A Voice For Vaccine Realism: CDC Skews Public Perception of Disease to Increase Vaccine Demand

In 2014, Lawrence Solomon, National Post columnist and former contributor to the Wall Street Journal wrote about how the CDC works to inflate national influenza death figures in order to generate higher demand for influenza vaccines.1 While actual death certificate records from U.S. National Vital Statistics in 2010 show only 500 influenza deaths that year (that’s fewer deaths than those from ulcers, hernias, pregnancy and childbirth), the CDC obscures the true number of influenza deaths by using the loosely defined term, “influenza-associated deaths.”1 2 Furthermore, a 2008 analysis published in the American Journal of Public Health finds that only 15-20 percent of people exhibiting ‘flu-like’ symptoms actually have the influenza virus, meaning that the true number of actual influenza deaths is likely even less than those documented by death certificates.1 3 Perhaps this helps to explain the consistently low efficacy reports of influenza vaccines.

Back in 2003 when vaccine manufacturers told the CDC they weren’t receiving many orders for influenza vaccines, Glen Nowak, Associate Director for Communications for the CDC devised a presentation with strategies for “Generating Interest in, and Demand for, Flu (or any other) Vaccination.” (See Figure 1) As part of this presentation, Nowak describes a “7 Step-Recipe” that uses emotive tactics to increase public demand for the vaccine. As per Nowak’s ‘recipe’, the CDC recruited media outlets to work the public into a panic over the flu in order to elicit higher influenza vaccine uptake.1 4

Figure 1. CDC Associate Director for Communications, Glen Nowak’s strategies for “Generating Interest in, and Demand for, Flu (or any other) Vaccination.”

References:

1. http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/lawrence-solomon/death-by-influenza_b_4661442.html

2. http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nvsr/nvsr61/nvsr61_04.pdf

3. http://probeinternational.org/library/wp-content/uploads/2014/01/Influenza-Mortality-1900-2004.pdf

4. http://www.iom.edu/~/media/E9B963EDB28645C5ABCC22467120662D.ashx

Vaccine-Injury Lawsuits Catalyst for National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act of 1986

During the 70's and early 80's, masses of lawsuits were brought against vaccine manufacturers in response to significant adverse reactions following receipt of the DTP (diptheria, tetanus, whole cell pertussis) vaccine. At the time, vaccine manufacturers were facing growing legal fees and large payouts to families who had been injured by the vaccine. Thus, for some manufacturers it was no longer profitable to continue producing vaccines in a free market system. Indeed, many vaccine manufacturers withdrew from the market.1

In 1986, Congress would pass the National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act (NCVIA).2 This Act would mean that doctors and vaccine manufacturers could no longer be directly sued over vaccine injuries and deaths. The NCVIA was enacted supposedly to protect vaccine manufacturers from legal recourse so they could remain profitable and continue to research and produce more vaccines in order to protect public health.3 On the face of it this seemed like a noble goal, but there were some (perhaps unintended) side effects. As a result of the 1986 law, individuals have been stripped of two of the most important legal protections: Informed consent and the right to sue vaccine manufacturers directly. Meanwhile, the incentive for doctors and vaccine manufacturers to employ the highest safety standards possible has all but vanished.4

Muddying the Waters of Informed Consent

In addition to the broad liability protection afforded to vaccine manufacturers under the 1986 law, the Act gives vaccine manufacturers the right to not disclose known vaccine risks to parents and guardians of vaccine recipients, requiring only that they give this information (vaccine product inserts) to the party purchasing the vaccine(s) (physicians, pharmacists, etc).3 5

Many doctors do not read vaccine product inserts. For this reason many doctors will not be able to tell you the ingredients in the vaccines they administer which means that they won’t be able to make a comprehensive risk-benefit analysis for each vaccine based on your child's individual health circumstances. Furthermore, doctors are not adequately motivated to perform such an analysis because they are legally protected and in some cases, they are actually bribed by the CDC to attain high vaccination rates through a program called AFIX (Assessment, Feedback, Incentives and eXchange).6

Changing the Legal Landscape

By the end of 1987, Congress would pass legislation to establish the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program (VICP), a tax-payer-funded trust whereby vaccine damaged families can seek to be compensated, given that the injuries or death incurred meet the definitions and requirements outlined in its Vaccine Injury Table.7 8 Thereafter, all vaccine-injury and vaccine-related death claims would be filed through the VICP before any other court. Petitioners retained the right to bring a lawsuit to civil court but only if compensation through the VICP is denied or is insufficient.3 7

Congress intended the VICP to be a “petitioner-friendly,” “no-fault” compensation program for the unfortunate victims of painful and debilitating vaccine-injuries. At the time of the program's inception, Congress recognized several vaccine injuries including anaphylaxis, encephalopathy, paralytic polio, chronic arthritis, residual seizure disorder and death. By the mid 1990's, Human Health Services had already reduced the grounds of presumptive causation, thereby limiting eligibility for compensation through the VICP. This prompted concerns from onlookers and many began to question the ability of the VICP to fairly and adequately compensate victims of vaccine-injury.3 4 7

Indeed, the VICP is wrought with inadequacies. Though it is referred to as a "court," the VICP has no judge and no jury. Instead, the U.S. Court of Federal Claims appoints "Special Master's" to apply the law and assess petitioner's claims based on the parameters outlined in the VICP's Vaccine Injury Table. These "Special Master's" often come from governmental law jobs, have no official medical background and serve short, 4-year terms (as opposed to the life tenure of federal judges). Nevertheless, they are entrusted to rule in vaccine-injury and vaccine-related death cases, which have the potential to affect public policy.3 4 7 8

In some respects, the VICP has the legal deck stacked firmly against petitioners. For all injuries that do not meet the definitions and criteria in the VICP’s Vaccine Injury Table, petitioners bear the burden of proving that their injury was caused by the vaccine(s). Meanwhile, the government is not required to prove the safety of vaccines, even though the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit acknowledges in a court document that vaccine science is “bereft of complete and direct proof of how vaccines affect the human body.”4 7 8 9

So while it is widely understood that there are significant gaps in vaccine safety science, petitioners will go without compensation if they are not able to prove causation, even when there is no other plausible explanation for the injury but the vaccine(s). It goes without saying that an unknown (and likely significant) percentage of those who have been injured by vaccines have not and never will be compensated for their injuries. Tragically, the vast majority of these people are children.4 7 9

Legally Speaking

We are told over and over by doctors, public health officials and news personalities that vaccines are “safe and effective.” In reality, vaccines are the very definition of unsafe. In legal terms, vaccines fall under the category of unavoidably unsafe products. These are products that “in the present state of human knowledge, are quite incapable of being made safe for their intended and ordinary use.”10

If a petitioner can demonstrate that a product presumed to be unavoidably unsafe fails to meet this definition by proving that the product is defective, a judge might not consider it unavoidably unsafe. In other words, if a petitioner can prove that the damages incurred from a product’s use could have been avoided, had the product not been defective, the petitioner has a chance of being compensated.10 11

When it comes to vaccine-injury however, the NCVIA has been shown to insulate vaccine manufacturers from liability despite credible evidence that the product (vaccine) was defective. The 2011 ruling in the Bruesewitz v. Wyeth case is a prime example of this.12

Bruesewitz v. Wyeth

In 1992, two hours after receiving her 6 month DTP vaccine, Hannah Bruesewitz, daughter of Russel and Robalee Bruesewitz, started having seizures. So intense were her seizures that the infant required weeks of hospitalization. Her parents claim that they counted 126 seizures in a sixteen day period. Hannah’s seizures would eventually leave her developmentally stunted, and displaying “autistic-like symptoms.” 13 14

    It was later discovered that the DTP vaccine Hannah received was drawn from a lot for which over 65 complaints of adverse reactions were filed with the FDA and CDC. Of the 65 complaints associated with this vaccine lot, 39 visited the emergency room, 6 required hospitalization and 2 deaths were reported. Hannah’s pediatrician is on record as having said that she would not have administered the shot if she had been made aware of the high number of adverse events associated with this particular vaccine lot.14

    In 2003, Hannah was diagnosed with residual seizure disorder and encephalopathy (global brain dysfunction) which will require her constant care for the remainder of her life. Only one month before her parents filed a claim with the VICP, as per new regulations, Hannah’s seizure disorder was removed from the list of compensable injuries on the Vaccine Injury Table and the Bruesewitz’s were denied compensation. The Bruesewitz’s would soon bring Hannah’s case to civil court against Wyeth Laboratories, claiming that her injuries could have been avoided, had the vaccine not been defective. This was their only hope for compensation after being denied by the VICP.13 14

    The Bruesewitz’s and supporting legal authorities claim that the wording of the 1986 document makes it clear that Congress never intended the NCVIA to pre-empt all vaccine-injury claims against vaccine manufacturers citing a defective product. The 2011 ruling, however, suggests otherwise. The Bruesewitz’s case was dismissed by a federal judge and ultimately by the Supreme Court as well, ruling that the NCVIA protects vaccine manufacturers from lawsuits over vaccine injury claims. The majority opinion concluded that Congress established the VICP as a way to provide compensation to injured children without driving drug manufacturers from the market.12 13 14

    The Bruesewitz v. Wyeth case serves to illustrate how the skewed priorities of government officials place the protection of vaccine manufacturers above the imperative to protect our children. The case further highlights the marked loss of incentive among doctors and vaccine manufacturers to employ appropriate safety standards and precautionary principles with regard to the licensing and administration of vaccines.