The Scandalous LA County Measles Vaccine Experiment: Is the Unsuspecting Public Still Being Used in Secret Vaccine Trials? (2)
Read the first part of the article
Adverse Reactions Covered Up?
The only “known” associated adverse reaction in LA County to the experimental vaccine was the reported death of a 22 month-old boy who received the E-Z vaccine. The CDC concluded that the death of that child was not associated with the vaccine because the boy died of a bacterial infection. The bacteria involved were very unusual for a small child. It was “clostridium dificle enteritis” which usually is observed in the elderly and HIV-diagnosed patients but rarely in children.
The CDC’s chief investigator in the LA study, Dr. Stephen Hadler, had been involved in foreign trials of the E-Z high-titer vaccine. He was quoted in the LA Times article making the claim that the death of babies in the foreign trials was due to the condition that “many of the babies were malnourished and did not have access to adequate health care”.
The CDC and its partners, Kaiser Permanente and LA County Public Health Service did not plan on any long-term surveillance studies of the children. Once word got out and spread through the community that the vaccine was experimental, parents would not trust the CDC and report any adverse reactions.
Kaiser Permanente and the CDC sent out a letter to all the families in June 1996.
The contents of that letter and any information collected are not available.
Is the data collected from this letter sitting in the Vaccine Safety Data Link (established in 1990 by the United States Centers for Disease Control and Prevention to study the adverse effects of vaccines)? Attempts of asking for this information via phone calls to Kaiser Permanente have been met with a simple response of “No, the data is medical and is confidential.” Let’s just see about that!
In his 1996 book Outrage! author Keidi Awadu stated that he received multiple reports directly from the parents of children who suffered seizures, autoimmune disorders, and other medical conditions.
Who Authorized the U.S. Clinical Trial?
If the parents were given a consent form to sign prior to the vaccine being administered to their children, did it tell the parents that the vaccine was NOT specifically covered by the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program (VICP)?
Probably not. We need to find a copy of the consent form in order to know the exact answer...
The Secretary of Health & Human Services (HHS) would have to approve the use of any vaccine not currently licensed in the US.
You may remember the meningitis outbreak at Princeton University a few years ago. The meningococcal vaccine currently approved in the US was not the strain detected at Princeton. The Secretary of HHS had to approve the import of the specific vaccine from Europe.
But what about the CDC’s use of a non-licensed and experimental vaccine? Does the Secretary of the HHS need to approve of this measure?
If so, that means the Executive Branch of the US federal government signed off on this experiment. Have they been held accountable?
Louis W. Sullivan was appointed Secretary of HHS by President George H.W. Bush and he took control of the Department of HHS on March 1, 1989. The prior secretary, Otis R. Bowen, a Reagan appointee, resigned January 20, 1989.
The Department of HHS oversees three important vaccine-related agencies: the CDC, the FDA, and the NIH (National Institutes of Health).
Emails to HHS and HRSA (Health Resources and Services Administration) to ask if the Secretary of HHS had to approve the LA County study have been unanswered. Follow up phone calls have not been returned.
The Targeted African American Communities of Los Angeles – Why Were These Communities Chosen?
How were the three mainly African-American communities selected?
There were so many areas in LA County. The trial involved children in communities hardest hit by the disease, including East and West Los Angeles and Inglewood. The majority of the children were African-American and Latino.
These neighborhoods were recruited because “you have to study the area where the disease is occurring” as said Barbara Reynolds of the CDC.
Let’s examine that statement by the CDC. The study targeted areas within LA County with the greatest outbreak of measles. But it didn’t. The three areas selected were Inglewood, East LA, and West LA. Mr. Awadu discovered that the areas selected were NOT the hardest hit with measles. Far from it. Records obtained by Mr. Awadu from the Los Angeles County Department of Health in June 1996, the three areas selected ranked out of the 24 monitored areas at #4, #15, and #17. Several areas with greater outbreaks of measles were mixed minority areas of Asian and Hispanic people and whites.
The San Antonio community of LA County had the largest number of measles cases (300) in the county in 1990. It was considered the epicenter of the outbreak. San Antonio had three times the number of measles than West LA did!
So why did the CDC select three predominately African-American communities instead of just selecting the top three hardest hit areas? Could it be because the selected areas are heavily minority with very low social/economics, thus the CDC knew there would be very little pushback?
But there could be another reason. Those areas had a high prevalence of children with HIV.
We need to go back to the reason why the Los Angeles child died from a bacterial infection generally found with HIV-positive adults. Were there any other children in the study who tested positive for HIV?
This would be a potential scandal for the CDC if this was disclosed.
Remember, those who died in Senegal months later after vaccination were determined to have lowered immune systems. Could this be a contributing factor to why the medical community saw a small surge in the mid-90s in the number of hospitalizations of minority children in the Los Angeles area with complications of HIV?
Now tie in the disclosure from Haiti that it is very possible that the children selected for the E-Z measles program were HIV positive and the US officials knew this and tried to cover up the death of the Los Angeles child.
It does appear that medical researchers were very interested in studying the effects of the E-Z high-titers vaccine on children who were HIV positive. A study, Safety and Immunogenicity of High-Dose Edmonston-Zagreb Measles Vaccine in Children with HIV-1 Infection, was published in May 1992 with a conclusion: “High-dose E-Z vaccine administered at 6 months of age is safe and highly immunogenic in both HIV-infected and uninfected children.” (American Journal of Diseases of Children, 1992; 146:550-555). Yet the monitoring period after the vaccination is very suspect.
Where is the Post-Vaccination Monitoring Data?
Lauri Markowitz, an epidemiologist at the CDC planned to measure antibody levels and immune cell counts in Los Angeles County from the children in the study.
But where is that data? And why is it not available to the public?
What information is contained in the post-surveillance data reports? How many children were contacted and when? What types of illness or injuries were reported?
How long were the LA County children monitored after receiving the vaccine? Six months, one year, two years?
How are they now?
There is an effort now to identify as many participants in the clinical trial as possible.
Today they would be the ages of 27 and 28 years. A medical outcome screening should be conducted to determine the health status of these adults. Legal options should be examined to determine if there are any means for reparations for current and future medical needs. Statute of Limitations issues for the State of California will be very tricky to overcome.
This story and the interviews of the participants and their families would be fascinating.
If the Secretary of HHS approved this experimental vaccine program for use in the United States, a question needs to be asked to the Secretary: “Were the children and their parents informed and allowed to file petitions for compensation in the NVICP or Vaccine Court of any injuries or death as the result of the E-Z measles vaccination program?”
Several inquiries to the office of the Secretary of HHS Tom Price (at the time this article has been written) remained unanswered. No one will speak on this topic.
Here is something to remember about the use of an experimental vaccine in the US. Mr. Keidi Awadu writes in his book, Outrage!, the following about conforming all research studies to the “Common Rule” as adopted by the Department of HHS in 1974 and later revised and adopted by 16 U.S. government agencies in 1991: The Common Rule defines limits by which federally funded research involving human subjects in the U.S. shall be conducted.
However, under this set of guidelines, “local Institutional Review Boards (IRB’s) may revise or exclude some or all consent elements if the research exposes subjects to no more than minimal risk, meaning that the probability and magnitude of harm or discomfort anticipated in the research are not greater in and of themselves than those ordinary encountered in daily life or during the performance of routine physical or psychological examinations or tests”.
This area of ambiguity undoubtedly leaves an open window by which researchers with covert intentions can bypass more restrictive guidelines. The LA County measles vaccine trial seems to have taken advantage of such loosely defined restrictions in certain areas while resorting to pure deceptions in others. The mitigating phrase here is the term “minimal risk”.
Current Vaccine Trials: Cloaked in Secrecy?
Recently there was a clinical trial ongoing for Ebola in the US. Does anyone know where, how many, and the results of the trial? It’s not easy to find the answers. What about other vaccine clinical trials? The lack of transparency and the lack of long-term monitoring suggest that the US government in cooperation with the pharmaceutical industry wants to keep a lid on these trials. Questions still need to be asked, and we need to demand answers.
January 26, 2018