the bennymay story: chapter 89

q2

Undisputed. Did the adverse event occur after the suspected drug was administered? The ADF medical documents show that adverse clinical events (the symptoms/illnesses/ailments documented in my medical documents) occurred after the vaccination events.

(events a, b) e.g. Great deterioration of health in subsequent few days, and in the subsequent two weeks (cf. medical examinations on 2 November 1998, and normal blood tests at 8:55 a.m. on 10 November 1998, prior to the first vaccinations) such that I had significant nausea by 19 November, and eventually hospitalised on 24 November 1998 (as per med docs, 22 Nov 98 until 4 December 1998). Pathology reports show a minor (8%) drop in my white cell count (5.9 to 5.4 x 10^8/L) (as per pathology report for 23 Nov 1998).
(events c, d) e.g. Again I became and remained unwell for most of the Christmas vacation period, and through until around 15 February 1999.
(events e, g, and h) As per my medical documents, I was still suffering the illnesses consequent to the earlier vaccinations. Since I was experiencing the symptoms of the adverse drug reactions, one cannot argue ‘no’. TGA confirmed that it is ‘certain’ that I suffered an ADR after these vaccines.

(event f) This was a test substance, which was administered contrary to the guidelines, e.g. the Australian Immunisation Handbook. Similar to the previous paragraph’s content, since I had multiple substances in a short period, all those substances are suspected as being the cause of the adverse drug reaction symptoms I was suffering at that time.

So the revised range can only be +2 for events a, b, c, d. We assume TGA is not completely wrong, so we will not answer ‘no’ (score -1) for events e, f, g, h. However, if DVA acts as sceptically as possible, one might answer ‘do not know’ (score 0). Giving DVA the benefit of the (incredibly small) doubt here, produced from the fact that I was already suffering AEFIs from the previous vaccinations, we calculate the revised range to be 0 to +2 for events e, f, g, h.

One should consider what is a ‘plausible time relationship’ (to use WHO-UMC terminology). Clearly, if the adverse event occurred before any vaccines were given, causality would appear (almost?) completely improbable. So, in Q2 the word ‘after’ is important. But, what if the adverse event occurred eighteen years after the vaccine? That too would appear to be causally improbable. So, does the event need to occur within five minutes of the vaccination? One minute?

One study noted a reaction that was not evident until five months after the last vaccination event—and we note, as in our case, there existed no other probable causes, (S. Avcin, J. Jazbec, J. Jancar, Subcutaneous nodule after vaccination with an aluminum-containing vaccine, Acta Dermatovenerol Alp Panonica Adriat. 2008 Dec;17(4):182-4). If that seems unbelievable, then what about fifty years? (M. Seishima, T. Fujisawa, S. Yamanaka, N. Ishii, S. Mori, K. Ohashi, T. Suzutani, BCG granuloma appearing more than 50 years after vaccination, Arch Dermatol. 2006 Feb;142(2):249-50, http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16490863).

That my initial reactions were in very close proximity to the vaccination events (Nov 98, Dec 98, Jan 99, Feb 99) and that my fitness and health gradually deteriorated over the subsequent months (being hospitalised again in May 99 and Sep 99, and suffering recurrent infections for six months between Mar 99 and Sep 99, and requiring blood infusion therapy by early 2000) is completely consistent with a severe immune deficiency reaction. Moreover, it involves numerous, more plausible time relationships, than other accepted cases—such as the one we just referenced. This is equally relevant to Q3.

q3

Undisputed. The initial ‘shape’ of my reactions, as shown in my medical documents, was like a little similar to inverted-bell curve, where the initial reaction onset caused a marked drop in health, and then there was a slight recovery—being a slight reduction of some symptoms. This is undisputed. Additionally, after each reaction, I never recovered to the same level of health I previously enjoyed. So, although the inverted bell is partially correct, a more apt shaping would be like a slippery slide where the plateaus and slight rises exist, but the average trajectory remained negative. This is evident in my medical file notes.

q4

Undisputed. The ADF medical documents show that adverse reaction reappeared when the same drug was re-administered. However, not all the same drugs were re-administered. Therefore, the score for the readministered event (not g) is zero (unknown), and the score for readministered events is plus two (for event g). So the revised ranges are 0 to 0 for a, b, c, d, e, f, h, and +2 to +2 for g*.

to be continued… Go to chapter 90. published 2 June 2010. © Benjamin May 2010