Some people have a compromised immunes system to begin with so they want the people around them to be vaccinated in the hopes that the person with the compromised immune system will not get the disease. Some children can not receive the vaccines because they are born with a weak immune system to begin with.

Strange that in more recent years, some of the data the author used is no longer to be found on line. It showed emphatically that hepatitis B virus is and always was a non-issue, in terms of public health, for US newborns. One of the most self-damning publications by the CDC: Insun K, and Keppel K. “Priority Data Needs: Sources of National, State, and Local-Level Data and Data Collection Systems”. Health People 2000 Statistical Notes,1997: Number 15. CDC/USDHHS, December 1997. Here’s a quote from it (page 9): “State level incidence rates of hepatitis B are deemed unreliable. This item is not amenable to survey data collection due to low incidence. …the Viral Hepatitis Surveillance Program provides national estimates of hepatitis B incidence corrected for underreporting using an algorithm that adjusts reported incidence upward by approximately 6-fold”.

In other words, the virus’s incidence in the US was so low and irrelevant that an arbitrary decision was made to inflate any reported incidence six-fold. Et Voila – ! Iinstant market for Recombivax.

The book mentioned above also dissects how reports that vaccination lowers incidence of hepatitis B in infants were probably manipulated and falsified as well.

In the mid 1980s, years before the vaccine was available, hepatitis B began emphatically dropping in the US, in its most fertile population – sexually active 20-40 y.o.’s, drug users, and homosexuals. In one of its own publications, even the CDC attributed this to safer sex and needle exchange practices off-shooting from AIDS awareness, and this is referenced in the book also.

I have not examined data past 2002 or so. But if it shows incidence above what was reported after 1986, either the CDC is grossly over-reporting (ostensibly to support a market for the shot), or the use of the shot is increasing infection (supposedly impossible, owing to this being a genetically recombined vaccine and not a serum-based attenuated viral vaccine). Or, is use of genetically recombined viral material increasing incidence of other forms of hepatitis?

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18374453

The public health people actually decided to start vaccinating as many people as possible for the flu several years ago, when people were wondering if H5N1 was going to go pandemic.

The idea was that the seasonal flushot manufacturing plants can easily be converted into “pandemic flushot” manufacturing plants if need be, but the capacity to make millions and millions of doses needs to be up and running already. So they need “everyone” getting a regular flushot now, so that “everyone” will be able to get a birdflushot later.
Hence the influenza…ummm…”communication”…and increasingly weak justifications to urge people to get vaccinated every year.

I have no idea why “they” don’t just tell us this straight-up. It’s not some big secret if you know where and how to look. You can search the WHO site with keywords like “increasing demand” “influenza vaccines” “increase uptake” “manufacturing” “pandemic”…and it’s all right there, available to the public.

But they don’t ever “communicate” their master plan to thwart the impending birdflu armageddon.

I guess they think we might not go for it or something, so it’s just better to implement the plan in a more compelling way (fear and guilt are excellent motivators).

Meh…

In a September 8 Associated Press article, http://iht.com/articles/ap/2008/09/08/america/MED-HealthBeat-Flu-and-Kids.php epidemiological data has been used to “prove” that children are “key flu spreaders”. (I HAVE NOT BEEN ABLE TO LOCATE THE HARVARD STUDY, IF ANYONE ELSE FINDS IT COULD YOU PLEASE POST A LINK?) The article states “Flu-shot season begins this month, and for the first time vaccination is being pushed for virtually all children — not just those under 5.” It goes on to say this recommendation is “a huge change” and “This year, the government is recommending that children from age 6 months to 18 years be vaccinated — expanding inoculations to 30 million more school-age children. While they seldom get as sick as the younger tots, it’s a bigger population that catches flu at higher rates, so the change should at least cut missed school and parents’ missed work.” And that the added benefit of reduced transmission “could be especially important for people over age 65, who account for most of the 36,000 flu-caused deaths each winter”.
I have no problem with unintended consequences as an added benefit to others, but I don’t agree with the rationale for subjecting the entire US population of children to another mandatory vaccine (and the risks therein) in order to primarily benefit another segment of society or in order to cut down on workplace and school absenteeism. Vaccination is becoming a fetish in the country. And incidentally, 30 million more doses of flu vaccine will make some vaccine manufacturers’ very happy. Am I the only one who thinks this vaccination “by proxy” is taking unfair advantage of children?