INFANTS AT RISK: WHO'S BANGLADESH HIB VACCINE STUDY FLAWED.

[Guest guest]

 

13 July 2007

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Research on Hib vaccine 'dubious'

 

 

 

 

Author: Jacob M Puliyel, M.D.

(Senior Member, Indian Medical Association,

Vice Chairman, IMA Sub Committee on Immunisation)Affiliation:

Head of Paediatrics

St Stephens Hospital

Delhi, India 10 July 2007

 

I was quoted in the Hib vaccine news story from 4 July (see Hib vaccine could save thousands in Asia), but perhaps due to constraints of column space, I feel justice was not done to what I said.

 

My main argument against the research findings from Bangladesh is not that it does not make economic sense, but that the study is seriously flawed. The visible enthusiasm of the sponsors of the study must not be allowed to cloud scientific objectivity.

 

In the study, cases of pneumonia were compared with a control group without pneumonia.

 

Because more children in the control group received the Hib vaccine, the researchers considered the vaccine to prevent pneumonia.

 

But closer reading of the paper suggests that the Hib vaccination status in the control children was only coincidental.

 

The control children were significantly richer, lived in better houses and their mothers were better educated. With their greater affluence, more children in the control group probably wore branded T-shirts, but we would not expect Nike or Reebok to suggest that wearing their apparel is protective against pneumonia.

 

Where starvation and cholera kill thousands of children each year, international agencies such as the GAVI Alliance, USAID and the WHO are busy spending millions on dubious research to emphasise the harm from a disease that local doctors hardly ever come across. All this so that vaccine manufacturers can fill their coffers. This situation can only be described as scandalous.

 

It is unfortunate that five resource poor countries ¯ Afghanistan, Bangladesh, Bhutan, Pakistan and Sri Lanka ¯ have been persuaded to undertake the expensive intervention on the basis of flawed research. Lois Privor-Dumm says in your report that Bangladesh is eligible for funding for the Hib vaccine from the GAVI Alliance, so they will only have to pay 20 US cents per dose instead of US$5.60 per dose. He failed to mention that there is no long-term assurance of continued GAVI funding, or that funding will be withdrawn soon after universal vaccination becomes government policy.http://www.scidev.net/EditorLetters/index.cfm?fuseaction=readeditorletter & itemid=119 & language=1

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

What if a “dirty bomb” exploded over a large segment of U.S.population that simultaneously exposed citizens to Hepatitis B,Hepatitis A, tetanus, pertussis, diphtheria, three strains of polioviruses, three strains of influenza, measles, mumps, and rubella viruses, two types of meningitis, four strains of herpes viruses, the chickenpox virus, 7 strains of Streptococcus bacteria, and four strains of rotavirus.

• We would declare a national emergency.• It would be an “extreme act of BIOTERRORISM• The public outcry would be immense and our government would react accordingly.

 

Andyet, those are the very organisms we inject into our babies and our small children in multiple doses, with immature, underdeveloped immune systems, many at the same time with vaccines.

 

 

But instead of bioterrorism, we call it “protection.” Reflect on that irony.- Dr Sheri Tenpenny, MD

 

Take the Internet to Go: Go puts the Internet in your pocket: mail, news, photos more.