Originally published July 6 2015
Study shows vaccines harm underweight newborns; researchers conclusively deny their own science
by Ethan A. Huff, staff writer
(NaturalNews) A recent study published in the journal JAMA Pediatrics found that extremely low-birth-weight infants (ELBW) -- that is, babies who are born with a birth weight of less than two pounds, three ounces -- have a significantly higher risk of suffering severe adverse events or dying after being vaccinated. But curiously, the same paper that admits this also claims that it doesn't admit this, encouraging doctors to jab underweight babies as normal!
Entitled "Adverse Events After Routine Immunization of Extremely Low-Birth-Weight Infants," the study looked at nearly 14,000 ELBW infants born at 28 weeks' gestation. Each of the babies was given at least one vaccination between the ages of 53 and 110 days, and researchers from the Duke University School of Medicine in North Carolina, the Greenville Hospital System in South Carolina, and the Pediatrix-Obstetrix Center for Research and Education in Florida evaluated the number of adverse events and deaths that resulted.
The team looked specifically at rates of sepsis evaluation post-vaccination, as well as how vaccines affect underweight babies' need for respiratory support, intubation, seizures and death. Here's what they found:
"Immunization of extremely low-birth-weight (ELBW) infants in the neonatal intensive care unit (NICU) is associated with adverse events, including fever and apnea or bradycardia, in the immediate postimmunization period," wrote the authors. "These adverse events present a diagnostic dilemma for physicians, leading to the potential for immunization delay and sepsis evaluations."
- Among the 91.2% of ELBW babies who received three or more vaccinations after birth, incidence of sepsis evaluations increased from 5.4 per 1,000 patient days in the pre-immunization period to 19.3 per 1,000 patient days in the post-immunization period. In other words, vaccinating ELBW babies resulted in a more than threefold increase in sepsis evaluations.
- The same group of babies experienced a more than twofold increase in the number of days required for respiratory support following vaccination, jumping from 6.6 per 1,000 patient days pre-immunization to 14.0 per 1,000 patient days post-immunization.
- Concerning intubation, ELBW babies who were vaccinated saw an increase from 2.0 per 1,000 patient days prior to the jabs to 3.6 per 1,000 patient days after getting the jabs, an increase of more than 55%.
Vaccination is dangerous for ELBW babies but parents should jab them anyway, claim deranged researchers One might assume that such findings would prompt the medical community to take a closer look at vaccine safety, particularly in babies who are born at less than one-third the average birth weight. But why would they when science itself isn't even honest about the repercussions of vaccination, denying that it comes with any risks at all?
After admitting that vaccinating ELBW babies increases the risk of seizures, sepsis and death, this is what the authors of the JAMA Pediatrics had to say in conclusion:
"Our findings provide no evidence to suggest that physicians should not use combination vaccines in ELBW infants."
Wait, what? Didn't they just say that ELBW infants in neonatal intensive care units (NICUs) have an increased risk of adverse events from vaccination? The sentence just before the one above admits that vaccinations are harmful to ELBW babies, and yet immediately after admitting this researchers say not to worry -- vaccines aren't harmful!
Duke University, Greenville Hospital System and the Pediatrix Medical Group all appear to be aligned with vaccine interests, so it's not all that surprising that scientists from these organizations have decided to deny the findings of their own study and declare vaccines to be safe for underweight babies. But parents of ELBW babies deserve to know the truth.
All content posted on this site is commentary or opinion and is protected under Free Speech. Truth Publishing LLC takes sole responsibility for all content. Truth Publishing sells no hard products and earns no money from the recommendation of products. NaturalNews.com is presented for educational and commentary purposes only and should not be construed as professional advice from any licensed practitioner. Truth Publishing assumes no responsibility for the use or misuse of this material. For the full terms of usage of this material, visit www.NaturalNews.com/terms.shtml