New Vaccine is Approved by the FDA Despite Leaving 6 Infants Dead During US Studies
By TLB Contributing Writer & Author, Christina England BA, Hons
According to recent reports, two of the world’s leading vaccine manufacturers, Sanofi Pasteur and Merck, have joined forces to produce the new wonder vaccine, Vaxelis. Their vaccine is being advertised as a hexavalent vaccination, or a 6-in-1 vaccine, aimed at protecting children aged six weeks to four years of age against diphtheria, tetanus, pertussis, poliomyelitis, hepatitis B and invasive disease due to haemophilus influenzae type B.
In a recent press release, Sanofi stated that:
“Sanofi and MSD ((NYSE: MRK), known as Merck inside the United States and Canada.) are working to maximize production of VAXELIS to allow for a sustainable supply to meet anticipated U.S. demand. Commercial supply will not be available in the U.S. prior to 2020.”
They stated that:
“VAXELIS is contraindicated in children with a history of severe allergic reaction (e.g., anaphylaxis) to a previous dose of VAXELIS, any ingredient of VAXELIS, or any other diphtheria toxoid, tetanus toxoid, pertussis-containing vaccine, inactivated poliovirus vaccine, hepatitis B vaccine, or H. influenzae type b vaccine.”
Sanofi gave professionals the following advice:
“Do not administer VAXELIS to anyone with a history of encephalopathy (e.g., coma, decreased level of consciousness, prolonged seizures), within 7 days of a pertussis-containing vaccine, that is not attributable to another identifiable cause.
Do not administer VAXELIS to anyone with a history of progressive neurologic disorder until a treatment regimen has been established and the condition has stabilized.
Vaccination with VAXELIS may not protect all individuals.”
This advice is all very good, but how do parents know whether or not their child has had an allergic reaction to any of these ingredients, particularly when the pharmaceutical industry and the medical profession very rarely admit that a vaccine is the cause of their child’s injury?
This vaccination is recommended for children as young as six weeks of age. Consequently, this vaccination could be the first vaccination that a child has received and, therefore, how could anyone know whether or not the child is allergic to any of the ingredients?
Whilst we believe that it was noble of Sanofi to admit this information in their press release, we believe that the next few lines of their press release are extremely worrying. Sanofi stated that:
“Apnea following intramuscular vaccination has been observed in some infants born prematurely. The decision about when to administer an intramuscular vaccine, including VAXELIS, to an infant born prematurely should be based on considerations of the individual infant’s medical status and the potential benefits and possible risks of vaccination.”
For those of you who are unaware, the definition of apnea is a ‘temporary cessation of breathing.’ In other words, Sanofi admit that this vaccination can be life-threatening, especially in premature babies.
Interestingly, whilst Sanofi appeared to be extremely open and honest throughout their press release, they failed to mention what we believe to be an extremely important fact. According to the vaccine product information leaflet, six babies who participated in the two US studies died after receiving the vaccination.
As death following a vaccination is rarely ever acknowledged to be associated with the vaccine itself, we believe that their last sentence stating that ‘across all six clinical studies, there were no deaths assessed as related to Vaxelis’ is irrelevant.
The manufacturer did not offer any evidence to support that the vaccine did not cause the death of these children.
Furthermore, the only fact that we could find was the fact that all of the babies who died, died within days of receiving this vaccination.
Whilst Sanofi denied that Vaxelis could be responsible for the death of these babies, others are less convinced that vaccinations cannot lead to the death of an infant.
A Mother is Convinced that Vaccinations Led to the Death of Her Newborn Baby
Research supports the fact that a growing number of parents and professionals around the world are beginning to acknowledge that vaccinations can lead to death of some children.
The above video is just one example of a growing number of parents who remain convinced that vaccinations led to the death of their babies.
However, it is not just the parents who are connecting the dots. In fact, a growing number of professionals have been connecting the dots for many years.
In 1985-1986, Cotwatch, a pioneering true breathing monitor was developed by Dr. Viera Scheibner and her late husband, Leif Karlsson, a Swedish electronics engineer specializing in patient monitoring systems. In a more detailed rewrite of her original paper published in 2004 by the Journal of the Australasian College of Nutritional & Environmental Medicine, she wrote:
“Cotwatch was a true breathing monitor, meaning its electronics separated heartbeat and breathing and only breathing delayed the alarm. The feedback on breathing from the standard home monitor were alarms, while the microprocessor-based unit provided computer printouts of the record of breathing in the form of histograms stacked-up at an angle or vertical bars) the length of which directly reflected the stress level as integrals of the weighted apnoea-hypopnoea density (WAHD).”
Dr. Scheibner explained that this important feature was the difference between life and death, and that during a stress response, the breathing stops first, while the heart is still beating. She explained that it is important to be alerted by an alarm, before the heart stops, in order to resuscitate the baby.
When Scheibner and Karlsson studied the histograms (printed data), they noticed that whenever the infants received a vaccination, the charts showed clusters of stress-induced breathing patterns, proving conclusively that the vaccines had caused the infants to suffer breathing problems.
Scheibner wrote:
“When babies were only given 4 vaccines at one session (DPT and OPV) they developed the so-called minimal pathology: petechial (spot-like) bleeding into the thymus, pericardium, lungs and other organs) and their deaths were classified as SIDS (Sudden Infant Death Syndrome, should read: Sudden Immunisation Death Syndrome). Such pathology was considered insufficient to cause death even though it was obviously sufficient, considering that tens of thousands of babies have died this way.”
Interestingly, the results of the data collection of the babies’ breathing was presented to the 2nd National Immunization Conference in Canberra May 27-29, 1991 [It was a pro-vaccine conference.]
Her paper is well worth reading, as we believe that it proves categorically that vaccines can and do cause babies to die.
Another professional who is convinced that vaccines can cause infants to die suddenly is Neil Z. Miller. In a paper titled Infant mortality rates regressed against number of vaccine doses routinely given: Is there a biochemical or synergistic toxicity? using charts and diagrams, Miller and his co-author Gary S. Goldman demonstrated that the countries that required children to receive the highest number of vaccines also had the highest number of infant deaths. He wrote:
“The infant mortality rate (IMR) is one of the most important indicators of the socio-economic well-being and public health conditions of a country. The US childhood immunization schedule specifies 26 vaccine doses for infants aged less than 1 year—the most in the world—yet 33 nations have lower IMRs.”
After studying in detail infant mortality against the number of vaccines recommended in 34 countries, he concluded that:
“The US childhood immunization schedule requires 26 vaccine doses for infants aged less than 1 year, the most in the world, yet 33 nations have better IMRs. Using linear regression, the immunization schedules of these 34 nations were examined and a correlation coefficient of 0.70 (p < 0.0001) was found between IMRs and the number of vaccine doses routinely given to infants. When nations were grouped into five different vaccine dose ranges (12–14, 15–17, 18–20, 21–23, and 24–26), 98.3% of the total variance in IMR was explained by the unweighted linear regression model. These findings demonstrate a counter-intuitive relationship: nations that require more vaccine doses tend to have higher infant mortality rates.”
Taking Miller’s figures into account, we believe that vaccinating a six-week-old infant with a 6-in-1 vaccination that has already led to the possible deaths of six infants during clinical trials is asking for trouble.
We will leave you with the photo of a billboard that was recently erected in Missouri, after a former MMA fighter’s son died after he received the DTaP vaccination.
••••
About the Author: Christina England was born and educated in London, U.K. She received an A Level in Psychology and a BTEC in Learning Disabilities. She has spent many years researching vaccines and adverse reactions. She has an HND in journalism and media and is currently writing for the American Chronicle, Green Med Info, The Liberty Beacon, the Weekly Blitz and Vaccination Truth on immunization safety and efficacy. Christina England has been a journalist since 2008. Her main areas of expertise are researching false accusations of child abuse and adverse reactions to vaccines. She has co-authored two books – Shaken Baby Syndrome or Vaccine Induced Encephalitis – Are Parents Being Falsely Accused? with Dr. Harold Buttram and Vaccination Policy and the UK Government: The Untold Truth with Lucija Tomljenovic PhD, which are sold on Amazon.
Christina’s websites are Profitable Harm and Parents and Carers Against Medical Injustice
••••
Additional related articles by Christina (click on images or links)
Studies Prove Vaccinated Children at Greater Risk of Serious Illness & Neurological Disorders
Professionals Worldwide Blame Aluminum Adjuvants for the Rise in Neurological Conditions in Children
••••
Disclaimer: This article is not intended to provide medical advice, diagnosis or treatment.
••••
The Liberty Beacon Project is now expanding at a near exponential rate, and for this we are grateful and excited! But we must also be practical. For 7 years we have not asked for any donations, and have built this project with our own funds as we grew. We are now experiencing ever increasing growing pains due to the large number of websites and projects we represent. So we have just installed donation buttons on our websites and ask that you consider this when you visit them. Nothing is too small. We thank you for all your support and your considerations … TLB
••••
Click on the image below to visit TLB Project on twitter …
