Answer: Absolutely nothing. The 25,000 reports are going into a drawer and being forgotten. How many reports are enough to show a drug or vaccine is dangerous -- 2,500? 25,000? 250,000? Chen of the CDC and Ellenberg of the FDA monitor this data, write reports and deliver speeches about how VAERS hepatitis B adverse reaction reports show nothing out of the ordinary and show "the relative safety of HB vaccine when given to neonates and infants." VAERS shows nothing of the kind. TAKE A LOOK AT THE VAERS DATA YOURSELF. The health authorities continue to negligently downplay the steady stream of serious adverse reactions to this vaccine and more infants and adults continue to die and suffer central nervous system and liver damage after HB vaccination.

Question: Why do the CDC, ACIP and Merck say that there are 140,000-320,000 new infections/yr (70,000-160,000 symptomatic infections/yr) when their own CDC data shows only 1O,000 reported cases year?

Answer: They are passing off estimated, hypothetical numbers as actual cases. This is statistical fraud. In the financial world such misrepresentation would lead to criminal charges. If a company inflated its earnings or revenues by 300% (as the CDC does hepatitis B disease statistics) and foisted those figures off as official data (and not some back-of-the-envelope guess-timate) - that company would be investigated by the SEC and sued by shareholders. Why doesn't that happen in the medical world? There's no regulator to keep the CDC honest. They do not say those figures are hypothetical estimates, they misrepresent the data. Go try to audit those 320,000 supposed new infections/yr. You will not find them. The whole exercise is designed to increase public hysteria about the risk of a low-risk disease so the CDC can extend it's pervasive influence and Merck can increase its $900 million/year vaccine revenues.

Question: What process does the Center for Disease Control employ to make a vaccine recommendation?

I attended the February Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) meeting in Atlanta and was absolutely appalled. Every vote by the Committee on new vaccine mandates was unanimous (except for one dissenting vote on Rotavirus vaccine for premature infants). There was hardly any discussion of adverse reactions, the ACIP simply rubber-stamped every proposal on the agenda. I call it Vaccination Without Representation. In one instance, the ACIP passed a recommendation for Rotavirus vaccine for premature infants even though no scientific studies had been done showing it was medically safe. Dr. Modlin, (Chairman of the ACIP), said in a pro-hepatitis B vaccine debate in New Hampshire "How do we determine whether something is scientifically valid or not?... 1) Is the theory biologically plausible? 2) Has it been tested by appropriate methods? 3)Is the study well concluded? 4) Are the results statistically sound? But at the February ACIP meeting, when it came time for the ACIP to rubber-stamp approval of Rotavirus vaccine for premature infants, here are Modlin's quotes from the official transcript: ".. available data are insufficient to fully establish the safety and efficacy of rotavirus vaccine in premature infants ... there is a section under Adverse Events that details what little information there actually are with respect to premature infants ... To my knowledge we don't have data from a clinical trial specifically ... Some bit of information from Seattle, as I recall, that had suggested that was a slight increase in relative risk for hospitalization for premature infants ... Obviously a situation where we have to make a judgment in the absence of data, and with a vaccine that has not yet been tested in the group ..." (ACIP transcript, pages 102-112) Modlin then held a vote and the recommendation for premature infants passed nine to one -- Modlin voted yes, Dr. Glode against. This is a clear example of how the medical bureaucracy (led by the CDC and ACIP), is recommending vaccines without scientific evidence that those vaccines are safe in a broad sample of racially and genetically diverse infants.