HepB Vaccination:A Job Half Done

Or why the Emperor is still fully clothed

Were you one of the several thousand who sat through the tedium of the recent ACIP meeting. Yes there were one or two moments of high jinx and furrowed brows during the various discussion periods but in the main it was sleep inducing and significantly lacking in the science required to enable ACIP members to make informed decisions. As it happens ACIP made the correct decision in removing the recommendation that babies should receive a HepB vaccination within 12-24 hours of birth.

But did voting members have the science that enabled the majority decision. Several members, and one in particular, thought not and chose to vote against the decision. In truth it is hard to disagree with their position. What science was presented to demonstrate that vaccinating at, for example 3 months, is safer than vaccinating at birth. One ACIP member repeatedly asked this question. I do not recall any adequate answer beyond something along the lines that well other developed countries don’t vaccinate at birth.

So why was it the right decision and what science should have been presented to support the decision.

Allow me to answer this by going back a little in the timeline of the build up to the December ACIP meeting.

A number of weeks prior to the ACIP meeting I was asked by Health and Human Services (HHS) to prepare a talk on aluminium adjuvants for presentation at the December ACIP meeting. I recommended to HHS that several other highly qualified individuals be asked to join me to form a working group to prepare the talk. The group was formed and a thorough review of the safety of aluminium adjuvants used in vaccination was prepared and submitted to HHS for final review before the scheduled ACIP meeting.

Imagine our surprise and indeed annoyance when just one week before the meeting we received an email from the ACIP Secretary, not HHS, telling us that our presentation at the December ACIP meeting had been cancelled. No explanation was offered at that time. Indeed we learned just prior to the meeting that an ACIP member would give a brief presentation on aluminium adjuvants at the end of the meeting, if there was time. This AI-generated brief talk did take place though you may have missed it as the viewing numbers had fallen to just a few hundred by this time.

So, going back to why ACIP members inadvertently made the right decision. At no point during the dicussion on HepB vaccination was the true real danger of these vaccines mentioned. It was not mentioned to any significant extent that both of the licensed HepB only vaccines include an aluminium adjuvant. If we had been allowed to make our presentation then the dissenting voices on ACIP rightly looking for the science would have been told that when a newborn receives a HepB vaccination they are also receiving an acute exposure to aluminium. The ACIP members would have been shown how aluminium adjuvant is taken up by immune-reactive cells and carried throughout the newborn’s body. The ACIP members would have been shown images of identical cells loaded with aluminium crossing into the brain of an autistic child. The ACIP members would then have to ask themselves the question is this an acceptable outcome of HepB vaccination at birth. If nothing else they could no longer complain that they had not been shown some significant and highly relevant science.

I concluded that the decision not to vaccinate against HepB at birth was correct. Neonates are especially vulnerable to intoxication by aluminium as I have written about in this substack on a number of occasions. Not injecting them with aluminium at birth will undoubtedly save the lives of some infants and may also reduce the number of infants that develop profound autism over subsequent weeks, months and years. However, it is only delaying infant intoxication by aluminium and is a half measure at best. If I had been allowed to present to ACIP I would have asked for an immediate moratorium on the use of vaccines that include an aluminium adjuvant. This is what scared ACIP into cancelling our presentation. When faced with overwhelming science demonstrating the toxicity of aluminium adjuvants they lost their nerve and shied away from telling the truth.

I wonder, one final point. Did anyone who listened through the two days of the meeting remember hearing the word autism, even once?