Featured

10,000 Crazy Vaccines! The Harm Done by Offit’s Claim.

February 24, 2013 by admin in Vaccines with 12 Comments

It isn’t bad enough that Offit’s comment about 10,000 vaccines being okay for children. It’s now being quoted by health agencies as if it were the truth! Sandy illustrates the delusional approach our regulatory agencies have to vaccinations in her exchange with the former head of immunization policy in the UK.

Baby, by Troy B. Thompson

Baby, by Troy B. Thompson, cropped

by Sandy Lunoe

There was a storm of amazement  and disbelief when Dr. Paul Offit, vaccine industry insider and perhaps the most widely quoted defender of vaccine safety, made the outrageous statement that each infant would have the theoretical capacity to respond to about 10,000 vaccines at any one time.

Many denounced the statement as being downright crazy, but it was soon apparent that there was method in the madness.

The words originated from Dr. Offit’s and co-authors’ article in the Journal of the American Academy of Pediatrics’  “Addressing Parents’ Concerns: Do Multiple Vaccines Overwhelm or Weaken the Infant’s Immune System?[1]

The statement is not supported by facts. It is based on a purely theoretical calculation with no relation to reality and it should have been dismissed as having no practical application.

But it was not dismissed. On the contrary, it is widely quoted completely out of context to promote concomitant administration of many vaccines.

The strategy is surely to lull parents into accepting introduction of even more vaccines in the childhood vaccination schedule, the more the merrier.

Whilst there are practically no unbiased safety studies concerning concomitantly administered vaccines, coupled with the fact that risk of adverse events increases with increasing numbers of vaccines, advocating even more is irresponsible and unethical.

By chance in February 2012 I found this in the National Health Information (England) Leaflet “MMR THE FACTS”: A baby could respond safely and effectively to around 10,000 vaccines at any one time. So the baby’s immune system can and does easily cope with the MMR vaccine.

I sent an email message to the UK Department of Health requesting that the statement be deleted as it is not documented, it is incorrect and misleading.[2]

A polite answer was received referring to Dr. Offit’s  article and repeating his theory. (Worded simply, it implies that toddlers are able to cope with 10,000 vaccines because their immune systems are designed to build up resistance when they crawl around in dirt and pick up thousands of germs!)[3]

On asking epidemiologist  Tetyana  Obukhanych Ph.D about the capacity of the immune system, I gathered  the following information, in a nutshell: The immune system has a theoretical capacity to respond to an unlimited number of antigens, but not all at the same time.

A new message from the UK Department of Health was received explaining that the leaflet was revised in 2006—Why didn’t they inform about this before?—and the statement now reads:

In theory, a baby could respond effectively to around 10,000 vaccines at any one time. The baby’s immune system can and does easily cope with the MMR, pneumococcal and Hib/MenC vaccines at the same time.[4]

Up to now the epidemiological issue had mainly been discussed, but what about the toxicological aspects?  We are often confronted with the argument that toxic substances are no safety risk because they are present in minute quantities in vaccines, but that argument certainly falls flat in the case of many concomitantly administered  vaccines.

My next message to the Department of Health included:

It is hereby requested that a medically qualified person/toxicologist confirms the following statement (based on basic toxicology): In addition to antigens, vaccines normally contain several other substances, many of which are toxic in large doses. When many vaccines are administered concomitantly the amounts of these substances may be of such large quantities that a human being would in fact die within a very short time.[5]

Some departmental feathers were obviously ruffled because their reply had undertones of sarcasm:

Dear Ms Lunoe,
Thank you for your email regarding the ‘MMR – The facts’ leaflet. Please find as requested, a reply to your correspondence from a medically qualified person.

The statement as provided deals specifically with the capacity of the infant immune system to respond to multiple antigens. It was not a calculation of the responses to other ingredients in vaccines such as water which is well known to be toxic to humans in large quantities. The statement should not be misinterpreted to imply inferences for which it was not intended.

Yours sincerely

Professor David Salisbury
MB BS, FRCP, FRCPCH, FFPH.

I hope this has been helpful.

Regards – Clarissa Hudson
Immunisation Policy Branch
Department of Health

The  “medically qualified person” with the long list of letters after his name was no other than Professor David Salisbury, director of immunisation at the Department of Health, also known as the ‘Basil Fawlty’ of the UK vaccines industry!  (Basil Fawlty is a comedian in a TV series, manager of a small hotel where everything goes hilariously wrong).

David Salisbury is like Basil Fawlty, well known for his antics. The difference is that Basil’s antics are funny whereas David’s antics are notoriously unethical.[6]

True to style Dr. Salisbury did not directly respond to my question concerning toxic substances, but he stated that water is toxic in large quantities. This was inappropriate as he surely knows that the reason why pure water cannot be injected is not toxicological, but physical – it causes irreversible damage to blood cells due to hemolysis.

As expected, he was not willing to confirm: “When many vaccines are administered concomitantly the amounts of these substances may be of such large quantities that a human being would in fact die within a very short time.”

(If “many tablets” had been substituted for “many vaccines”  he would surely have responded that they may be dangerous.  Is it the word vaccine that is holy and untouchable? )

Dissatisfied with the answer, I sent a new message, again pointing out immunological and toxicological aspects and requesting that the statement regarding the 10 000 vaccines be removed from the leaflet.[7]

A reply was promptly received, this time suggesting that I take up matter with Dr. Offit!

Dear Ms Lunoe,
Thank you for your email of 22 March 2012. I have forwarded your comments onto Professor Salisbury as requested.
Professor Salisbury has replied to your comments and I have attached these below:

“The Department of Health stands by the statement which is a direct reflection of the published calculation on the capacity of an infant’s immune system to respond to multiple antigens made by Dr.Paul Offit. His calculation makes no reference to the consequences of other vaccine ingredients such as water and it should not be misrepresented as if it does so. If Ms. Lunoe objects to Dr.Offit’s analysis, I suggest she takes it up with him.”

Regards – Clarissa
Immunisation Policy Branch
Department of Health

So here is the conclusion of my polite message sent to Dr. Offit:

With this in mind, trusting that you have the wellbeing of the general public at heart, I am asking that you consider making a public statement to clarify and to emphasize that the statement in the study “each infant would have the theoretical capacity to respond to about 10 000 vaccines at any one time”  is based on a purely theoretical immunological calculation in a study, that it does not imply the toxicological aspect of a large number of vaccines administered concomitantly and that it should not be quoted out of context.[8]

We are still waiting and hoping for a positive response from Dr. Offit – because he surely has peoples’ well being at heart?

Originally published on VacTruth.

Sources:

  1. http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/content/109/1/124.full.html
  2. http://www.scribd.com/doc/88452286/10-000-Vaccines-Message-No-1#fullscreen
  3. http://www.scribd.com/doc/88454548/10-000-Vaccines-Answer-From-Dept-of-Health-1#fullscreen
  4. http://www.scribd.com/doc/88458516/10-000-Vaccines-Answer-From-Dept-of-Health-2#fullscreen
  5. http://www.scribd.com/doc/88460986/10-000-Vaccines-Message-No-2#fullscreen
  6. http://www.whale.to/v/salisbury1.html
  7. http://www.scribd.com/doc/88469920/10-000-Vaccines-Message-No-3#fullscreen
  8. http://www.scribd.com/doc/88471340/10-000-Vaccines-Message-to-Dr-Offit#fullscreen

Tagged , , , , , , , ,

Related Posts

  • http://www.facebook.com/people/Cindy-Bevington-Olmstead/1486905696 Cindy Bevington Olmstead

    Excellent commentary! Can’t wait for the infamous Mr. Offit to respond.

  • VaccineRisks

    Professor Salisbury, who has been called “the fox in the government hen house” is it seems still head of the immunisation in the UK Department of Health. Here’s more information about this controversial gentleman:
    http://www.whale.to/v/salisbury1.html

    Dr Offit has surely contradicted himself as he is known to have stated “The Dose Makes the Poison”, which means that a substance can produce the harmful effect associated with its toxic properties only if it reaches a high enough concentration/dose.
    In other words he should have problems justifying the safety of 10 000 vaccines.

    Maybe that is one reason why he has not responded to the polite request? (!)

  • Shawn_Siegel

    Wonderful article. The proposition that any medical doctor would even suggest the possibility of thousands of simultaneous vaccinations, let alone the one who stands at the helm of the Good Allopathic Ship Publicity, boggles the mind.

  • http://www.facebook.com/robin.federspiel Robin Federspiel

    That must be the reason the vaccine court has shelled out so much money for vaccine injuries…….

  • VaccineRisks

    Both Paul Offit and David Salisbury know fully well that the whole issue of 10 000 vaccines is simply a strategy to lull parents into believing that co-admin of many vaccines is safe. Offit is paving the way to facilitate introduction of more vaccines into the schedule.

  • DebbyBruck

    Irresponsible and irrational statements cannot be believed no matter how many times they are repeated. The fact that they have be printed and found as literature along with verified toxic substances contradicts scientific fact. Sarcastic statements reflect the demeanor and serious intent when responding to public and individual concerns about such an important health matter. I only hope the public understand that sweeping broad generalized statements cannot be taken seriously and must be questioned.

    • http://www.facebook.com/slim6y Paul Davis

      But shouldn’t the same be said about irresponsible behaviour and irrational statements on BOTH sides of the fence? Especially when context is removed from a situation – it appears the only people who can appeal to the situation were the ones firstly listening in! Of course though, Debby, your last statement should be met with another significant ‘sigh’. Because of course, an anti-vaxer will always use generalised statements, taken out of context, from cherry picked examples and should also not be taken seriously… Surely? What’s good for the goose and all that?

      • DebbyBruck

        My comments referred specifically to a sarcastic reply, as notes above, from a governmental representative in response to a concerned constituent. Exaggeration and an inability to take seriously facts about cancer-causing agents injected into vulnerable developing children who do not have mature immune systems, does not refer to “water is toxic in large quantities.” If anyone thinks that 10,000 vaccines can authentically be an acceptable amount of toxic agents without causing serious harm and repercussions, then the medical institutions are, “in my humble opinion,” in big trouble.

        • http://www.facebook.com/slim6y Paul Davis

          But surely the significant amount of study on the ingredients within vaccines is enough to effectively prove they’re not cancer causing. Or do you have the SAME type of evidence (that fits a significant scientific study) that shows that vaccines do cause cancer? I’d say the only time that the medical profession would be in ‘big trouble’ is if they unethically tests Offit’s claim – otherwise, I’d say that there’s not a shred of evidence to suggest he’s wrong – surely?

          • DebbyBruck

            Dear Sir. Here is a sampling of just one element in the mix of vaccines that definitely cause neurological damage to the brain, leading to chronic disease over time: check out aluminum. Each vaccine is a concoction of unhealthy ingredients, none, to my knowledge have been proven safe in any studies. http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2011/09/21/could-this-be-the-most-dangerous-aspect-of-vaccines.aspx

          • / Heidi Stevenson

            We all know that mercury is toxic. Mercury is in the flu vaccines – .25 micrograms. Multiply by 10,000 and you get 25 grams of mercury. And you’re trying to suggest that there’s no problem with Offit’s idiotic claim? The suggestion that more evidence than that is required is absurd.

            You’re a shill – and a bad one, at that. Shills are not welcome here.

  • VaccineRisks

    A Facebook group for toxicologists, pharmacologists and neuroscientists have been asked to comment here. There has been no response. https://www.facebook.com/groups/333274284705/10150692147674706/#!/pages/Pharmacology-Toxicology-and-Neuroscience/116628791708639?fref=ts

Search Gaia Health
newsletter software