How Anti-Vaxxers Caused the Mexican "Vaccine Deaths"


In May of 2015, two babies died and thirty-one were sickened after receiving vaccines for tuberculosis, hepatitis B, and rotavirus in the tiny Mexican village of La Pimienta. Four remain in serious condition. Tragedies like these are unnerving and devastating. The three viruses were spreading through impoverished rural villages like wildfire, and of course parents were willing to do anything and everything to prevent their children from being victims. How horrible, to think that something that was supposed to save lives ended up claiming them.

The most chilling reality of this situation is that the people who were most vocally upset by these deaths-- wealthy anti-vaccine activists in the United States, where deaths from tuberculosis and rotavirus are rare-- are actually the exact same people who were responsible for their deaths to begin with.

On May 12, Mexican authorities revealed that the babies sickened by the vaccine trio suffered from bacterial infections caused by contamination. Bacteria present in the multi-dose vials caused localized infections that, in some cases, led to sepsis and death. Although Mexico hasn't revealed the exact nature of the contaminants, or whether they were present during manufacturing or seeped into the vials later, the fact remains: these babies would most likely still be alive and healthy if it weren't for the anti-vaccine movement.

You see, science and history had already warned us that this is a risk of vaccination. Just as foods can get contaminated, so can vaccines. In the U.S. alone, 48 million are sickened, 128,000 are hospitalized, and 3,000 die every single year from contaminated foods. And in 1928, a horrible tragedy occurred when a group of youngsters were immunized for diphtheria, a disease with a 1 in 5 death rate for kids in the dark world before vaccines. Forty-two received shots from one vial, and of these unfortunate children, twelve died. Their cause of death was determined to be a staph infection acquired from the contaminated vaccine.

But there was a solution. We didn't have to abandon these life-saving immunizations because of a contaminant. In 1968, the U.S. Code for Federal Regulations mandated that all vaccines in multi-dose vials contain preservatives to prevent the growth of mold and bacteria.

One specific compound seemed like the best option. Thimerosal, which had been introduced forty years prior, had a long-standing history of safe and effective use as a preservative. Unlike antibiotic preservatives, it was hypoallergic. It was also affordable and extremely effective, killing a massive variety of bacteria and fungi that might otherwise contaminate vaccines. Even better, it didn't weaken the effectiveness of the vaccines themselves, as many preservatives do. And it was safe. Animal tests and clinical trials showed that, in the amounts used in medicine, it was nontoxic: when injected into both humans and animals, the worst reaction recorded was localized swelling.

Thimerosal is about 50% mercury by weight, which, at first glance, might sound terrifying. But consider, also, that table salt is made of sodium combined with chlorine, which by itself would be acutely toxic. A compound can contain a poisonous element and yet, itself, be safe. When metabolized by the body, thimerosal turns into thiosaicylate (which is harmless, despite the scary-sounding name) and ethylmercury, which an organic mercury compound considered safe.

Ethylmercury is completely separate from, and far safer than, methylmercury, which is a neurotoxic compound with a similar-sounding name. Methylmercury, the "bad" kind of mercury, is found in things we're exposed to every day, including seafood and light bulbs, yet we survive this exposure with few ill effects. Its far safer counterpart, ethylmercury, can be consumed and injected in quantities much larger without any problems. In fact, science showed again and again that thimerosal-- and the compounds it breaks down into-- doesn't harm humans at any stage in development. Even fetuses, who can suffer brain damage from Mom eating too much tuna, can be exposed to thimerosal without any problem.

For decades, thimerosal saved lives. It allowed children to be given vaccines in multi-dose vials, making them affordable even to the poorest people in the poorest regions, without the risk of contamination. The human life expectancy in countries with high vaccination rates increased by nearly 50% in just a few short decades.

Then came Andrew Wakefield.



Wakefield was a doctor-- keyword here being "was," since he is no longer a licensed medical professional-- who was trying to patent three separate vaccines for measles, mumps, and rubella, which had historically been combined into one safe and effective vaccine. He published a sketchy study in 1998 suggesting that the combination of the three vaccines, when given at once, somehow triggered a chain reaction of bowel disease that led to developmental regression in the form of autism.

Wakefield's study was fraudulent. To date, there have been 107 studies involving millions upon millions of children, finding absolutely no link between the MMR vaccine and autism. But that didn't stop Wakefield's study from having an effect. Parents, panicked by mis-reporting in the media and an apparent autism epidemic, began refusing vaccines. Specifically, they refused vaccines that contained life-saving thimerosal preservatives, mistaking thimerosal for neurotoxic mercury compounds and incorrectly blaming it for autism.

Today, no routinely recommended vaccines for children under six years of age contain thimerosal, with the exception of the live flu vaccine. That did absolutely nothing to slow the tide of vaccine refusal or the increasing rates of diagnosed autism. Rates of autism increased after thimerosal was removed from vaccines... and so did rates of vaccine contamination.

Without thimerosal as a preservative, vaccines given in multi-dose vials run the risk of contamination. And, unfortunately, there is no cost-effective way to immunize children in poor, rural regions without using multi-dose vials. Yet, because of one doctor's elaborate case of fraud, and because of the panic of his anti-vaccine followers, it is no longer included in the vaccines that need it most. Children have died as a result.

The Mexican "vaccine deaths" have been the target of mass fury from the anti-vax crowd. Some conspiracy theorists have gone so far as to speculate that the inoculations were given as part of a "depopulation" effort to reduce the number of children living in Mexico. Others have claimed media cover-up (despite wide reporting by all facets of international media). Others have attacked vaccine activists such as myself, asking if we've changed our minds now that there's an obvious case of children dying from vaccines.

I haven't changed my mind. Vaccines save lives. And the blood of those children isn't on my hands. It's on theirs.

6 comments:

  1. Not to worry, neither Wakefield nor the anti's will accept ANY responsibility for this predictable tragedy. These people are clueless and completely insensitive to the consequences of their fear-mongering actions. Wakefield continues to play the victim and garner even more support. Note, I did NOT use Dr. in his name...he's a disgrace and fraud in my opinion.

    ReplyDelete
  2. This article is one of the most important to read by the CDC. This article is very important which proves they have given us horrible diseases through vaccinations The article reads, "In the past, biologic products have served as vectors for viral diseases. Examples include the contamination of yellow fever vaccine with hepatitis B virus in the 1940s (because a human-derived excipient contained hepatitis B virus), contamination of early polio and adenovirus vaccines with simian virus 40 (called SV40 cancer virus) in the late 1950s and early 1960s, contamination of blood products with hepatitis viruses and HIV, and contamination of dura mater grafts with the Creutzfeldt-Jakob disease agent. In these examples, either human or animal materials used in production usually caused the contamination." http://wwwnc.cdc.gov/eid/article/7/7/01-7735_article

    ReplyDelete
  3. This is from the FDA. PLEASE READ THIS!

    “Our laboratory is developing new approaches, using rodent models to investigate whether the use of tumorigenic cells or cells derived from human or animal tumors for vaccine production pose safety concerns to the recipients of the vaccines. We believe that the risk of using tumorigenic cells to make viral vaccines would increase either by the presence of disease-causing microorganisms (adventitious agents), or from the DNA of the cell. Therefore, we have begun to address each of these concerns. This work requires the development of sensitive animal and cell-culture based assays."
    However, the growth of some viruses requires the use of tumorigenic cells. Therefore, there is renewed interest in using these cells to develop new vaccines. Over the past several decades researchers have learned much about how cancer develops, and that allows FDA to reopen the question about the safety concerns and address them in a more mechanistic and data-driven manner.

    Scientific Overview
    The major concerns with the use of novel neoplastic cell substrates are the potential presence of adventitious agents and the unavoidable presence of residual cellular DNA in vaccines.

    Therefore, our laboratory is developing assays to evaluate the safety of novel cell substrates. We have divided this work among five projects: 1) assessing the in vivo oncogenicity of cell-substrate DNA; 2) developing in vitro assays to quantify the elimination of biological activity of DNA; 3) determining whether the tumorigenicity of a cell substrate affects the safety of vaccine manufactured in them; 4) developing methods to detect adventitious agents; and 5) developing methods to detect neutralizing antibodies to viruses.

    The variety of cell substrates used to manufacture licensed vaccines is limited to primary avian or monkey cells, diploid cells, and one continuous cell line, Vero. This repertoire is insufficient for the production of the next generation of vaccines.

    All of the mammalian cell substrates being evaluated are neoplastic, since they are immortal, and some are tumorigenic. The fear that components from the production-cell substrate could induce cancer in vaccine recipients was the main reason that tumorigenic cells were proscribed for vaccine manufacture for over 40 years. This proscription was partly due to the inability to identify the risk factors; yet even after they were identified, there was a lack of assays that could quantify the risk from these factors. Bottom line is we are being injected with cancer cells, because continuous and immortal cell lines are cancerous.

    http://www.fda.gov/BiologicsBloodVaccines/ScienceResearch/BiologicsResearchAreas/ucm127328.htm

    ReplyDelete
  4. @ Gail Fitches: You should study science before trying to interpret it and especially before trying to argue against it.

    This article stated that all of the mammalian cell substrates being evaluated are NEOPLASTIC, but you interpreted this as CANCEROUS per your closing statement (which you made look like it was part of the FDA article, tisk-tisk). See below for definition of a neoplasm. (Uterine fibroids and semi-common non-malignant moles are neoplasms.) So you are incorrect when you say that "we are being injected with cancer cells".

    A neoplasm can be benign, potentially malignant (pre-cancer), or malignant (cancer).[6]

    Benign tumors include uterine fibroids and melanocytic nevi (skin moles). They are circumscribed and localized and do not transform into cancer.[5]

    ReplyDelete
  5. Also, tumorigenic does not necessarily equal cancerous either. Tumorigenic means leading to the formation of a tumor; that tumor can be malignant or benign (by the way, benign means NOT cancerous). I think the term you want to see here but do not is CARCINOGENIC. Because we are not being injected with cancer cells.

    ReplyDelete
  6. And it's....science for the win! Thanks for trying, Gail but there's the door.

    ReplyDelete