Sunday, March 9, 2008

Landmark Admission; Parents Making a Difference

This item was emailed to this blog-AR

In November of 2007 Hannah Poling was recognized as being adversely affected by over-vaccination. We are only now finding out about this because of the Fourth Estate, the government has been trying to keep this under wraps for months.

It is no surprise to me that the first mission of guilt in this issue is for a child of parents who's degrees include MD, PhD, RN, and JD. Now that the courts have recognized a link between vaccinations and neurological damage to children, we need to revisit public policy.

Individual vaccines can't get much safer but vaccine protocols certainly could, quite easily. The 2008 CDC protocol for pediatric vaccines is not the safest of all ways to accomplish the goal of immunity of multiple infectious diseases. There are better ways to vaccinate than the CDC wants to admit, its all over the KOMU Combating Autism From Within blog.

Fingerstick titer checking technology will prevent this wide-scaleover-vaccination of children. Such a simple lab test could tell you whether an additional "booster" is needed, the idea has already beendone for HIV titer checks to diagnose disease, we could use it here and now with minor modifications. The vast majority of kids (95%) are immune for life to measles-mumps and rubella (MMR) after one dose. More than half are immune to Hepatitis B for a long time after onedose.

Why are we wasting 3 extra "boosters" on kids who are already immune at their most neurologically tender moment? Sadly, we "scientific" physicians never check titers, we never use evidence based laboratory science to justify second, third, and fourth shots. Parents need to be made aware of this medical option to avoiding over vaccination, in fact, it should be in hospital and clinic consent forms.

Those in medicine better learn quickly that to give consent to a vaccine that you don't need and were not told of a viable option for avoidance (titer check) should pay attention here as this is one of the many legal liabilities that could lead a hospital or clinic into a lawsuit that has no one else on the table for suit by an injured person.

Governments and school districts would be better served to require titer levels not written records of vaccine shots. Titer levels are scientific evidence of immunity, a vaccine record isn't.

Actually a lot of money could be saved across the board by doing this more scientifically. One might think innovative insurance companiesand state level public health officers would get on board if the real vaccinomics were better understood with respect to checking titers to avoid over use of vaccines in the already immune children who are going through the motions for the sloth of not being as scientific as we could be in medicine.

Ironically, we may be on the cusp of Hep B vaccine failures in children born to women who are immune to Hep B vaccine as the maternalantibodies will cross the placenta and prevent immunization in some percentage of kids for up to a year (the whole Hep B schedule iscrammed into the first year).

This is a gaping hole in CDC policy. Shouldn't we be checking titers? Seems pretty obvious, but culture dominates medical thought more than science as I think the University of Missouri School of Journalism has learned through this project.

For the Poling family, public policy finally lost to extensive clinical science in a resource rich family. In this one case, anamazing family of intellect with a father holding an MD and a PhD andmother holding an RN and JD, have a child who has been recognized as adversely affected by vaccines. The average child adversely affected and not studied appropriately by the conflicted pediatricians giving the vaccines out will not be so lucky in this stacked game of

It is true that a vast majority of children will not be affected by the administration of additional vaccinations. But if epidemiological purposes can be met with a more "surgical" approach, there is no reason to endanger a genetically vulnerable child. It is my opinion that all US physicians should thoroughly read the Simpsonwood document which is the most honest assessment of the relationship of vaccines to autism and shows a clear signal ofuncertain strength depending on which "artist" of epidemiology is interpreting the data. It has more to do with the sum of all exposures than any one component of the CDC schedule and we have wasted much time focusing attention onthimerosal, not because its not involved here but it is only a part of the epigenetic effect in the vulnerable populace.

Finally, the Fourth Estate is starting to pay some real attention to this issue, if only for the media hype of this one blessed child, who has a set of parents that are among the few that could even win a judgement like this.

Edward F. Fogarty, III, MD
Chairman of Radiology
University of North Dakota School of Medicine

Father of the child in the image below:

1 comment:

Anonymous said...

1: MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep. 2002 Nov 22;51(46):1051-2.

Approval of a new rapid test for HIV antibody.

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC).

On November 7, 2002, the Food and Drug Administration announced approval of the
OraQuick Rapid HIV-1 Antibody Test (OraSure Technologies, Inc., Bethlehem,
Pennsylvania) for use by trained personnel as a point-of-care test to aid in the
diagnosis of infection with human immunodeficiency virus type 1 (HIV-1). OraQuick
is a simple, rapid test that can detect antibodies to HIV in fingerstick whole
blood specimens and provide results in as little as 20 minutes [corrected]. The
test has been categorized as moderate complexity under the Clinical Laboratory
Improvement Amendments of 1988 (CLIA). A second FDA-approved moderate-complexity
rapid HIV test, Single Use Diagnostic System for HIV-1 (Abbott-Murex Inc.,
Norcross, Georgia), remains available in the United States for use with serum or
plasma specimens.

Mesh Terms:
AIDS Serodiagnosis/instrumentation*
HIV Antibodies/blood
HIV Infections/diagnosis*
HIV Infections/prevention & control
Point-of-Care Systems*
Predictive Value of Tests

HIV Antibodies

PMID: 12487529 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]

1: Expert Rev Mol Diagn. 2004 Sep;4(5):587-91.

OraQuick ADVANCE Rapid HIV-1/2 antibody test.

Reynolds SJ, Muwonga J.

National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, National Institutes of
Health, ICER Program Uganda, 2190 Kampala Place, Washington, DC 20521, USA.

Rapid HIV antibody tests represent a key development in the current diagnosis and
management of HIV infection. The OraQuick ADVANCE Rapid HIV-1/2 antibody test
(OraSure Technologies) has received US Food and Drug Administration approval on
the basis of its performance characteristics and a subsequent Clinical Laboratory
Improvement Amendments waiver based on its simplicity and accuracy. The test has
been approved for use on oral mucosal transudate, whole blood or plasma. Clinical
evaluation of the OraQuick ADVANCE Rapid HIV-1/2 antibody test has revealed high
sensitivity and specificity. The test has many important applications, extending
the opportunities for voluntary counseling and testing, and as a tool for the
scale-up of antiretroviral therapy in resource-limited settings.

Publication Types:
Evaluation Studies

Mesh Terms:
HIV Antibodies/analysis*
HIV Antibodies/blood
HIV Infections/diagnosis*
HIV Infections/prevention & control
Point-of-Care Systems
Sensitivity and Specificity

HIV Antibodies

PMID: 15347252 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]

1: J Dent Educ. 2007 Dec;71(12):1534-9.

Routine HIV testing in dental practice: can we cross the Rubicon?

Vernillo AT, Caplan AL.

Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Pathology, Radiology, and Medicine, New York
University College of Dentistry, 345 East 24th Street/Room 838 Schwartz, New
York, NY 10010-4086, USA.

The latest Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) guidelines recommend
routine HIV screening for a large segment of the population, given that the
individual understands that an HIV test will be performed unless he or she
declines testing (opt-out testing). The CDC recommendation calls for the
elimination of formalized requirements for written consent and pretest counseling
to encourage more Americans to voluntarily accept testing. Knowledge of HIV
infection can increase early access to care and treatment and reduce further
transmission. A rapid non-invasive test for HIV infection (OraQuick Advance) from
oral fluid has recently become available. It offers two distinct advantages: 1)
results are available within twenty minutes, thereby eliminating a long waiting
period; and 2) it has high sensitivity and specificity comparable to blood
testing. A preliminary positive test result must be confirmed with a Western Blot
by an outside laboratory or physician. Important ethical and legal issues must be
resolved before the successful implementation of HIV testing in the dental
setting. An educational emphasis on broader coverage of HIV testing is also
needed within the dental school curriculum. The integration of HIV testing into
dental practice is discussed as well. A policy of screening patients in dental
offices will contribute to a major advance in public health.

Mesh Terms:
Diagnosis, Oral/education*
Diagnosis, Oral/ethics
Education, Dental
Exudates and Transudates/immunology
General Practice, Dental*
HIV Antibodies/analysis*
HIV Infections/diagnosis*
Mass Screening
Sensitivity and Specificity
Time Factors

HIV Antibodies

PMID: 18096878 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]

1: Expert Rev Mol Diagn. 2005 Mar;5(2):135-43.

A 10-minute, US Food and Drug Administration-approved HIV test.

Ketema F, Zink HL, Kreisel KM, Croxton T, Constantine NT.

Laboratory of Viral Diagnostics, Institute of Human Virology, University of
Maryland School of Medicine, Department of Pathology, 725 W. Lombard St., Rm 407,
Baltimore, MD 21201, USA.

It is now an established fact that rapid HIV tests have important applications in
a number of testing situations. Currently, four rapid HIV assays have been
approved by the US Food and Drug Administration, including the one discussed in
this review. A rapid, lateral flow HIV assay was evaluated at the University of
Maryland, USA, one of several sites involved in the clinical evaluation. Samples
used in the evaluation totaled 9000 and consisted of serum, plasma and venous
whole-blood sets of samples from 3000 study subjects that included population
groups considered to be at high risk for HIV infection (n=1000), from
HIV-positive individuals (n=1000), and from population groups considered at low
risk for HIV infection (n=1000). US Food and Drug Administration-licensed
screening and confirmatory assays were used as reference tests. The rapid assay
exhibited a sensitivity of 100% across all three sample media and exhibited a
specificity of 99.8% using whole blood and plasma and 99.7% using serum. This
rapid assay is an excellent addition to the existing US Food and Drug
Administration-approved rapid HIV tests, and provides versatility by allowing the
testing of venipuncture and fingerstick whole-blood samples in addition to serum
and plasma.

Publication Types:
Clinical Trial
Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't

Mesh Terms:
HIV Antibodies/blood*
HIV Infections/blood
HIV Infections/diagnosis*
Reagent Strips/diagnostic use*
Sensitivity and Specificity
United States
United States Food and Drug Administration

HIV Antibodies
Reagent Strips

PMID: 15833044 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]


If this idea is cheap enough for Uganda and good enough for the CDC, tweak it for all vaccines to have a version of this rapid test for fingerstick antibody checks.