Financial Kickbacks to Pediatricians for Vaccination Harms Children
Financial Kickbacks are Illegal in the Medical Field
When I worked in the hospital as a radiologist doing medical imaging, part of my job was to recommend additional imaging studies. For example, if I saw a mass on a chest Xray, I would recommend a chest CAT scan. If I saw blastic lesions in the rib on a chest Xray, I would recommend a radionuclide bone scan, etc. I always thought to myself, what if i owned a radiology imaging center. That would be great because I could really make a lot of money by referring all of these cases to myself. Above image courtesy of Bob the Pharmacist.
Stark Anti-Kickback Laws
However, there is a problem. Referring cases to my own imaging center is illegal, a form of fraud and abuse, a violation of the 1988 Stark Law “Ethics in Patient Referrals Act“.(4,5) These laws are summarized by the Office of Inspector General Report Department of Health and Human resources:(4)
“The five most important Federal fraud and abuse laws that apply to physicians are the False Claims Act (FCA), the Anti-Kickback Statute (AKS), the Physician Self-Referral Law (Stark law), the Exclusion Authorities, and the Civil Monetary Penalties Law (CMPL). Government agencies, including the Department of Justice, the Department of Health & Human Services Office of Inspector General (OIG), and the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS), are charged with enforcing these laws. As you begin your career, it is crucial to understand these laws not only because following them is the right thing to do, but also because violating them could result in criminal penalties, civil fines, exclusion from the Federal health care programs, or loss of your medical license from your State medical board.”(4)
Practice of Medicine is Not a Multi-Level Marketing Scheme
In other words, the practice of medicine is not a Multi-Level Marketing Scheme to make money by “gaming the system” by running large numbers of patients through tests or procedures for financial profit. Not only does this waste a huge amount of public money, it may cause considerable harm to the patient population. This is considered unethical behavior by the doctor, who is then subject to various civil and criminal penalties including loss of license.
Pediatricians Allowed to “Game the System”
This brings us to the financial incentives to pediatricians offered by insurance companies for vaccinating our children. The Blue Cross Blue Shield health insurance document explaining these financial incentives can be found Here and Here. Pediatricians are raking in 40-80 thousand dollars a year from these kickback schemes.(32-35)
Illegal Kickback Fraud and Abuse
I would argue this type of financial incentive to pediatricians is a form of illegal kickback prohibited by the anti-kickback laws. This type of financial arrangement gives a “green light” to the pediatricians to “game the system” to maximize financial gain by increasing the volume of a procedure. This is fraud and abuse which should be prosecuted by the Office of Inspector General.
Why Does the Health Insurance Company Offer Kickbacks for Vaccinations?
The health insurance company is offering this financial incentive, in reality a cash kickback, because the insurance company thinks vaccination makes a healthier population with fewer insurance claims.(10-11) The insurance company believes they will have fewer insurance claims in heavily vaccinated populations, and will make more money. The insurance company is happy to share their increased profit with the doctors in the form of a “kickback” cash incentive. This is clearly an unethical “kickback” scheme. Pediatricians should be providing health care as part of the routine practice of medicine, not on the basis of a financial kickback. Please contact your congressman and ask them to request the office of inspector general bring a halt this illegal kickback arrangement.
Are Vaccinated Populations Healthier and Utilize Less Health Care Resources?
Are vaccinated populations healthier and utilize less health care resources, thereby leading to greater profits for the health insurance industry? The answer is yes, according to this article in 2014 Pediatrics from authors employed by the CDC and the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation. They concluded the cost savings are enormous. Health insurance company decisions to offer financial incentives to pediatricians for vaccinating children is based on this and similar studies.(11)
Analyses showed that routine childhood immunization among members of the 2009 US birth cohort will prevent 42,000 early deaths and 20 million cases of disease, with net savings of $13.5 billion in direct costs and $68.8 billion in total societal costs, respectively. The direct and societal benefit-cost ratios for routine childhood vaccination with these 9 vaccines were 3.0 and 10.1.(11)
Of course, the article is severely flawed because it is based on historical data and various assumptions and calculations which may turn out to be false. The only way to really know if a highly vaccinated population is healthier than an unvaccinated, and utilizes less health care, is to do a randomized prospective study. Such a study would follow a population of children over 5-10 years with the population randomized to vaccinated or unvaccinated. At the end of the observation period, the numbers can be tabulated for ER (emergency room) visits and hospitalizations, autoimmune disease, and neuro-developmental disorder in the vaccinated vs. unvaccinated groups, and get a real answer to the question. Of course, this study has never been done, and probably never will.
Are Vaccinated Healthier than Unvaccinated?
Quite opposite to what the health insurance industry believes, we have studies showing that vaccinated populations are NOT healthier than unvaccinated populations. A study by Neil Z. Miller in the 2016 Journal of Am Phys Surg 2016, reveals the children receiving greater numbers of vaccinations have more ER visits, more hospitalizations and increased mortality reported to the VAERS Database (VAERS= Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System).(7) Neil Miller says that less healthcare is better than more healthcare. He examined the:
“VAERS database from 1990 through 2010. There were more than 325,000 VAERS reports. Our study showed that infants who receive several vaccines concurrently, as recommended by CDC, are significantly more likely to be hospitalized or die when compared with infants who receive fewer vaccines simultaneously”.(7)
CDC Says Receiving Multiple Vaccines Concurrently is Safe ?
The CDC says that receiving multiple vaccines concurrently is safe for children:(8)
“Scientific data show that getting several vaccines at the same time does not cause any chronic health problems. A number of studies have been done to look at the effects of giving various combinations of vaccines, and when every new vaccine is licensed, it has been tested along with the vaccines already recommended for a particular aged child. The recommended vaccines have been shown to be as effective in combination as they are individually. Sometimes, certain combinations of vaccines given together can cause fever, and occasionally febrile seizures; these are temporary and do not cause any lasting damage. Based on this information, both the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices and the American Academy of Pediatrics recommend getting all routine childhood vaccines on time.”
However, Neil Miller says the CDC is lying to you. He says:”this combination of eight vaccines administered during a single physician visit was never tested for safety in clinical trials.”(7)
“Although CDC recommends polio, hepatitis B, diphtheria, tetanus, pertussis, rotavirus, Haemophilus influenzae 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….CDC urges infants to receive multiple vaccines concurrently without scientific evidence to confirm the safety of this practice. Administering six, seven, or eight vaccine doses to an infant during a single physician visit is certainly more convenient for parents, as opposed to making additional trips to the doctor’s office, and increases the likelihood that the infant will receive all the vaccines, but vaccine safety must remain the highest priority.”(7)
If someone could show me the clinical trials testing eight vaccines in combination at one time, showing them safe, then I would be happy to believe the CDC over Mr. Miller. So far I have been unable to find any of these studies.
“How do we know that multiple vaccines can be given safely?”
The Vaccine Education Center of Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia answers this question: ” How do we know that multiple vaccines can be given safely?“. (16)
“Because concomitant use studies have been required for decades, many studies have been performed showing that children can be inoculated with multiple vaccines safely.”(16)
The link to this document: Here . The problem with this statement is that, YES there are concomitant use studies in the medical literature which can be seen HERE. However, take a look at a few of these studies. For example this concomitant use study was published in 2017 from Finland.(17) 175 two month old infants received rotavirus and pneumococcal vaccines and DTaP-IPV-HB-PRP-T vaccines at two, three and four months. They were then randomized to either add on, or not add on, Meningitis vaccine (MenC) co-administered at two and four months. in other words, we are comparing 8 vaccines to 9 vaccines. The children were followed for ONE MONTH after the last vaccination. Guys, this is tobacco science. This is not a real study. What we want is to compare the children receiving all 9 vaccines to children receiving no vaccines. And we want follow up for at least three years, not one month. In view of charges of data manipulation at the CDC, have these already been done and then buried and hidden from view, expunged from the public record? (23-24)
Different Standard for Oncology Drugs ?
In 2016, Dr Bruce Cheson writes in the journal, Blood, about the new targeted drugs for lymphoma patients and the future of a “chemotherapy free” treatment for the lymphoma patient. Many of these new drugs are more effective when used in combination. Yet, these drug combinations have not been studied in clinical trials, and may produce unexpected adverse events. Dr Cheson writes:
“As clinical research moves quickly to a chemotherapy-free approach in many histologies of lymphoma and more targeted drugs become commercially available, there will be a temptation to arbitrarily combine them in general practice. However, it is imperative that such combinations be carefully monitored in clinical trials before subjecting patients to a risk of serious, unforeseen complications.” (31)
So we see for lymphoma patients clinical trials are needed to evaluate combinations of drugs for adverse side effects. However for combining 16 vaccinations (72 doses) in the current CDC schedule, such randomized placebo controlled clinical trials of combinations of vaccines are never done. Why the different standard ?
Hydroxychloroquine FDA Approved for Malaria Treatment
The whole world witnessed Dr Anthony Fauci contradicting President Trump’s suggestion of using hydroxychloroquine off label as an anti-viral drug for COVID-19 as reported in the New York Post. Dr. Fauci stated the drug’s success in treating viral disease is only “anecdotal” and implied that formal placebo controlled randomized trials are needed to confirm drug efficacy. Firstly, the drug is off patent, and cheap, and therefore no drug company would ever invest the millions of dollars in a clinical trial. Secondly, it is common practice for doctors to prescribe drugs “off label” for indications not included in the original clinical trials performed for FDA approval. Dr. Fauci knows this, so his stance is merely a deceptive way to obstruct the use of a cheap effective anti-viral drug in favor of a future vaccine with billions in profit for the vaccine makers.
My question here to Dr Fauci is this: where is this same requirement for a randomized placebo controlled trial for vaccines? There isn’t any because vaccines are studied according to a different standard. Vaccines are categorized as Biologics, and not categorized as drugs. This is an outrage which needs to be corrected. Ask your congressman to sponsor a bill to re-categorized all vaccines as drugs which require randomized placenbo controlled clinical trials for approval same as any other drug.
Evidence of Harm from Vaccines
Another recent study from Dr. Mawson in Translational Medicine 2017 suggests that vaccinated populations are more prone to neurodevelopmental disorders defined as learning disability, Attention Deficient Hyperactivity Disorder, and Autism Spectrum Disorder. (12-14) The harm was greater if the infant was pre-term.(12-14)
Infant Mortality Rates Associated with Increasing Vaccinations
A 2011 study by Miller and Goldman looked at national infant morality rates versus numbers of vaccinations per nation finds that infant mortality goes up as the number of vaccinations goes up.(21)
Increased Mortality from DPT Vaccine
Dr. Søren Wenge Mogensen says that “No prospective study has shown beneficial survival effects of DTP (vaccine).”(25). Dr. Søren Wenge Mogensen reported his study in 2017, of DPT /polio vaccination in Africa, finding a 5-fold increase in mortality in the vaccinated population compared to the unvaccinated.(25) The authors state:
“DTP (vaccine) was associated with 5-fold higher mortality than being unvaccinated. No prospective study has shown beneficial survival effects of DTP (vaccine).“(25)
Harming the Pediatric Population for Financial Gain
If these studies are true, this would suggest the Health Insurance program of financial incentives (ie kickbacks) to pediatricians for increasing vaccinations is harming our children. Not only is this unethical and illegal practice based on our existing anti-kickback law, this practice is causing immeasurable harm to the children, the families and our society. Print this article and send a copy to your friends and family. Call, email or write your congressman and ask them to request the Inspector General’s Office to bring a stop to this unethical and illegal kickback scheme.
Simple Solution: Make it Illegal
At least one Pennsylvania congressman, Rep. Daryl D. Metcalfe, R-Cranberry, has recognized the problem and is introducing House Bill 286, also known as the Informed Consent Protection Act which makes it illegal for doctors to accept bonuses or other incentives from insurance or drug companies for vaccinating patients.(27)
Watch this News Conference Rep. Daryl Metcalf Pennsylvania on House Bill 286 to make illegal Kickbacks to Doctors for Vaccination:
Conclusion: The CDC childhood vaccination schedule keeps increasing as new vaccines are brought on line. Currently the CDC schedule gives children 70 doses of 16 vaccines. Eventually we reach a the tipping point which causes harm. I would argue we reached this tipping point many years ago. After ordering thousands of vaccinations, Rachel Moss MD, a family medicine physician in Gary Indiana, discovered was causing harm. She posted a public apology saying: “she had no idea”:(15) Quote Rachel Moss MD:
“I apologize from the bottom of my heart to any children and parents that I have unknowingly harmed. I had no idea.” (15) Quote Rachael L Ross, M.D., PhD
Jeffrey Dach MD
7450 Griffin Road Suite 190
Articles with Related Interest:
Vaccines, Autoimmunity, and the Changing Nature of Childhood Illness by Dr. Thomas Cowan MD
How to End the Autism Epidemic, Generation Rescue’s co-founder J.B. Handley
Who Can Parents Trust?: Vaccines: Avoidable and Unsafe Paperback – June 26, 2018
by David Denton Davis MD (Author)
Vaccines Are They Really Safe and Effective? Paperback – September 15, 2015
by Neil Z. Miller (Author)
Vaccines: A Reappraisal Kindle Edition by Richard Moskowitz (Author)
1) Blue Cross Blue Shield 2016 Booklet Financial Incentives to Pediatricians to Vaccinate Children. Pediatricians Receive Financial Incentives Kickbacks to Vaccinate Children BCBS 2016 Booklet
3) Are Physicians Given Financial Incentives to Vaccinate Our Children?
1 By Jonathan Wright on September 8, 2017
4) A Roadmap for New Physicians Fraud & Abuse Laws Office of Inspector General
The five most important Federal fraud and abuse laws that apply to physicians are the False Claims Act (FCA), the Anti-Kickback Statute (AKS), the Physician Self-Referral Law (Stark law), the Exclusion Authorities, and the Civil Monetary Penalties Law (CMPL). As you begin your career, it is crucial to understand these laws not only because following them is the right thing to do, but also because violating them could result in criminal penalties, civil fines, exclusion from the Federal health care programs, or loss of your medical license from your State medical board.
Taking money or gifts from a drug or device company or a durable medical equipment (DME) supplier is not justified by the argument that you would have prescribed that drug or ordered that wheelchair even without a kickback.
The Physician Self-Referral Law, commonly referred to as the Stark law, prohibits physicians from referring patients to receive “designated health services” payable by Medicare or Medicaid from entities with which the physician or an immediate family member has a financial relationship, unless an exception applies
What is the anti-kickback rule? The anti-kickback statute makes it illegal for providers (including physicians) to knowingly and willfully accept bribes or other forms of remuneration in return for generating Medicare, Medicaid or other federal health care program business.
document: General Accountability Office Report: MEDICARE Implementation of Financial Incentive Programs under Federal Fraud and Abuse Laws
However, there are no exceptions or safe harbors specifically for financial incentive programs intended to improve quality and efficiency, and legal experts reported that the constraints of existing exceptions and safe harbors make it difficult to design and implement a comprehensive program for all participating physicians and patient populations.
h) Preventive screening tests, immunizations, and vaccines. Preventive screening tests, immunizations, and vaccines that meet the following conditions:
(1) The preventive screening tests, immunizations, and vaccines are subject to CMS-mandated frequency limits.
(2) The arrangement for the provision of the preventive screening tests, immunizations, and vaccines does not violate the anti-kickback statute (section 1128B(b) of the Act).
Does not violate the anti-kickback statute
Does not violate the anti-kickback statute, as used in this subpart only, means that the particular arrangement –
(i) Meets a safe harbor under the anti-kickback statute, as set forth at § 1001.952 of this title, “Exceptions”;
(ii) Has been specifically approved by the OIG in a favorable advisory opinion issued to a party to the particular arrangement (for example, the entity furnishing DHS) with respect to the particular arrangement (and not a similar arrangement), provided that the arrangement is conducted in accordance with the facts certified by the requesting party and the opinion is otherwise issued in accordance with part 1008 of this title, “Advisory Opinions by the OIG”; or
(iii) Does not violate the anti-kickback provisions in section 1128B(b) of the Act.
(2) For purposes of this definition, a favorable advisory opinion means an opinion in which the OIG opines that –
(i) The party’s specific arrangement does not implicate the anti-kickback statute, does not constitute prohibited remuneration, or fits in a safe harbor under § 1001.952 of this title; or
(ii) The party will not be subject to any OIG sanctions arising under the anti-kickback statute (for example, under sections 1128A(a)(7) and 1128(b)(7) of the Act) in connection with the party’s specific arrangement.
7) Combining Childhood Vaccines at One Visit Is Not Safe by Neil Z. Miller Journal of American Physicians and Surgeons, Volume 21, Number 2, Summer 2016
Combining Childhood Vaccines at One Visit Is Not Safe Neil Z Miller J Am Phys Surg 2016
Although CDC recommends polio, hepatitis B, diphtheria, tetanus, pertussis, rotavirus, Haemophilus influenzae 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.
CDC urges infants to receive multiple vaccines concurrently without scientific evidence to confirm the safety of this practice. Administering six, seven, or eight vaccine doses to an infant during a single physician visit is certainly more convenient for parents, as opposed to making additional trips to the doctor’s office, and increases the likelihood that the infant will receive all the vaccines, but vaccine safety must remain the highest priority.
Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS)
VAERS database from 1990 through 2010. There were more than 325,000 VAERS reports.
Our study showed that infants who receive several vaccines concurrently, as recommended by CDC, are significantly more likely to be hospitalized or die when compared with infants who receive fewer vaccines simultaneously.
8) Getting multiple vaccines at the same time has been shown to be safe. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. CDC twenty four seven. Saving Lives, Protecting People
Scientific data show that getting several vaccines at the same time does not cause any chronic health problems. A number of studies have been done to look at the effects of giving various combinations of vaccines, and when every new vaccine is licensed, it has been tested along with the vaccines already recommended for a particular aged child. The recommended vaccines have been shown to be as effective in combination as they are individually. Sometimes, certain combinations of vaccines given together can cause fever, and occasionally febrile seizures; these are temporary and do not cause any lasting damage. Based on this information, both the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices and the American Academy of Pediatrics recommend getting all routine childhood vaccines on time.
10) Zhou, Fangjun, et al. “Economic evaluation of the 7-vaccine routine childhood immunization schedule in the United States, 2001.” Archives of pediatrics & adolescent medicine 159.12 (2005): 1136-1144.
Participants A hypothetical 2001 US birth cohort of 3 803 295 infants was followed up from birth through death.
Main Outcome Measures Net present value (net savings) and benefit-cost ratios of routine immunization.
Results Routine childhood immunization with the 7 vaccines was cost saving from the direct cost and societal perspectives, with net savings of $9.9 billion and $43.3 billion, respectively. Without routine vaccination, direct and societal costs of diphtheria, tetanus, pertussis, H influenzae type b, poliomyelitis, measles, mumps, rubella, congenital rubella syndrome, hepatitis B, and varicella would be $12.3 billion and $46.6 billion, respectively. Direct and societal costs for the vaccination program were an estimated $2.3 billion and $2.8 billion, respectively. Direct and societal benefit-cost ratios for routine childhood vaccination were 5.3 and 16.5, respectively.
Conclusion Regardless of the perspective, the current routine childhood immunization schedule results in substantial cost savings.
11) Zhou, Fangjun, et al. “Economic evaluation of the routine childhood immunization program in the United States, 2009.” Pediatrics (2014): peds-2013. Economic evaluation routine childhood immunization program United States 2009 Zhou Fangjun Pediatrics 2014
Analyses showed that routine childhood immunization among members of the 2009 US birth cohort will prevent 42 000 early deaths and 20 million cases of disease, with net savings of $13.5 billion in direct costs and $68.8 billion in total societal costs, respectively. The direct and societal benefit-cost ratios for routine childhood vaccination with these 9 vaccines were 3.0 and 10.1.
12) Mawson, Anthony R., et al. “Preterm birth, vaccination and neurodevelopmental disorders: a cross-sectional study of 6-to 12-year-old vaccinated and unvaccinated children.” J Transl Sci 3 (2017). Preterm birth vaccination and neurodevelopmental disorders vaccinated and unvaccinated children Mawson Anthony R J Transl Sci 2017
From about 8% to 27% of extremely preterm infants develop symptoms of autism spectrum disorder, but the causes are not well understood. Preterm infants receive the same doses of the recommended vaccines and on the same schedule as term infants. The possible role of vaccination in neurodevelopmental disorders (NDD) among premature infants is unknown, in part because pre-licensure clinical trials of pediatric vaccines have excluded ex-preterm infants. This paper explores the association between preterm birth, vaccination and NDD, based on a secondary analysis of data from an anonymous survey of mothers, comparing the birth history and health outcomes of vaccinated and unvaccinated homeschool children 6 to 12 years of age. A convenience sample of 666 children was obtained, of which 261 (39%) were unvaccinated, 7.5% had an NDD (defined as a learning disability, Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder and/or Autism Spectrum Disorder), and 7.7% were born preterm. No association was found between preterm birth and NDD in the absence of vaccination, but vaccination was significantly associated with NDD in children born at term (OR 2.7, 95% CI: 1.2, 6.0). However, vaccination coupled with preterm birth was associated with increasing odds of NDD, ranging from 5.4 (95% CI: 2.5, 11.9) compared to vaccinated but non-preterm children, to 14.5 (95% CI: 5.4, 38.7) compared to children who were neither preterm nor vaccinated. The results of this pilot study suggest clues to the epidemiology and causation of NDD but question the safety of current vaccination practices for preterm infants. Further research is needed to validate and investigate these associations in order to optimize the impact of vaccines on children’s health.
13) Mawson, Anthony R., et al. “Pilot comparative study on the health of vaccinated and unvaccinated 6-to 12-year-old US children.” J. Transl. Sci 3.3 (2017): 1-12. Pilot comparative study on the health of vaccinated and unvaccinated 6-to 12-year-old US children Mawson Anthony Transl. Sci 2017
Vaccinations have prevented millions of infectious illnesses, hospitalizations and deaths among U.S. children, yet the long-term health outcomes of the vaccination schedule remain uncertain. Studies have been recommended by the U.S. Institute of Medicine to address this question. This study aimed
1) to compare vaccinated and unvaccinated children on a broad range of health outcomes, and
2) to determine whether an association found between vaccination and neurodevelopmental disorders (NDD), if any, remained significant after adjustment for other measured factors. A cross-sectional study of mothers of children educated at home was carried out in collaboration with homeschool organizations in four U.S. states: Florida, Louisiana, Mississippi and Oregon. Mothers were asked to complete an anonymous online questionnaire on their 6- to 12-year-old biological children with respect to pregnancy-related factors, birth history, vaccinations, physician-diagnosed illnesses, medications used, and health services. NDD, a derived diagnostic measure, was defined as having one or more of the following three closely-related diagnoses: a learning disability, Attention Deficient Hyperactivity Disorder, and Autism Spectrum Disorder. A convenience sample of 666 children was obtained, of which 261 (39%) were unvaccinated. The vaccinated were less likely than the unvaccinated to have been diagnosed with chickenpox and pertussis, but more likely to have been diagnosed with pneumonia, otitis media, allergies and NDD. After adjustment, vaccination, male gender, and preterm birth remained significantly associated with NDD. However, in a final adjusted model with interaction, vaccination but not preterm birth remained associated with NDD, while the interaction of preterm birth and vaccination was associated with a 6.6-fold increased odds of NDD (95% CI: 2.8, 15.5). In conclusion, vaccinated homeschool children were found to have a higher rate of allergies and NDD than unvaccinated homeschool children. While vaccination remained significantly associated with NDD after controlling for other factors, preterm birth coupled with vaccination was associated with an apparent synergistic increase in the odds of NDD. Further research involving larger, independent samples and stronger research designs is needed to verify and understand these unexpected findings in order to optimize the impact of vaccines on children’s health.
14) New Studies Reveal Vaccine Harm June 06, 2017 By Dr. Mercola
15) Vaccines, Vaccine Injury, & My Perspective as a Doctor & Mom By Dr. Rachael Ross / July 01, 2016
“I’ve ordered thousands of vaccines in my career as a physician. Until recently I had never considered vaccine injury as more than folklore.”…”I apologize from the bottom of my heart to any children and parents that I have unknowingly harmed. I had no idea.” Quote Rachael L Ross, M.D., PhD
Public document from Vaccine Education Center of Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia
“Because concomitant use studies have been required for decades, many studies have been performed showing that children can be inoculated with multiple vaccines safely.”
17) Vesikari, Timo, et al. “Concomitant administration of a fully liquid, ready-to-use DTaP-IPV-HB-PRP-T hexavalent vaccine with a meningococcal serogroup C conjugate vaccine in infants.” Vaccine 35.3 (2017): 452-458.
18) Kang, Jin Han, et al. “The Immunogenicity and Safety of a Combined DTaP-IPV//Hib Vaccine Compared with Individual DTaP-IPV and Hib (PRP~ T) Vaccines: a Randomized Clinical Trial in South Korean Infants.” Journal of Korean medical science 31.9 (2016): 1383-1391. We enrolled 418 healthy Korean infants to receive either separate DTaP-IPV and Hib vaccines (n = 206) or the pentavalent DTaP-IPV//Hib (n = 208) vaccine at 2, 4, 6 months of age.
19) Dolan, S., A. Wallace, and E. Burnett. “Summary of evidence on the administration of multiple injectable vaccines in infants during a single visit: safety, immunogenicity, and vaccine administration practices. Prepared for the April 2015 SAGE Meeting.” (2015): 222-64.
20) Dolan, Samantha B., et al. “Administering multiple injectable vaccines during a single visit—summary of findings from the accelerated introduction of inactivated polio vaccine globally.” The Journal of infectious diseases 216.suppl_1 (2017): S152-S160.
During regional meetings and personal communications, national immunization program managers expressed concerns about the increase in the number of injectable vaccines given to infants with IPV introduction (authors’ unpublished data; Figure 1). Some of the expressed concerns about healthcare providers’ possible unwillingness to follow a new schedule, caregivers’ possible refusal to allow children to receive all vaccines because of fears of increased pain, and perceived safety problems from an increased number of injections.
21) Miller, Neil Z., and Gary S. Goldman. “Infant mortality rates regressed against number of vaccine doses routinely given: Is there a biochemical or synergistic toxicity?.” Human and Experimental Toxicology 30.9 (2011): 1420-1428.Infant mortality rates regressed against number of vaccine doses synergistic toxicity Miller Neil Z Gary S Goldman Hum Exp Toxic 2011
22) In Memoriam: Infant Deaths & Vaccination by Barbara Loe Fisher Posted: 5/24/2011
23) 2018 Vaccine Safety Commission Letter
24) Hooker, Brian S. “CDC Data Manipulation Exposed: Four Years Later.” Journal of American Physicians and Surgeons 22.4 (2017): 119-121. CDC Data Manipulation Exposed Four Years Later Hooker Brian S J Amer Phys Surg 2017When the CDC team responsible for the paper by Destefano et al.4 originally completed the analysis regarding MMR timing and autism in black male children, an odds ratio of 2.56 was obtained when comparing those children receiving the MMR vaccine before 36 months of age with those who didn’t receive MMR until after 36 months of age.
25) Mogensen, Søren Wengel, et al. “The introduction of diphtheria-tetanus-pertussis and oral polio vaccine among young infants in an urban African community: a natural experiment.” EBioMedicine 17 (2017): 192-198.
We examined the introduction of diphtheria-tetanus-pertussis (DTP) and oral polio vaccine (OPV) in an urban community in Guinea-Bissau in the early 1980s.
Methods The child population had been followed with 3-monthly nutritional weighing sessions since 1978. From June 1981 DTP and OPV were offered from 3 months of age at these sessions. Due to the 3-monthly intervals between sessions, the children were allocated by birthday in a ‘natural experiment’ to receive vaccinations early or late between 3 and 5 months of age. We included children who were < 6 months of age when vaccinations started and children born until the end of December 1983. We compared mortality between 3 and 5 months of age of DTP-vaccinated and not-yet-DTP-vaccinated children in Cox proportional hazard models.
Results Among 3–5-month-old children, having received DTP (± OPV) was associated with a mortality hazard ratio (HR) of 5.00 (95% CI 1.53–16.3) compared with not-yet-DTP-vaccinated children. Differences in background factors did not explain the effect. The negative effect was particularly strong for children who had received DTP-only and no OPV (HR = 10.0 (2.61–38.6)). All-cause infant mortality after 3 months of age increased after the introduction of these vaccines (HR = 2.12 (1.07–4.19)).
Conclusion DTP was associated with increased mortality; OPV may modify the effect of DTP.
5-fold higher mortality rate vaccinated vs unvaccinated.
No prospective study has shown beneficial survival of DPT.
26) Mawson, A. R., et al. “Vaccination and Health Outcomes: A Survey of 6-to 12-year-old Vaccinated and Unvaccinated Children based on Mothers’ Reports. Front.” Public Health 4 (2016): 270. Health Outcomes 6-12-year-old Vaccinated and Unvaccinated based on Mothers Reports Mawson AR Front Public Health 2016
27) As measles cases soar, Rep. Metcalfe pushes bill requiring doctors to treat unvaccinated kids Rita Giordano The Philadelphia Inquirer Apr 30, 2019
28) Posted on April 24, 2019 by Anne Mason Inside the Mind of the “Vaccine Hesitant”by Anne Mason
Address our concerns.
Why don’t vaccine safety trials test against a saline placebo?
Why are vaccines only tested against another vaccine or adjuvant?
Why have aluminum adjuvants never been biologically tested for safety?
A Harvard Medical School report estimated that the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System captures only 1% of vaccine adverse events.
In 2018 alone, 58,381 vaccine adverse events were reported to the VAERS database, including 412 deaths, 1,237 permanent disabilities and 4,217 hospitalizations.
How can CDC and WHO claim the safety of vaccines in light of these staggering numbers? Especially if these numbers only represent 1% of all adverse events following vaccines?
The National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act in 1986 removed vaccine manufacturers’ liability for injuries and deaths caused by their product.
How can we mandate a liability free product be injected into our children?
The CDC now recommends 72 vaccine doses by the time a child reaches age 18.
Why have NO CDC studies been conducted on the cumulative effects of this ever increasing vaccine schedule?
Finally, how can we reconcile CDC’s vaccine schedule and increasing vaccine mandates with the hundreds of peer-reviewed, published articles implicating vaccines in the rise of the childhood epidemics we are currently experiencing in the U.S. and other industrialized nations?
31) Cheson, Bruce D. “Speed bumps on the road to a chemotherapy-free world for lymphoma patients.” Blood, The Journal of the American Society of Hematology 128.3 (2016): 325-330.
“As clinical research moves quickly to a chemotherapy-free approach in many histologies of lymphoma and more targeted drugs become commercially available, there will be a temptation to arbitrarily combine them in general practice. However, it is imperative that such combinations be carefully monitored in clinical trials before subjecting patients to a risk of serious, unforeseen complications.”
32) Rotundo, Giorgia, Marianna Mauro, and Monica Giancotti. “Effect of a pay for performance schemes on improvement of the childhood immunization coverage rates: A literature.” (2018).
33) Benabbas, Roshanak, et al. “The Effect of Pay-for-Performance Compensation Model Implementation on Vaccination Rate: A Systematic Review.” Quality Management in Healthcare 28.3 (2019): 155-162.
34) Chien, Alyna T., Zhonghe Li, and Meredith B. Rosenthal. “Improving timely childhood immunizations through pay for performance in Medicaid‐managed care.” Health services research 45.6p2 (2010): 1934-1947.
35) Gleeson, Sean, Kelly Kelleher, and William Gardner. “Evaluating a pay-for-performance program for Medicaid children in an accountable care organization.” JAMA pediatrics 170.3 (2016): 259-266.
Jeffrey Dach MD
7450 Griffin Road, Suite 190
Davie, Fl 33314
Heart Book by Jeffrey Dach
Click Here for: Dr Dach’s Online Store for Pure Encapsulations Supplements
Click Here for: Dr Dach’s Online Store for Nature’s Sunshine Supplements
Web Site and Discussion Board Links:
Disclaimer click here: www.drdach.com/wst_page20.html
The reader is advised to discuss the comments on these pages with his/her personal physicians and to only act upon the advice of his/her personal physician. Also note that concerning an answer which appears as an electronically posted question, I am NOT creating a physician — patient relationship. Although identities will remain confidential as much as possible, as I can not control the media, I can not take responsibility for any breaches of confidentiality that may occur.
Link to this article: https://wp.me/p3gFbV-5vU
Copyright (c) 2018 Jeffrey Dach MD All Rights Reserved. This article may be reproduced on the internet without permission, provided there is a link to this page and proper credit is given.
FAIR USE NOTICE: This site contains copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available in our efforts to advance understanding of issues of significance. We believe this constitutes a ‘fair use’ of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes.
Serving Areas of: Hollywood, Aventura, Miami, Fort Lauderdale, Pembroke Pines, Miramar, Davie, Coral Springs, Cooper City, Sunshine Ranches, Hallandale, Surfside, Miami Beach, Sunny Isles, Normandy Isles, Coral Gables, Hialeah, Golden Beach ,Kendall,sunrise, coral springs, parkland,pompano, boca raton, palm beach, weston, dania beach, tamarac, oakland park, boynton beach, delray,lake worth,wellington,plantation