![\"\"](\"http:\/\/stateofthenation.co\/wp-content\/uploads\/2021\/06\/Coronavirus-Covid-19-Sputnik-Vaccine-Vial-Russia.jpg\")
<\/p>\nby: News Editors<\/p>\n
<\/p>\n
(Natural News<\/a>) Since the mid-1980s, the number of childhood shots on the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) vaccine schedule has\u00a0more than quadrupled<\/a>. When parents express reluctance about turning their little ones into perpetual pin cushions, drug makers and doctors have a ready answer \u2014\u00a0combination vaccines<\/a>\u00a0that \u201csimplify\u201d the schedule by decreasing the number of injections administered.<\/p>\n (Article republished from\u00a0ChildrensHealthDefense.org<\/a>)<\/p>\n This month marks the U.S. launch of the Merck\/Sanofi joint-venture vaccine, Vaxelis, a six-in-one (hexavalent) combination vaccine that contains diphtheria, tetanus and acellular pertussis (DTaP) components as well as components said to protect against polio,\u00a0Haemophilus influenzae type b<\/a>\u00a0(Hib) and hepatitis B.<\/p>\n Public health officials optimistically believe that bundling all of these components into one shot will help close\u00a0noncompliance<\/a>\u00a0loopholes and increase the likelihood that children will complete \u201call recommended vaccinations.\u201d<\/p>\n Though\u00a0Vaxelis<\/a>\u00a0is the nation\u2019s\u00a0first<\/a>\u00a0hexavalent injection, it joins other four- or five-in-one vaccines already on the CDC schedule. The U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA)\u00a0approved<\/a>\u00a0Vaxelis in late 2018 \u2014 as a three-dose series for 2-, 4- and 6-month-old infants \u2014 but it is only now, two-and-a-half years later, that the shot is being readied for widespread distribution.<\/p>\n There are numerous\u00a0warning signs<\/a>\u00a0that potent all-in-one vaccines are too much for immature immune systems to handle. Concerning safety signals have emerged not just for\u00a0hexavalent<\/a>\u00a0but also\u00a0pentavalent<\/a>\u00a0(five-in-one) vaccines.<\/p>\n In Europe, where infants have been given hexavalent vaccines for some years (including Vaxelis since\u00a02016<\/a>), the formulations have produced many troubling reports of\u00a0sudden infant death<\/a>.<\/p>\n Absurdly, none of the clinical studies assessing Vaxelis safety and efficacy conducted fair comparisons against an inert placebo. Instead, in the\u00a0two U.S. clinical trials<\/a>\u00a0for Vaxelis, not only did investigators compare infants receiving Vaxelis to babies who received Sanofi\u2019s five-in-one\u00a0Pentacel<\/a>\u00a0\u2014 but babies in both groups also received rotavirus and pneumococcal vaccines at the same time!<\/p>\n In this context, the CDC\u2019s sales pitch to the public \u2014 and its claims that side effects are \u201cusually mild\u201d \u2014 cannot be considered credible.<\/p>\n Here are some of the other facts missing from the CDC\u2019s communications:<\/p>\n Juicing vaccine sales<\/strong><\/p>\n In the\u00a0no-liability context<\/a>\u00a0enjoyed by vaccine makers in the U.S., combination vaccines are already quite popular. In fact, market watchers and\u00a0health economists<\/a>\u00a0praise the jumbo shots as being a catalyst for\u00a0positive industry trends<\/a>\u00a0and a \u201ckey to commercial success<\/a>.\u201d<\/p>\n Thus, financial analysts\u00a0expect<\/a>\u00a0Vaxelis to \u201cgarner significant patient share following its [U.S.] launch\u201d \u2014 predicting that it will account for almost a third of U.S. DTaP vaccinations by 2028 \u2014 or $841 million in annual sales.<\/p>\n These predictions represent good news for\u00a0Merck<\/a>\u00a0and Sanofi, two of the \u201cbig four<\/a>\u201d pharma giants that dominate the childhood vaccine market in the United States. Merck is already doing a\u00a0booming vaccine business<\/a>, recently reporting annual sales growth of 14.8% for its pneumococcal vaccine (Pneumovax 23) and 5.4% for its human papillomavirus (HPV) vaccine Gardasil-9.<\/p>\n However, Merck also faces proliferating\u00a0Gardasil-related lawsuits<\/a>\u00a0\u2014 including legal actions alleging that the company knew about and ignored life-changing\u00a0adverse events<\/a>\u00a0from the get-go, many of which (when not fatal) have involved autoimmunity and chronic pain. In fact, before the advent of emergency use COVID vaccines (responsible for an alarming escalation of vaccine-related\u00a0adverse events<\/a>), Gardasil had had \u201cmore side effects reported<\/a>\u00a0than all other vaccines combined.\u201d<\/p>\n Sanofi, too, is embroiled in\u00a0thousands of lawsuits<\/a>\u00a0worldwide \u2014 notably for its disastrous and sometimes fatal\u00a0dengue vaccine<\/a>. As with Merck, this has not dampened overall vaccine sales growth, which continues its strong\u00a0upward trajectory<\/a>, likely to be further strengthened by the U.S. Vaxelis rollout.<\/p>\n Although Sanofi has not been a front-runner in the\u00a0COVID<\/a>\u00a0vaccine race, the company is currently running clinical trials for\u00a0messenger RNA<\/a>\u00a0(mRNA) vaccines for both\u00a0COVID<\/a>\u00a0and\u00a0seasonal influenza<\/a>.<\/p>\n Aluminum secrecy and grandfathered ingredients<\/strong><\/p>\n Merck\u2019s proprietary, \u201csuper-powered<\/a>\u201d aluminum adjuvant \u2014 amorphous aluminum hydroxyphosphate sulfate (AAHS) \u2014 which is believed to play a significant role in Gardasil\u2019s risk profile, is also present in Vaxelis.<\/p>\n After Merck developed AAHS, it began to \u201cpreferentially<\/a>\u201d feature AAHS in its vaccines even though, as Danish scientists outlined\u00a0last year<\/a>, the company appears to have disregarded procedures ordinarily required for approval of new adjuvants.<\/p>\n According to the Danes, at the time AAHS appeared, it represented a \u201cnew type of aluminium adjuvant<\/a>\u00a0with excipients that [had] not been used earlier in [European Medicines Agency] authorised vaccines.\u201d It should have been \u2014 but apparently was not \u2014 tested against an inert placebo. For this and other reasons, the Danish scientists question the ethical underpinnings of the Gardasil clinical trials.<\/p>\n In noting that Merck also \u201cseems to have prevented independent studies of AAHS,\u201d the Danes\u00a0repeated a critique<\/a>\u00a0aired by world-famous aluminum expert\u00a0Christopher Exley<\/a>\u00a0in 2018. In an\u00a0extensive discussion<\/a>\u00a0of different aluminum-based adjuvants and their immunological mechanisms of action, Exley and co-authors emphasized the importance of studying aluminum adjuvants one by one, as each is \u201cchemically and biologically dissimilar with concomitantly potentially distinct roles in vaccine-related adverse events.\u201d<\/p>\n Concerningly, the Vaxelis liquid suspension is adjuvanted onto not just AAHS, but also another aluminum adjuvant \u2014 aluminum phosphate). The package insert disingenuously shorthands the combination of adjuvants as \u201caluminum salts<\/a>.\u201d<\/p>\n How this double whammy of aluminum (319 micrograms per vaccine dose) interacts with the vaccine\u2019s six antigens, or Vaxelis\u2019s numerous other ingredients, or the\u00a0heavy aluminum load<\/a>\u00a0in other childhood vaccines is largely unknown.<\/p>\n According to the Vaxelis\u00a0package insert<\/a>, the vaccine also includes: polysorbate 80 (an ingredient flagged for its propensity to induce\u00a0hypersensitivity reactions<\/a>); glutaraldehyde and formaldehyde (problematic chemicals deemed necessary to inactivate\u00a0pertussis toxin<\/a>);\u00a0bovine serum albumin<\/a>\u00a0(often harvested from bovine fetuses when female cows are found to be pregnant at slaughter); three different antibiotics (neomycin, streptomycin and polymyxin B);\u00a0ammonium thiocyanate<\/a>\u00a0(also a rust inhibitor, weedkiller and defoliant); and yeast protein (associated, notably in hepatitis B vaccines, with\u00a0autoimmune reactions<\/a>).<\/p>\n Regulatory loopholes allow manufacturers to \u201cgrandfather\u201d ingredients into new vaccines if the components are already present in other licensed vaccines \u2014 regardless of how inadequate the original safety testing may have been.<\/p>\n Thus, Merck and Sanofi perceived no need to test Vaxelis for\u00a0DNA-damaging or cancer-causing effects<\/a>, and conducted\u00a0no studies<\/a>\u00a0of the ingredients\u2019\u00a0pharmokinetics<\/a>\u00a0(i.e., how the substances move \u201cinto, through, and out of the body\u201d).<\/p>\n The main cautionary note sounded in the meager Vaxelis patient information sheet is to not give Vaxelis to children if they are \u201callergic<\/a>\u00a0to any of the ingredients.\u201d<\/p>\n For thee and thee \u2026 but not for me?<\/strong><\/p>\n The CDC seems to be particularly interested in ensuring that poor and non-white children get Vaxelis. The agency began laying the groundwork to offer Vaxelis through the\u00a0Vaccines for Children (VFC) Program<\/a>\u00a0\u2014 the agency\u2019s vaccine program for the poor \u2014 over two years ago, in\u00a0March 2019<\/a>.<\/p>\n In\u00a0September<\/a>\u00a0of that year, the CDC followed up with an affirmative vote. Public health departments have been\u00a0promoting<\/a>\u00a0Vaxelis to participating VFC providers since early June 2021.<\/p>\n At its September 2019 meeting, CDC outlined another topic deemed important for discussion in the near future \u2014 raising the issue of whether Vaxelis should be \u201cpreferentially recommended\u201d for the American Indian\/Alaskan Native (AI\/AN) pediatric population.<\/p>\n The tenuous rationale, according to the\u00a0meeting notes<\/a>, was because, \u201cin the pre-vaccine era\u201d (more than 35 years ago), \u201cHib disease occurred at a younger age among the AI\/AN population compared to the general population.\u201d<\/p>\n Wave of the future?<\/strong><\/p>\n Judging from its website, the CDC perceives combination vaccines to be the\u00a0wave of the future<\/a>, and has signaled its strong endorsement of Vaxelis by incorporating the new vaccine into its\u00a02021 vaccine schedule<\/a>.<\/p>\n As if exposure to six antigens were not enough, FDA and CDC also say it is okay for healthcare providers to administer the six-in-one shot\u00a0at the same time as other vaccines<\/a>.<\/p>\n These agencies\u2019 characterization of the Vaxelis safety profile as \u201cacceptable\u201d indicates they have either not done their due diligence, or are willing to accept a high level of collateral damage in exchange for the \u201cconvenience\u201d of six-in-one shots.<\/p>\n However, as the \u201coverwhelmed by guilt\u201d parents of\u00a0COVID-vaccine-injured teen<\/a>s are increasingly finding out, convenience is\u00a0poor consolation<\/a>\u00a0for life-changing or life-threatening adverse outcomes.<\/p>\n Read more at:\u00a0ChildrensHealthDefense.org<\/a><\/p>\n\n