Should Premature Babies Be Included In The One-Size-Fits-All Vaccination Policy?

According to a fact sheet published by the University of Auckland, premature babies weighing as little as seventeen ounces are supposed to be vaccinated with same dose of vaccines given to an adult. The vaccination schedule is not being adjusted in any way and does not take into consideration a premature baby’s fragility or their weight.

Their decision has left many professionals questioning whether or not the “one-size-fits-all” vaccination policy is really suitable for premature babies, given the fact that many of them are not yet medically stable.

The University of Auckland believes that no changes are needed and recommends that the vaccination schedule should not be adjusted. They insist that these fragile babies should be vaccinated according to their chronological age, rather than their due date, and that they should be vaccinated in line with the vaccination schedule set by the government.

[adrotate banner=”9″]

Is The One-Size-Fits-All Policy Right For Premature Babies?

In the USA, approximately 500,000 babies are born prematurely each year. These are babies born before 37 weeks of completed pregnancy. According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), the earlier a baby is born, the more likely they are to suffer from severe health problems. Many of these babies die, while others may be severely disabled with learning disabilities, cerebral palsy, respiratory disorders, visual complications, hearing loss and feeding and digestive problems.

The CDC states:

“Although most babies born just a few weeks early do well and have no health issues, some do have more health problems than full term babies. For example, a baby born at 35 weeks is more likely to have—

  • jaundice
  • breathing problems
  • longer hospital stay” [1]

Many of these babies spend weeks, if not months, in incubators, while their lives hang in the balance. Is it really appropriate to vaccinate such fragile babies, regardless of their state of health?

No Changes Are Recommended for Preterm Babies!

Governments around the world are demanding a one-size-fits-all vaccination policy. The University of Auckland’s Fact Sheet for Health Professionals, titled Immunization for the Low Birth Weight and/or Preterm Infant, makes this policy very clear, stating that:

“Premature and low birth weight infants are at greater risk of increased mortality and morbidity from vaccine preventable disease.”

The university recommends that:

 “Immunizations should be given according to the National Immunization Schedule at the appropriate chronological age. Do not adjust age for preterm birth, i.e. National Immunization Schedule vaccines start at six weeks of age from the date of birth. The usual vaccine dosage should be used.” (emphasis added)

The university is so keen that these tiny babies are vaccinated on time that they state very clearly in their fact sheet that “vaccinations should not be withheld or delayed.” This policy applies even if the infant has suffered from episodes of apnea, a condition causing the baby to forget to breathe for short periods of time.

For infants born to hepatitis B carrier mothers, the university states:

“Give hepatitis B immunoglobulin (HBIG) and a hepatitis B immunization (HBvaxPRO®) within 12 hours of birth regardless of birth weight.” (emphasis added)

Once again, this clearly indicates that the one-size-fits-all policy is being used regardless of the baby’s health.

The fact sheet continues:

“Infants of non-hepatitis B carrier mothers:

Three doses of hepatitis B containing vaccine beginning at six weeks of age, regardless of birth weight, are expected to provide protection.

• Administer DTaP-IPV-HepB/Hib (Infanrix®-hexa) vaccine.” (emphasis added) [2]

The fact sheet is sickening, especially when you consider that many of these babies are so small they can measure little more than 12.5 inches in length and suffer from life-threatening conditions requiring feeding tubes, heart monitors, oxygen therapy, infrared lamps and photo therapy to keep them alive.

Many Professionals Disagree With The One-Size-Fits-All Policy

Many professionals disagree with the one-size-fits-all policy.

One such professional is scientist Lucija Tomljenovic, PhD. In her letter to the editor of the journal Vaccine, titled One Size Fits All, written in 2012, she stated that:

“There is a general medical consensus that vaccines have revolutionized human health by significantly reducing morbidity and mortality due to infectious diseases, particularly those affecting children.”

She continued:

“Indeed, as Poland et al. note, ‘Vaccines are the only medical intervention that we attempt to deliver to every living human on earth.’ As with any medication, vaccines also carry risks of adverse reactions (ADRs). Although the temporal association between vaccinations and serious ADRs is clear, causality is rarely established.”

She followed this by adding:

“Nonetheless, Poland et al. rightly ask whether ‘with the advances coming from the new biology of the 21st Century,’ it is time to consider ‘how might new genetic and molecular biology information inform vaccinology practices of the future?’ In light of this question Poland et al. conclude that ‘one-size-fits-all’ approach for all vaccines and all persons should be abandoned. This legitimate conclusion should equally apply to vaccine efficacy, as well as safety. Regarding the latter, the widely held view that serious vaccine-related ADRs are rare may need revision, as current worldwide vaccination policies indeed operate on ‘one-size fits all’ assumption. This assumption persists despite the fact that historically, vaccine trials have routinely excluded vulnerable individuals with a variety of pre-existing conditions (e.g. premature birth, personal or family history of developmental delay or neurologic disorders including epilepsy/seizures, hypersensitivity to vaccine constituents, etc.” (emphasis added) [3]

If Dr. Tomljenovic is correct that premature babies have been excluded from vaccination trials due to their vulnerability, this would suggest that there is no data supporting that vaccinations can be safely administered to these infants.

Why do our governments not see this as an issue?

Vaccine Inserts Tell A Different Story

Reading through the various vaccination inserts, you will see that many state that the decision to vaccinate a preterm infant should be based upon the child’s medical status.

For example, the insert for the Merck’s hepatitis B vaccine states:

“Apnea following intramuscular vaccination has been observed in some infants born prematurely. Decisions about when to administer an intramuscular vaccine, including RECOMBIVAX HB, to infants born prematurely should be based on consideration of the individual infant’s medical status and the potential benefits and possible risks of vaccination.” (emphasis added) [4]

The insert for Sanofi Pasteur’s DTaP vaccine, Daptacel, states:

“Apnea following intramuscular vaccination has been observed in some infants born prematurely. The decision about when to administer an intramuscular vaccine, including DAPTACEL, to an infant born prematurely should be based on consideration of the individual infant’s medical status and the potential benefits and possible risks of vaccination.” (emphasis added) [5]

And the insert for GlaxoSmithKline’s (GSK) Infanrix (DtaP-IPV-HepB/Hib) hexa-vaccine states:

“Limited data in 169 premature infants indicate that INFANRIX hexa® can be given to premature children. However, a lower immune response may be observed and the level of clinical protection remains unknown. The potential risk of apnea and the need for respiratory monitoring for 48 -72h should be considered when administering the primary immunization series to very premature infants (born ≤ 28 weeks of gestation) and particularly for those with a previous history of respiratory immaturity.” (emphasis added)

Despite their warnings and the fact that they have limited data, GSK continues by stating:

“As the benefit of vaccination is high in this group of infants, vaccination should not be withheld or delayed.” (emphasis added) [6]

Vaccinations Have Been Proven to Cause Stress-Induced Breathing Patterns In Children

Vaccinations have been proven beyond all doubt to lead to stress-induced breathing patterns in babies.

In 1985-1986, Cotwatch, a pioneering true breathing monitor was developed by Dr. Viera Scheibner and her late husband, Leif Karlsson, a Swedish electronics engineer specializing in patient monitoring systems. In a more detailed rewrite of her original paper published in 2004 by the Journal of the Australasian College of Nutritional & Environmental Medicine, she wrote:

Cotwatch was a true breathing monitor, meaning its electronics separated heartbeat and breathing and only breathing delayed the alarm. The feedback on breathing from the standard home monitor were alarms, while the microprocessor-based unit provided computer printouts of the record of breathing in the form of histograms stacked-up at an angle or vertical bars) the length of which directly reflected the stress level as integrals of the weighted apnoea-hypopnoea density (WAHD).” [7]


Dr. Scheibner says that this important feature means the difference between life and death and that, in a stress response in a baby, breathing stops first, while the heart is still beating. She explains that you must be alerted by an alarm before the heart stops in order to resuscitate the baby.

When Scheibner and Karlsson studied the histograms (printed data) of infants, they noticed that whenever the babies had received a vaccination, the charts showed clusters of stress-induced breathing patterns, proving conclusively that the vaccines that were causing the breathing problems.

In 1991, Dr. Viera Scheibner was invited to present the results of the data collection on babies’ breathing with the Cotwatch breathing monitor to the Second National Immunization Conference.

This information has been freely available ever since.

However, despite this information being freely available and many manufacturers stating that caution is needed when vaccinating premature babies, governments continue to insist that no changes to vaccination schedules are needed!

Dr. Viera Scheibner Has Strong Views on the Safety and Efficacy of Vaccinations

Dr. Scheibner believes that vaccinations are not only unsafe but also totally ineffective at preventing disease, not only for premature babies, but for everyone, and she has made her feelings abundantly clear in a five-page letter to Miss Pinkerton, a contact whose name appeared on an informational flyer received in regards to a Hearing on Safety of Hepatitis B Vaccine, held on May 18, 1999, titled Hearings on Hepatitis B Vaccine.

She wrote:

“When they were testing the acellular whooping cough vaccine in Sweden, as soon as the test babies were given 3 doses of the trial vaccine (meaning they were fully vaccinated) they had a huge epidemic of whooping cough in the fully vaccinated. They discontinued the trial before the targeted time of 2 years. I also need to add that practically all Swedish children below the age of 1 year participated in the trial. They expected 20 deaths and observed 45 (plus one accidental death) and yet this very significant increase was glossed over by saying that all deaths were judged unrelated to vaccination, even though there were deaths there within 24 hours or a few days.”

She finished her strong letter, which was full of research, facts and figures, by stating:

“I think that I outlined to you some of the essential facts about vaccination. Mandatory vaccination in the USA is indeed an arrogant insult to the American Constitution, freedom of choice and to just plain human decency and represents medical tyranny. It must be discontinued if the U.S. wants to continue claiming to be the guarantor of freedom for all and from all forms of tyranny. Charity starts at home.” [8]

After reading through her letter, I asked her in an email what her views were on vaccinating premature babies. She replied:

“Vaccinating premature babies under this false notion of ‘care’ and believing that they must be protected against infectious diseases because they are premature is totally misplaced, or at least the lack of common sense. I am at a loss to understand why they do it.”


Clearly, the one-size-fits-all vaccination policy does not fit premature babies. How can it be considered lawful or indeed moral to vaccinate premature babies with the same vaccinations that are administered to adults?

We can see from the studies undertaken by Dr. Viera Scheibner and her late husband Leif Karlsson that many of the routine vaccinations used on premature babies today can cause them to suffer stress-induced breathing patterns. These studies are irrefutable and have been used worldwide to demonstrate the link between vaccinations and breathing difficulties in young babies.

Despite this information, vulnerable, fragile babies are being vaccinated with multiple vaccinations on a daily basis, regardless of the danger.

Why does the medical profession dictate that animals receive vaccinations calculated according to their weight, but the one-size-fits-all policy is recommended for our children?

Surely, it is time to change this policy, once and for all.

[feature_box style=”9″ only_advanced=”There are no title options for the choosen style” alignment=”center”]

This article is dedicated to a very special little girl, Aurora~Phi, whose name means “to show beauty in truth.” Aurora~Phi was born prematurely seven weeks ago. She was born to parents who do not believe in vaccination. Aurora~Phi is vaccine-free and said to be doing exceptionally well. She no longer needs her incubator and has been moved to the nursery.

[/feature_box] [feature_box style=”33″ title=”References” alignment=”center”]




Photo:  baby Aurora Phi soon after birth

About the author

Christina England, BA Hons