• It has come to our attention that some users may have been "banned" when they tried to change their passwords after the site was hacked due to a glitch in the old vBulletin software. This would have occurred around the end of February and does not apply after the site was converted to Xenforo. If you believe you were affected by this, please contact a staff member or use the Contact us link at the bottom of any forum page.

GSK reports 6- in-1 Vaccine can cause Autism and Death


Destiny's Soldier

Well-known member
Joined
Jul 6, 2007
Messages
2,365


A devastasting report from The European Citizen's Initiative, (Initiative Citoyenne) details of the potential horrors of GSK's Infanrix 6-in-1 Vaccine. An internal GSK document marked Confidential usually reserved for regulatory bodies only, the 1,271 page document details the adverse effects associated with the vaccine over a 2 year period.

Infanrix is used in Ireland by the HSE for Infants with repeated doses at 2, 4 and 6 months. It is intended to protect newborns and infants from six different illnesses: Diphtheria, Tetanus, Whooping Cough, Polio, Haemophilius Influenza B (HIB) and Hepatitis B.

The GSK document in question details the adverse effects of this vaccine, reported back to the manufacturer from various European countries between the 23rd of October 2009 and the 22nd of October 2011.

GSK received 1,742 reports of adverse effects, of which 503 were serious effects not listed and 56 were serious adverse effects listed.The events registered included 36 deaths (over the two-years period), most of which occurred within three days after the child received the Infanrix Hexa vaccine.

Adverse events include autism, encephalitis, heart failure, gaze palsy (indicative of neurological damage), gastrointestinal hemorrhage, jaundice, mental retardation (classed as not serious!), removal of part of the intestine (also defined as not serious!), opisthotonos (yet again labeled as not serious!), paralysis. Guillain Barré syndrome, convulsions, and many others.

Of course, not all the reported events were actually caused by Infanrix. GSK reported that the number of reported adverse events was only 14.6 per 100,000 doses distributed (not per 100,000 administered). However, as reported by Initiative Citoyenne, the doctors’ publication, Revue française du Practicien, reports that this figure is likely only 1-10% of the reality.

So you think the above figures are not correct?

See links here:

http://ddata.over-blog.com/xxxyyy/3/27/09/71/2012-2013/Initiative-Citoyenne-Press-Release-Infanrix-Hexa-6--12--12.pdf

http://ddata.over-blog.com/3/27/09/71/2012-2013/confid.pdf

Homepage - European Citizens' Initiative - European Commission

So what will the HSE do about this data? Probably ignore it and watch infants suffer irreversible damage or even pay with their lives more likely.

The BMJ Medical Journal Re: Belief not science is behind flu jab promotion, new report says | BMJ reports that:

"At the end of the document, we can see that several comments (of physicians but also of national regulatory agencies like Italian one) establish a possible or likely link between the death and the vaccine. We noticed a very abnormal temporal distribution of the deaths, with a clear concentration of the fatal outcomes in the first days (or hours) after vaccination, most often delivered with concomitant others, like Prevenar/Synflorix or Roratix/Rotateq

This kind of document shows clearly the urgent need of real comparative studies with real placebos. We must dare comparing what it is comparable: vaccinated with completely unvaccinated children, because it is the only method that is really a scientific one! We cannot accept any longer inconsistent pretexts claiming that it is impossible because it would be "unethical". What is the most unethical of all is carry on exposing various generations to insufficiently assessed (=experimental) products!!"

This is where is all gets worse with the use of other vaccines in combination with Infanrix:

http://ddata.over-blog.com/3/27/09/71/2012-2013/Initiative-Citoyenne-Press-Release-about-Prevenar-13.pdf

"On the 4th of January 2013, at the end of the required 6-week period, two Pfizer group Regulatory Affairs Directors, Mary Allin and Helen Edwards, sent a response to Dr. S. Spinosa of the European Medicine Agency on the topic of “higher number of neurologic events reported in Italy following the co-administration of Prevenar 13 and Infanrix hexavalent vaccines”.

What will be done about this?

Nothing absolutely nothing. Line up and take your shot.

 

slippy wicket

Well-known member
Joined
Mar 10, 2010
Messages
4,560
Enough with the scaremongering Wakefieldite BS. :mad:
 

Samell

Well-known member
Joined
Jun 6, 2010
Messages
1,103
GSK another vaccine with problems? Narcolepsy with the bird flu, now this, are they actually a safe company or just out to make money for the share holders?
 

Dan_Murphy

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 22, 2010
Messages
3,811
[video=youtube;b0IvM8c-Pew]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b0IvM8c-Pew[/video]
 

seabhcan

Well-known member
Joined
Sep 3, 2007
Messages
14,327
So 1700 adverse conditions recorded within 3 days of getting the vaccine, with a rate of 14.6 per 100,000.

That means they vaccinated 12 million kids and 1700 had some adverse effect within 3 days.

Of the 12 million, 36 died within 3 days.

Now... if you took any group of 12 million kids, how many would you expect to have died, statistically, in any 3 day period? All these kids are under 1 year old, right.

From wikipedia, the mortality rate for under 1 year olds is 1/1000 in western countries.

So for 12 million under 1's, 12,000 will die in their first year (assuming all 12 million are in the west). Thats 32 per day. For any 3 day period, 100 of the 12 million kids will die.

However, most under 1's that die, will die soon after birth, so it skews the stats. The first vaccine dose is given at 3 months. So the real stats we need are the death rate of 3month-12month age group.

I don't know what that is. But it is certainly in the region of the numbers reported in the OP's study.

For any group of 12 million under 1 year olds you would expect to see 36 or more die with 3 days of any particular event - its unlikely the vaccine had any impact - and it may actually reduce the death rate vs. non vaccinated kids.
 
Last edited:

Clanrickard

Well-known member
Joined
Apr 25, 2008
Messages
33,054
Zoo.
 

CHUCK FAGAN

Active member
Joined
Feb 24, 2011
Messages
172
I lost complete interest in this when the two American Magicians spoke..............
 

Clanrickard

Well-known member
Joined
Apr 25, 2008
Messages
33,054
Dysentery's Soldier with yet another conspiracy nut thread. Must be cold up in that bunker in the mountain's.
 

Destiny's Soldier

Well-known member
Joined
Jul 6, 2007
Messages
2,365
This thread is about GSK's Infanrix 6 in 1 not GSK's Pandemrix.

The HSE Swine Flu Delusion and the Narcrolepsy Thread is about Pandemrix. Are you incapable of understanding that this is a new story not a story about the Flu Vaccine?

Can you deal with GSK's own report rather than be a prisoner to your own bias?

GSK's own report cites Autism for example. Now that's a sensitive one for everybody.
 

seabhcan

Well-known member
Joined
Sep 3, 2007
Messages
14,327
This thread is about GSK's Infanrix 6 in 1 not GSK's Pandemrix.

The HSE Swine Flu Delusion and the Narcrolepsy Thread is about Pandemrix. Are you incapable of understanding that this is a new story not a story about the Flu Vaccine?

Can you deal with GSK's own report rather than be a prisoner to your own bias?

GSK's own report cites Autism for example. Now that's a sensitive one for everybody.
I think I dealt with it. Correlation does not imply causation.

 

Destiny's Soldier

Well-known member
Joined
Jul 6, 2007
Messages
2,365
So 1700 adverse conditions recorded within 3 days of getting the vaccine, with a rate of 14.6 per 100,000.
You're missing something. 100,000 distributed is not 100,000 administered. What's the bet you go down to your local GP and ask does he/she have a 6-in-1 vaccine or a box of them sitting on the shelf in the surgery? Highly likely is my guess.

14.6 per 100,000 distributed could be 14.6 per 30,000 administered. Then you have the French report stating that 14.6 of adverse events represents between 1 - 10% of the real figure. So 14.6 could be 146 or 1460 per 30,000 administered rather than 100,000 distributed.

It doesn't matter what you say, GSK's 1,271 page report collating all the data from EU countries says 36 deaths in 2 years. But the real figure could be 360 or 3600.

Of course I'm the problem not the vaccine.
 

seabhcan

Well-known member
Joined
Sep 3, 2007
Messages
14,327
You're missing something. 100,000 distributed is not 100,000 administered. What's the bet you go down to your local GP and ask does he/she have a 6-in-1 vaccine or a box of them sitting on the shelf in the surgery? Highly likely is my guess.

14.6 per 100,000 distributed could be 14.6 per 30,000 administered. Then you have the French report stating that 14.6 of adverse events represents between 1 - 10% of the real figure. So 14.6 could be 146 or 1460 per 30,000 administered rather than 100,000 distributed.

It doesn't matter what you say, GSK's 1,271 page report collating all the data from EU countries says 36 deaths in 2 years. But the real figure could be 360 or 3600.

Of course I'm the problem not the vaccine.
Sounds like you are accepting that 14.6/100,000 is not a problem and completely to be expected, but now claiming the real number is higher. Do you have evidence that the distribution rate is 2-4 times higher than the administered rate? Are you really claiming that 60% of vaccines bought by doctors are never used?

In any case, as the death rate recorded is only 1/3rd of the expected natural mortality rate (as I point out earlier), then even if the administered rate is 30%, then the mortality rate is still normal and not a concern. We would have to accept that 80%-90% of vaccines are never used for the mortality rate to be significantly higher than the normal background rate.
 

soubresauts

Well-known member
Joined
Jun 2, 2007
Messages
3,107
This article is informative, and has useful links. There are so many reasons to avoid that vaccine...

Then again, there are so many reasons to avoid every vaccine!
 

owedtojoy

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 27, 2010
Messages
45,584
This article is informative, and has useful links. There are so many reasons to avoid that vaccine...

Then again, there are so many reasons to avoid every vaccine!
But there are even more reasons to make sure every child is well protected against illness.

It would be excellent if there was 0 risk, but there isn't. If that can be kept small, then the risk on NOT getting vaccinations is unacceptable.
 

soubresauts

Well-known member
Joined
Jun 2, 2007
Messages
3,107
But there are even more reasons to make sure every child is well protected against illness.

It would be excellent if there was 0 risk, but there isn't. If that can be kept small, then the risk on NOT getting vaccinations is unacceptable.
Well protected? But vaccination only provides partial or temporary immunity, whereas contracting the disease confers full immunity, as all of us of my generation (and older) got when we contracted measles, mumps, rubella, chickenpox and whooping cough, as was normal back in the 1960s when there was no alarm about those diseases, and they were not "killer" diseases then. Check the statistics: the death rate was negligible.

Back in the 1960s we did get the polio and BCG (for TB) vaccinations, but they are useless. We got no other vaccinations. Almost no public money was spent on vaccination then. Now billions are spent every year -- to whose advantage?

The risk of vaccination is significantly greater than most people think. Vaccines are not safe, and are not effective.
 

Clanrickard

Well-known member
Joined
Apr 25, 2008
Messages
33,054
Why is this crap not in the Zoo. Giving these nutjobs a platform to spout their conspiracy nut theories confers an undeserving legitimacy on them.
 
Top