Hepatitis B  Lies  Anaphylaxis  Institute of Medicine (IOM)

Part 2 of 3. Unanswered Questions about the Hepatitis B Vaccine

by Hilary Butler


Managing Editor's Note: Thank you to Hilary Butler of the Beyond Conformity blog for allowing us to share this post with you. Please mark Beyond Conformity in your favorites.

The presentation to the American Institute of medicine (IOM) about the Hepatitis B programme in New Zealand was a full folder, which included Professor Ralph Edward's findings of the catch-up campaign, and further documentation of the events relating to the memos which preceded the removal of Hepatitis B from the "at birth" schedule in New Zealand. There was clear, unequivocal evidence of anaphylaxis of many degrees, resulting from the Hepatitis B vaccine. Dr Morris went with the folder, to give an oral submission.

The findings of this group, were then published in a book in 1994. A copy duly dropped out the sky onto my desk with a thunk, and a personally signed letter Dr Katherine Stratton about how wonderful the book was. She said amongst other drivel:

"The Vaccine Safety Committee worked hard to produce a report that is both scientifically sound and readable"

Imagine my surprise, on reading the Hepatitis B chapter, to find this statement on page 229: "Anaphylaxis was not observed in the 166,757 children vaccinated with a plasma-derived vaccine in New Zealand (Morris and Butler, 1992)"...

Dr Morris was similarly unimpressed and a letter was sent to Dr Stratton, and the other editors who were on the committee. No-one answered it. I faxed it to her office, receiving confirmation of receipt, and that wasn't answered either.

In September of 1996, furious that various "experts" were using published lies, with our names appended, as evidence of the Hepatitis B vaccine's purity, safety and lack of reactions,  a stream of correspondence ensued, with only ONE forced reply from Dr Stratton. Notably, not one other person on the committee, who were all written to, replied.

What all of this correspondence proved to me was that the Institute of Medicine cannot be trusted at all. Period.

Given that a folder full of information was given to them with chapter, verse and every "I" dotted, and "T" crossed, for the committee to have erased everything, is unacceptable. If there was nothing to report, I wouldn't have bothered writing a thing.

Dr Stratton's excuse is pathetic. She said:

"I assume that the cases were not counted as positive indications of vaccine-caused anaphylaxis because the material presented was not specific enough to meet the criteria for anaphylaxis as laid out in the report. The report is final and there is no action that can be taken to address your recent fax.

I remind you that despite the fact that the committee did not find that your summary material represented data complete enough to support causality, the committee did indeed find for the strongest level (establishes) of causality between Hepatitis B vacine and anaphylaxis based on other data."

Talk about insulting. Hello? We looked at the terms of reference - the reports were not only detailed, but came with a 97 page written by the Otago Medical School's Centre for Adverse Reaction's report to the Government.

Our material, far from being a summary, was a full folder, with back up documentation. Which terms of reference allow an American "committee" to decide that the Centre for Adverse Reactions (CARM) doctors wouldn't know anaphylaxis from a sneeze? It's rare enough to drag the Centre for Adverse Reactions into the real world and admit anything, so you can guarantee that anything in a report to the government is just the tip of the iceberg. Dr Ralph Edwards was then head of CARM, and a more honest man you couldn't have found, ... the like of which are hen's teeth today.

Dr Stratton just didn't get it. The POINT was, that none of the 1996 submissions to the Senate said that the Hepatitis B vaccine had the strongest level of established causality for anaphylaxis, using other data....

ALL of the 1996 submission were quoting me as saying "there was no Anaphylaxis", when the very reason, the Hepatitis B vaccine was removed from the New Zealand at-birth schedule, was because of anaphylaxis, and anaphylactoid reactions.

This is the first take-home message:

1) The IOM 1996 book essentially quotes me as saying "no problems". I didn't need to spend months, and fill a folder to say, "No problems".

If I know that the Institute of medicine lied about the raft of materials which right now, sit on my desk - the guts of which is in the correspondence.

WHY would I now believe everything else said by the IOM, in either THAT book, or any other IOM book on vaccine safety?

I KNOW, and resent that the committee's lies have been perpetuated into the American senate written history, with my name appended into them.

How many other battles have been had by OTHER people, similarly misrepresented - not just in the 1994 book, but all the others the same committee has authored, and later in the American senate? I can't have been the only one, surely?

Here is the second take-home message.

2) The New Zealand Ministry of Health, and the Otago Medical School Centre for Adverse Reactions Monitoring, never even bothered to send a submission, or turn up to describe their extensive report on the 1987 Hepatitis B vaccine. Only one other New Zealand GP sent a submission, and that submission was ignored.

Which is about as useful as saying that Morris and Butler said, "No problems".

How much of a fluke is it, that one NZ submission was tossed out, and the other one might as well have been?

To me, that exemplifies the modus operandi of all the vaccine defenders.

That's how much everyone in this country as well, really cares about the past, present and future health of New Zealand children, or anyone else who is told that a vaccine is "Just a Little Prick".