official data (and not somebackofthe env elo pe gues stimate) th at company would be investigated by the SEC and sued by shareholders. Why doesn't that happen in themedical world? There's no regulator to keep the CDC honest. They do notsay those figures are hypothetical estimates, they misrepresent thedata. Go try to audit those 320,000 supposed new in fections/y r. You willnot find them. The whole exercise is designed to increase publichysteria about the risk of a lowrisk disease so the CDC can extend it'spervasive influence and Merck can increase it's $900 million/yearvaccine revenues.Question: W ha t process does the Center f or Disease Control employ tomake a vaccine recommendation?I attended the February Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices(ACIP ) meeting in Atlanta and was absolutely appalled. Every vote by theComm ittee on new vaccine mandates was unanimous (except for onedissenting vote on Rotavirus vaccine fo r premature infants). There washardly any discussion of adverse reactions, the ACIP simplyrubberstamped every proposal on the agenda. I call it VaccinationWithout Representation. In one instance, the ACIP passed arecommendation for Rotavirus vaccine for premature infants even thoughno scien tific studies had been done showing it was medically safe. Dr.Modlin, (Chairman of the ACIP), said in a prohepatitis vaccine deba tein New Hampshire "How do we determine whether something isscientifically valid or not?... 1) Is the theory biologicallyplausible? 2) Has it been tested by appropriate methods? 3) Is the studywell concluded? 4) Are the results statistically sound?" But at theFebruary ACIP meeting, when it came time for the ACIP to rubberstampapproval of Rotavirus vaccine for premature infants, here are Modlin'squotes from the official transcript: \. available data are insufficientto fully establish the safety and efficacy of rotavirus vaccine inpremature infants ... th ere is a section under Adverse Events th atdetails what litt le inf ortnation th ere actually are with respect topremature infants ... To my knowledge we don't have data from a clinicaltrial specifically... Some bit of information from Seattle, as Irecall, that had suggested that was a slight increase in relative riskfor hospitalization for premature infants... Obviously a situationwhere we have to make a judgment I N THE ABSENCE OF DATA, A N D W I T H AVACCINE THAT HAS NOT BEEN TESTED I N T H E GROUP ..." (ACIPtrans cript, pages 102112, emphasis added) Modlin then held a vote andthe recommendation for premature infants passed nine to one Modlinvoted yes. Dr . 6lode against. This is a clear example of how the medicalbureaucracy (led by the CDC and ACIP), is recommending vaccines withoutscientific evidence that those vaccines are safe in a broad sample ofracially and genetically diverse infants.What Should Be Done? This Committee should investigate the 1991 ACIPrecommendation establishing universal hepatitis vaccination of newbornbabies in the hospital and if (as with the Rotavirus vaccine exampleabove) no studies were done to prove this was safe in a broad sample ofracially and genetically diverse babies less than 48 hours old beforethey established th at recommendation, the n th e CDC has beenexperimenting on babies like guinea pigs and this Committee shouldsuspend that universal immunization policy.

4


5/7


6/7

and ought to be listened to with regard to the dangers of adverse eventswith any vaccine (rat her th an ignored). Personal case studies reportedto the author have showed many teenage girls ge tting severe,debilitating adverse reactions to hepatitis vaccine, having nothing todo with nursing. Do women have a g rea ter vulnerability to autoimmunereactions to hepatitis vaccine? I s t he government discriminatingagainst women by administering this vaccine without regard for geneticrisk of CNS and liver disease? Those are questions that independentscientists should investigate.A second area of concern is the VAERS reports involving hepatitis vaccine administered with other vaccines (vaccine cocktails). Healthofficials are fond of dismissing those reports as being attributable t ohepatitis vaccine, because of the multiple other antigens present(almost as if they wanted to cloak hepatitis vaccine reactions fromscrutiny). Let's avoid that controversy and focus on the extremelydisturbing VAERS data of hepatitis vaccine with other vaccines. Thesereports amount to only one third of total reports (7,275), but accountfor two thirds of total deaths (291). The median onset of those deathswas 2 days after vaccination displaying a clear temporal association.The median age of d eath was 0.5 years in this group. 50 % of allhepatitisBvaccinecocktai reports were serious (died, emergency room,hospitalized, disabled). I grouped convulsive reactions together fromthe hepBvaccinecocktail data and found a deeply disturbing pattern.These were anything labeled convulsions, seizures or tremors in theVAERS hepBcocktail data. Of th e 1189 such reports, fully 80% (950)were serious (died, ER, hospitalized , disabled) median age 0.5 years,median onset a f t e r vaccination 0 days (less than one day). Someoneshould do followup and find out what happened to those poor infants whosuffered severe convulsions a f t e r a hepatitis Bmultivaccine cocktail.In the personal reports I've taken of similar adverse reactions, thechildren were left brain damaged and developmentally disabled. Lookingbeyond the debate over whether VAERS reports of vaccine cocktails can beattributed to hepatitis B, the data strongly suggests combining multiplevaccines may be convenient and profitable for pediatricians bu t fatalor debilitating for infants. Where are the scientific studies showinghepatitis vaccine is safe to adm inister with DPT, HI B, IPV, OPV, etc.?Did anyone doing cost/benefit analysis for those studies include datashowing the higher mortality and serious reactions present in the VAERSdata? Why not? Is there an identifiable genetic marker in those whosuffered convulsive reactions to screen out those vulnerable in thefuture? These are all matters for independent scientists to audit.

Another area that leaps out of the VAERS database is something I dubbedart hri tic reactions. These a re joi nt pains, tingling, numbness, aching,fatigue, etc. I found 2,400 of those reports in just a quick survey ofthe first reporting column of VAERS (hepatitis vaccine only). Almostone half of those are serious, involving an ER visit, hospitalization,death or disablement. These are the type of adverse reactions reportedby many adults who are forced to take the hepatitis vaccine for theirjobs. In the reports of such adverse reactions I've taken, the symptomsdo not go away, most patie nts complain it gets worse over time.Scientists not corrupted by drug company or CDC/FDA institutional biasshould examine the thousands of VAERS hepatitis arthritic reactionreports and develop a diagnosis of their hepatitis vaccinerelatedillness.Anyone who doubts if hepatitis vaccine adverse reactions exist should

2


7/7

sit down and read the symptoms and text comments of a random selectionof VAERS reports. When one does so, they will find a similar butwideranging lis t of CN S and liver reactions that occur within days ofvaccination. The Merck package insert claims "Injection site reactionsand systemic complaints were reported following 17% and 15% on theinjections, respectively." The standard rule of thumb is only about 10%of reactions are reported to VAERS. So the actual number and full horrorof the hepatitis vaccine reaction story is potentially much largerthan even VAERS suggests.

3

Michael Belkin

Documents

Transcript of Michael Belkin