One of modern medicine’s routine practices is vaccination of virtually all infants on a schedule—even if they’re premature. This study clearly documents the likelihood that preemies are being subjected to severe harm by the practice. Yet, health agencies and doctors won’t even slow down in the rush to jam needles into the weakest among us.
by Heidi Stevenson
Premature infants are vaccinated as aggressively as full term babies. This is done in spite of research clearly documenting a high rate of cardiorespiratory harm to these neonates. Known as the Pourcyrous study, it also revealed that a full 85% of these infants who receive the standard multi-vaccine dose at two months of age will experience an abnormal elevation of the C-reactive protein level, a measure of inflammation indicating the presence of infection or other disease state.
The primary question must be: Why does the medical profession routinely do a medical procedure that is known to be harmful? Worse yet, why is such a procedure done to the most helpless and weakest among us?
The American Academy of Pediatrics advises vaccinating premature and low birth weight babies on the same schedule as full term babies. This is, of course, based on … well, that’s a good question. It’s obviously not based on evidence.
Shall we hammer another nail in the evidence-based medicine coffin?
In any case, the authors of the Pourcyrous study—named for the lead researcher, Massroor Pourcyrous, MD—noted that a high rate of cardiorespiratory events, anywhere from 23 to 47 percent, has been reported in premature infants after their initial DTaP (diphtheria, typhus, acellular pertussis) vaccination at age two months. They wrote:
Vaccination-associated adverse reactions are not uncommon and may resemble serious infection in infants. C-reactive protein (CRP) is a marker of inflammation or infection in neonates. A consistent increase in CRP has been reported after immunization of preterm infants with vaccines containing diphtheria-tetanus-whole cell pertussis (DTwP); however, CRP responses to DTaP and other vaccines have not been studied.
Therefore, they decided to study the question.
The researchers investigated 239 premature infants who were 2 months or more of age and were scheduled to receive the standard vaccines. Infants who were not acutely ill, had bacterial infections, or were otherwise deemed to have serious health problems were not included.
Infants were given either single or multiple vaccines. 168 of the 239 preemies received a single injection, and 71 received multiple injections. Note that the term “single” vaccine refers to number of injections, not number of antigens. So, the vaccines given were:
Children given multiple vaccines were given 2 or more injections in a single day. The neonatal intensive care staff kept them on cardiorespiratory and pulse oximetry (oxygen) monitoring for 3 days. The researchers documented outcomes of:
Any cardiorespiratory event was evaluated for septicemia, and the affected infant was given antibiotics at the attending physician’s discretion.
CRP was tested before vaccines were given and repeated once every 12 hours, for a total of 3 times after vaccination. Any abnormal result was followed with daily testing until CRP returned to a normal level.
The study’s results are shown in the inset tables below.
High C-reactive protein (CRP) levels indicate excessive inflammation, not simply a localized reaction. Normally, CRP is undetectable in blood tests. For the purposes of this study, A CRP between .7 and 1.6 mg/dL was defined as “detectable”, and anything over that was termed “abnormal”.
Overall, 17% of the infants in this study had detectable CRP, and 43% had a high CRP, which is a very worrisome result. Worse, though, is that a full 85% of the babies given multiple injections suffered from high CRP!
Of significant interest beyond that, though, is that the two multiple vaccines, DTaP, which provides 3 disease antigens, and PVC7, which provides 7 disease antigens, caused 2 of the 3 greatest CRP increases. The Hib vaccine produced the most significant CRP result, with 70% of the babies’ results over the abnormal level.
If you scroll down to the second table, you’ll see the number of cardiorespiratory events experienced by the vaccinated neonates. 11% of the babies had to be given oxygen. 20% of those given multiple injections received oxygen. As was the case with CRP, the worst results occurred in the babies who received DTaP, PVC7, and Hib single vaccines.
Overall, 5% of the babies had to be ventilated, and 13% who received multiple injections were. Cardiorespiratory interventions were required in 16% of the babies, and 32% of the multiply injected infants.
The authors indicated that they wanted to investigate whether CRP levels increase after DTaP and other vaccines, as had been the concern with DTwP (diphtheria, tetanus, whole pertussis) vaccine. What is clear from these results is that the CRP problem exists with the newer form of vaccine, DTaP, and also with PVC7, Hib, and multiple vaccine injections.
These results are very worrisome. They indicate that the routinely scheduled vaccination of premature infants may be producing significant harm. High rates of inflammation are not normally ignored, yet these children—the most helpless of all human beings—are routinely given a treatment that we now know could be producing immense harm.
And we’ve known it for years, yet there hasn’t been a hint of consideration for changing the vaccination schedule in premature infants. Take note of this report, which documents several studies that also demonstrate high CRP levels in premature infants after vaccinations: Does primary immunisation cause C-Reactive Protein to rise in premature infants? (Sadly, this document’s purpose is not to suggest stopping the vaccinations of premature infants, but instead to advocate yet more medical intervention, this time in the form of antibiotics.)
What’s most troubling, though, is that there hasn’t even been any consideration for stopping the practice of injecting several vaccinations at once. It’s obvious that the health authorities—and apparently, the doctors themselves—haven’t the slightest interest in evidence-based medicine, unless it tells them what they want to hear. There has been no interest in even monitoring these infants after vaccinating them, in spite of this clear evidence that they are being placed under serious risk for adverse events.
Parents need to wake up to the fact that neither the governmental health agencies nor, apparently, their doctors, have their children’s best interests at heart when they push vaccinations on them. As much as they claim that their advice is based on the evidence, the facts—as shown here—clearly document otherwise. The welfare of children cannot be their first concern. Apparently, it doesn’t even factor into their plans, since they don’t even put forth a bit of extra effort to monitor infants who are being placed at such extraordinary risk with vaccination on the same schedule as other children.
Then again, we need to ask if normal children born on schedule are safe with the vaccination schedule. Where are the studies that demonstrate it? The fact is that they don’t exist.
Tagged conventional medicine, evidence based medicine premature infants, evidence-based medicine, evidence-based medicine vaccines, modern medicine, pourcyrous premature infants, pourcyrous study, pourcyrous vaccine study, premature babies cardiorespiratory vaccine harm, premature babies crp increase after vaccine, science, vaccine, vaccine adverse effects, vaccine cardiorespiratory effects, vaccine crp increase, vaccines, vaccines doctors, vaccines health agencies