Statements on this Page have not been evaluated by the Food and Drug Administration. Whatever products , tips or information here are not intended to diagnose, treat, cure or prevent any disease.

It is meant for personal reference and learning.

Public Health Myth #1 : We need Vaccines

Myth #1: We Need Vaccines

The Myth: The diseases for which one is vaccinated are deadly and without vaccination we would have epidemics of these diseases with untold numbers of deaths.

The Truth: By the time most vaccines were introduced in the 1950s, diseases like polio, tuberculosis, diphtheria, whooping cough, scarlet fever, small pox, measles, mumps, or chicken pox were mostly mild diseases that rarely caused more than discomfort. By the 1940s, as is the case today, these diseases were rarely deadly in otherwise-healthy adults or children.

Further, there had been a 90 to 99 percent decline for mortality in these diseases BEFORE vaccine programs began. Diseases for which there were no vaccines (scarlet fever, black plague) also declined dramatically in the early to mid-1900s.

The CDC has numerous graphs available showing the rates of infectious disease of all types. The following graph shows death rate for measles from 1900 through 1984. Note that the measles vaccine was introduced in 1963. By that time, death from measles was nearly flat-lining.

G17.8-US-Measles-1930-1992-800pixels

The same pattern is true for diphtheria, typhoid, scarlet fever and whooping cough (notice the spike in diphtheria after introduction of the vaccine).

G14.3-US-Deaths-1900-1965-800pixels

So if these diseases were already a minor health threat with infrequent mortality from the middle of the 20th century on, why has there been so much emphasis on vaccination?

Certainly the unbridled optimism and love affair with scientific progress that followed World War II are part of the equation.

Hubris is another factor. This arrogance is evident from a statement made by Alexander Langmuir, MD in a paper entitled “The Importance of Measles as a Health Problem” that appeared in The Journal of Public Health in 1962.

Langmuir, hailed now as the “father of epidemiology,” wrote: To those who ask me, “Why do you wish to eradicate measles?” I reply with the same answer that Hillary used when asked why he wished to climb Mt. Everest. He said, “Because it is there.” To this may be added, “and it can be done.” In the same paper he admitted that measles were already a “… self-limiting infection of short duration, moderate severity, and low fatality.” (Dissolving Illusions, p.402)

Though the deadly threat to public health from diseases that are part of the routine childhood vaccination schedule had virtually disappeared before vaccination programs began, scientists pushed forward apparently for the sake of science itself.

This scientific arrogance, with its disregard for potential health consequences posed by vaccines, takes on greater relevance when one realizes that Langmuir created the Epidemic Intelligence Service for the U.S. Government; he also headed the epidemiology section of the organization that became the Centers for Disease Control (CDC).

Langmuir’s New York Times obituary said, “He thrived on controversy and often took pride in overcoming local political pressures to crusade for preventive medicine and other measures to safeguard public health. He relished jurisdictional and other fights with state and Federal officials and other scientists, including some on his own staff.” (http://www.nytimes.com/1993/11/24/obituaries/alexander-langmuir-dies-at-83-helped-start-us-disease-centers.html)

Since Langmuir’s campaign to safeguard public health, the United States has more sick children than ever before, and more than other developed countries. Fifty percent of school aged children have one or more chronic health issues. These chronic conditions last much longer than the mild viruses that sickened earlier generations. And many of these conditions can often be linked to side effects of vaccines.

The danger posed by a misplaced trust in the science that created (and now often mandates) vaccinations can be seen in the fact that the incidence of, and death from, diseases like small pox spiked dramatically after wide scale vaccination programs began. In fact, the incidence of most diseases spiked upwards after the introduction of vaccines. Doctors now also know that people can contract or shed viruses after vaccination, which has contributed to outbreaks of diseases that vaccines were meant to prevent.

With modern vaccines, polio was especially troublesome following its introduction in 1954. Thousands of those vaccinated in 1955 with the Salk vaccines manufactured by both Cutter and Wyeth Labs contracted polio from the vaccine.

From the Cutter version of the vaccine:

  • 220,000 were infected
  • 70,000 developed the symptomatic muscle weakness
  • 164 developed severe paralysis
  • 10 died

Family members and community members also contracted the same strain of vaccine-induced polio. Much of this information was concealed from the public as it occurred and only came to light in 1990 after the Freedom of Information Act revealed more details, including information about the Wyeth Lab strain problems. (from Dissolving Illusions by Suzanne Humphries, MD and Roman Bystrianyk, pp 270-1).

And the measles and diphtheria/pertussis/tetanus vaccines top the list for compensated claims of death and disability over the last thirty years.

For further reading see:
See also trends for other diseases, pre-vaccine.
www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/vsus/vsrates1940_60.pdf (CDC charts start around page 80.)

Trends in Infectious Disease Mortality in the United States During the 20th Century (JAMA):
http://jama.jamanetwork.com/article.aspx?articleid=768249#FIGJOC80862F4
http://www.vaclib.org/intro/present/index.htm#8
http://www.vaclib.org/sites/debate/web1.html

Additional Graphs Including United States Disease Death Rates:
www.dissolvingillusions.com/graphs

 

 

Inhibition of cell growth and down-regulation of telomerase activity by amygdalin in human cancer cell lines

This research demonstrated the mechanism in which cancer could be killed off with amygdalin.

 

https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/19768354.2015.1060261

by   Ji-Yoon Moon, Sang-Won Kim, Gi-Mok Yun, Hyeon-Sik Lee, Yoon-Dong Kim, Gie-Joon Jeong, Imran Ullah, Gyu-Jin Rho & Byeong-Gyun Jeon

The purpose of this study was to examine the effect of amygdalin on cell growth and telomerase activity in human cancer and MRC-5 fibroblast cell lines. The level of β-glucosidase activity for releasing cyanide was significantly (P < .05) higher in cancer cell lines (A-549, MDA-MB-231, MCF-7 and U87-MG) than in MRC-5 fibroblasts. Growth rate of cancer cells was apparently inhibited in concentrations above 10 mg/ml amygdalin with senescent-like abnormal morphology. Whereas the effects were absent or marginally detected in MRC-5 fibroblasts. High incidence of β-galactosidase activity was observed in amygdalin-treated cancer cells, compared with that of untreated control while no difference was observed between the control and amygdalin-treated MRC-5 fibroblasts. Furthermore, level of telomerase activity was significantly (P < .05) higher (∼8–13 fold) in cancer cell lines along with high expression of telomerase reverse transcriptase (TERT) and telomerase RNA component (TERC) than in MRC-5 fibroblasts which did not expressed TERT and TERC. However, telomerase activity was significantly (P < .05) down-regulated in amygdalin-treated cancer cells with the decreased expression of TERT and TERC compared with control cancer cells. There were no difference in the telomerase activity between control and amygdalin-treated MRC-5 fibroblasts. Based on these observations, we concluded that amygdalin treatment offers a valuable option for the cancer treatment, causing inhibition of cell growth and down-regulation of telomerase activity in human cancer cell lines by increasing β-glucosidase activity.

Keywords: Humancancer cellscell growthsenescencetelomerase activity

Written Testimony for HB 1638 – 2019-20 Madam Chair and Members of the Committee

FEBRUARY 08, 2019

https://childrenshealthdefense.org/video/written-testimony-for-hb-1638-2019-20-madam-chair-and-members-of-the-committee/

To: Members of the House Committee on Health Care & Wellness

From: Eric Ranger, 2004 United States Naval Academy Graduate, Washington (WA) resident of 10 years

Subj: Written Testimony for HB 1638 – 2019-20 Madam Chair and members of the committee,

I am Eric Ranger from Vancouver, WA. The following is my written testimony for the public hearing in the House Committee on Health Care & Wellness for HB 1638 – 2019-20 on vaccine preventable diseases. I am not representing other citizens or a separate group. The purpose of this testimony is to explain how, after researching the topic of vaccines for over 1,000 hours, I am still left questioning the risks and benefits of the MMR-II vaccine for my children.

I do not support HB 1638 – 2019-20, as it would recall a fundamental right of Washington parents, who seek to enroll their children in schools and state and licensed day care centers, to have legitimate personal or philosophical reasons in choosing to not vaccinate their children for measles, mumps, and rubella. As we all know, the supreme law of the U.S. protects the people’s right to free speech. Hurtful, infectious, or reckless as it may be, it is only language. I am dumbfounded how free speech is considered sacrosanct, but a parent’s hesitation for their child to have a preemptive medical procedure using a highly suspect vaccine and vaccine manufacturer, is not something universally respected and safeguarded by law with the utmost zeal. After all, such reservations shared by these parents are not baseless—not in the slightest.

The following are my personal and philosophical reservations regarding Merck’s MMR-II vaccine and the act of vaccinating my children with it. Please note that white papers, of equal length and detail, without duplication of many sources, could have been provided for the other eleven vaccines on the CDC’s childhood immunization schedule. I hope you will respect the time it took for a full-time working Dad with two kids under three to write this testimony, in just three days, by reading it entirely and reviewing my 186 citations (listed at the end).

  1. Safety science regarding the MMR-II is surprisingly sparse. In 2011, the Health Resources and Services Administration (HRSA) contracted the Institute of Medicine (IOM) to conduct an assessment regarding vaccine safety.1 The IOM Report reviewed available science with regard to the 158 most common vaccine injuries claimed to have occurred from vaccination for varicella, hepatitis B, tetanus, measles, mumps, and rubella.2 Out of the 158 most common serious injuries reported to have been caused by the vaccines under review, the evidence supported a causal relationship for 18 of them, and rejected a causal relationship for 5 of them. For the remaining 135 vaccine-injury pairs, over 86% of those reviewed, the IOM found that the science simply had not been performed.”3 This list of vaccine-injuries includes conditions such as:
    • Encephalitis, Encephalopathy, Infantile Spasms, Afebrile Seizures, Seizures, Cerebellar Ataxia, Acute Disseminated Encephalomyelitis, Transverse Myelitis, Optic Neuritis, Neuromyelitis Optica, Multiple Sclerosis, Guillain-Barre Syndrome, Chronic Inflammatory Demyelinating Polyneuropathy, Brachial Neuritis, Amyotrophic Lateral Sclerosis, Small Fiber Neuropathy, Chronic Urticaria, Erythema Nodosum, Systemic Lupus Erythematosus, Polyarteritis Nodosa, Psoriatic Arthritis, Reactive Arthritis, Rheumatoid Arthritis, Juvenile Idiopathic Arthritis, Arthralgia, Autoimmune Hepatitis, Stroke, Chronic Headache, Fibromyalgia, Sudden Infant Death Syndrome, Hearing Loss, Thrombocytopenia, and Immune Thrombocytopenic Purpura.4

The lack of clear safety data on the MMR-II vaccine was summed up in an article published in Vaccine in 2003 by the Cochrane Collaboration (now known as Cochrane), one of the world’s most respected mainstream research organizations. The group examined twenty-two research studies done on the MMR-II vaccine and concluded that “the design and reporting of safety outcomes in MMR-II vaccine studies, both pre- and postmarketing, are largely inadequate.”5 I realize this statement is not saying the MMR-II vaccine is not safe. However, it is stating that the safety research could be a lot better.

  1. Merck’s MMR-II vaccine has questionable ingredients. For example, the MMR-II vaccine contains DNA and protein fragments from cell lines of **aborted** human fetuses (RA 27/3 and WI-38), as disclosed in the manufacturer’s package insert. I personally have a problem with the ethics of using aborted fetuses to grow the viruses used for this vaccine. The story of the very questionable ethics and greed involved in the development of these human diploid cells is quite disturbing indeed.6

From a purely scientific perspective, there are other reasons, too, for caution in this realm. Dr. Theresa Deisher at the Sound Choice Pharmaceutical Institute in Seattle, WA has been studying the effects of DNA from human embryonic cells for many years. She is an inventor on 23 issued U.S. patents, and her discoveries have led to clinical trials of FGF18 for osteoarthritis and cartilage repair, and for Factor XIII for surgical bleeding. She was the first person to discover adult cardiac-derived stem cells.7 Dr. Deisher’s research has discovered some alarming possibilities: (1) Human DNA injected into the body can trigger autoimmune reactions, and (2) same-species foreign DNA easily inserts itself into the genes of test subjects and can alter their genetic function.8,9 Helen Ratajczak, a former senior scientist for a pharmaceutical company, published a review that also discusses this troubling phenomenon.10

If a concerned parent somehow discovered their child’s favorite toy was manufactured from human diploid cells, the public would be outraged, the product would be recalled, and there would likely be criminal fines or worse for the manufacturer. This would surely make headline news across the country, yet for vaccines, radio silence. This is likely due to a request from former Secretary of Health and Human Services, Kathleen Sebelius, who in a Reader’s Digestinterview on February 5, 2010 stated:

There are groups out there that insist that vaccines are responsible for a variety of problems despite all scientific evidence to the contrary. We have reached out to media outlets to try to get them to not give the views of these people equal weight in their reporting to what science has shown and continues to show about the safety of vaccines.”11

Using animals to manufacturer vaccines has resulted in some extremely large vaccine industry blunders. For example, between 1955 and 1963, tens of millions of Americans received one or more doses of a polio vaccine that was contaminated with a cancer-causing monkey virus (SV40), a simian virus found in certain types of cancerous tumors in humans.12,13,14,15,16,17 In 1998, a national cancer database was analyzed with regard to the SV40 virus: 17% more bone cancers, 20% more brain cancers, and 178% more mesotheliomas were found in people who were exposed to SV40 tainted vaccines.18 Similarly, a 2003 study concluded “…that SV40 is significantly associated with some types of NHL (non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma) and that lymphomas should be added to the types of human cancers associated with SV40.19

Additionally, a bacterial contaminant (B. cereus) that causes food poisoning and non- gastrointestinal infections in immunocompromised individuals was discovered in Merck’s Hib vaccine in 2007.20,21 As recently as 2010, another unexpected contaminant (pig virus PCV1) was found in the rotavirus vaccine.22 After the FDA’s recall of this vaccine, it was recommended at the time that everyone switch to Merck’s brand, RotaTeq. Six weeks later though, it was discovered that RotaTeq had a contamination too (PCV2)–a DNA virus known to cause severe wasting, organ failure, and death in pigs.23,24

Merck’s MMR-II vaccine is made with cow fetus serum and chick embryo proteins. It is probably unlikely that contaminants of unknown origin will be found in this vaccine. However, if a “better” MMR vaccine is released in the next two years when my daughter is entering kindergarten, why should I trust it given this track record?

  1. It is odd how the Department of Health & Human Services has not conducted a vaccinated vs. unvaccinated study. The only scientifically valid way to answer a large portion of the questions raised regarding vaccine safety would be a long-term, properly powered and controlled study comparing the rate of all adverse events between vaccinated children and completely unvaccinated children. This is the same type of study required by HHS for every drug pre- licensure, but vaccines get a pass because of their classification as “biologics.” As a parent, I find it extremely odd that HHS has never conducted such a study, even retrospectively. The information is all there in the Vaccine Safety Datalink. When vaccine makers are generating tens of billions of dollars in vaccine revenue annually, and the CDC is spending over $5 billion annually to promote and purchase vaccines, there is no excuse, financial or otherwise, for not performing this study.25 Is HHS afraid of what they might discover?

Such studies have been performed, but the results are not favorable for ambassadors of vaccines. A pilot comparative study found a lower incidence of two vaccine-preventable illnesses (chicken pox and pertussis) in the vaccinated cohort, with the tradeoff being a much higher incidence of chronic illnesses and neurodevelopmental disorders than the non- vaccinated cohort. Conditions like: Autism (4.2 times more), learning disabilities (5.2 times more), ADHD (4.2 times more), neurodevelopmental disorder (3.7 times more), eczema (2.9 times more), chronic illness (2.4 times more), and allergic rhinitis (30 times more).26

Another study found that DTP vaccine (given in the U.S. for decades, replaced with DTaP) increases mortality in young infants 5 to 10-fold when compared to unvaccinated infants.27

  1. MMR-II vaccine injuries and deaths occur in surprisingly high numbers. The National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program (VICP) has awarded about $4 billion (paid from a vaccine excise tax) in claims/petitions of the “vaccine court” since October 1988 due to injury or death arising from certain routine vaccinations recommended by the CDC.28 Over 20,215 petitions have been filed with the VICP, and 17,627 petitions have been adjudicated. Of those adjudicated, 6,358 of the cases were compensable, while 11,269 were dismissed.29

As of 2/5/19, the cumulative raw count of adverse events from measles, mumps, and rubella vaccines alone, in the CDC and FDA’s Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS) was: 93,929 adverse events, 1,810 disabilities, 6,902 hospitalizations, and 463 deaths.30,31,32 Taking these numbers and applying a correction factor, there have likely been 469,645 adverse events, 9,050 disabilities, 34,510 hospitalizations, and 2,315 deaths related to just measles, mumps, and rubella vaccines in the U.S. The correction factor assumed that only 10% of adverse reactions are reported to VAERS, and only 50% of those reported cases are the fault of, or related to a vaccine. Both conservative estimates indeed, given that a 2007 three-year long HHS funded study by Harvard Medical School using 715,000 patients of Harvard Pilgrim Health Care found that “fewer than 1% of vaccine adverse events are reported [to VAERS].”33 A U.S. House Report similarly stated: “Former FDA Commissioner David A. Kessler has estimated that VAERS reports currently represent only a fraction of the serious adverse events.”34 It is sad that this is the best information WA parents have as part of their risk-benefit calculation with respect to vaccines and their children.

It is interesting that 11 illnesses from Salmonella poisoning, including two hospitalizations, was enough for the FDA’s attention and The Wonderful Company’s voluntary recall of its pistachios in 2016, just two months after the first nut-related Salmonella case reported in the U.S.35 This type of quick response is standard protocol in the food industry because of food’s impact on the health and safety of the population. However, no vaccine was recalled in 2016 because of elevated adverse events reported in VAERS. Apparently, 225 vaccine-related deaths in 2016 was just business as usual–no cause for concern.36

  1. Several studies show significant risks of serious conditions following the MMR-II vaccine. These studies have revealed an elevated risk of seizures, Type 1 diabetes, and thrombocytopenia (a serious autoimmune bleeding disorder) following MMR-II or MMRV vaccination.37,38,39,40,41,42 The MMR-II package insert lists all of these as potential adverse reactions to the vaccine on the manufacturer’s package insert.43

Type 1 diabetes—also called juvenile diabetes—is one of the most common and rapidly increasing autoimmune diseases in children. The U.S. has more children with type 1 diabetes than any other country in the world, with a prevalence in children and adolescents that grew by 21% from 2001 to 2009. The U.S. also has the highest number of new cases annually, well ahead of India with a population four times bigger than the U.S. From 2001 to 2015, new cases of type 1 diabetes in the U.S. increased by roughly 2% to 4% annually in those age 19 or younger (depending on the region), especially among 10 to 14 year olds.44

  1. Encephalitis is a rare complication of natural infection from measles, as well as a potential adverse reaction to the vaccine. In reading a lot of the medical literature and listening to media coverage on the recent measles outbreak in WA state, encephalitis seems to be one of the biggest factors in the rationale for universal vaccination, despite its low risk and the MMR-II vaccine package insert listing encephalitis (inflammation of the brain) and encephalopathy (brain disease) as potential adverse reactions to the vaccine.

Many of today’s measles cases are not counted or recognized, because the sickness that comes with vaccine measles is incorrectly thought to be more innocuous than natural measles. A study found that not only do vaccinated people have live measles virus that is not cleared from the body, it is shed in urine and presumably other secretions.45 Another study found that measles, mumps, and rubella vaccines have induced cases of acute encephalopathy that were crippling or resulted in death.46

The CDC nicely displays specific rates of the complications from natural measles infection on their website. For instance, encephalitis is at “approximately” 1/1,000; death is at 1-2/1,000; and subacute sclerosing panencephalitis (SSPE) is at 8.5/1,000,000.47,48 They also give a specific rate of a “severe allergic reaction” from the vaccine at 1 in a million doses (1/500,000 assuming everyone receives the recommended 2-dose series), but this reaction does not include events like deafness, long-term seizures, brain damage, other serious injury, or death. The CDC just uses language like “remote chance” for these events.49 This makes it very difficult for most parents, using the CDC as their quick reference guide for vaccine safety, to perform a risk- reward calculation of any value.

It also fascinating how “rare” vaccine adverse reactions are downplayed, but equally rare complications from infectious diseases are showcased on the CDC’s website. For example, the CDC shows pictures of symptoms and complications from natural measles infection, however, pictures of any of the over 65 potential adverse reactions on the MMR-II package insert are not displayed for reference.50

Of note, the rates the CDC provides for complications from natural measles infection are only among reported cases of measles, so the incidence of those severe outcomes is likely far less. Especially when using surveillance data from a time when measles was more common in the U.S. and people would not report it to their doctors. Furthermore, in more modern times with better nutrition and health care, there are not enough cases of measles for the seriously affected cohort to meaningfully present itself. This too makes calculating attributable risk of encephalitis, and other rare complications from natural measles infection, widely open to inaccuracies.51

Dr. Mendelson was a licensed pediatrician and medical author for over thirty years, during a time when measles was extremely common. I highly respect his general perspective of allopathic medicine. He wrote that the 1/1,000 encephalitis risk cited by medical agencies was likely grossly inflated in the US based on his clinical experience. His experience found the incidence closer to 1/10,000.52

A Finnish researcher, Dr. Koskiniemi, published a paper in 1989 that found that the total encephalitis cases in Finland from wild measles infection declined between 1968 and 1987 due to the measles vaccine, which was introduced in Finland in 1982. The average incidence before the vaccine was about 10.4/100,000, and the average after about 3.6/100,000. This was clearly an extremely absolute low-risk occurrence in either case, and much closer to Dr. Mendelsohn’s estimate, yet a notable victory in the case for widespread vaccination against measles nonetheless. However, the bigger picture shows a disturbing reality that is worth noting. “Unfortunately, the decrease in the number of encephalitides has not been accompanied by a decrease in the proportion of severe cases…. Although the number of all cases per year has fallen considerably, the number of severe cases has remained static despite the high rates in 1973-1977.Thus the proportion of severe cases has increased.”53

Dr. Koskiniemi published a paper several years later that found that “The spectrum of encephalitis in children has changed due to vaccination programs. The incidence [of encephalitis], however, appears to be about same due to increasing frequency of other associated old and new microbes.” Nature abhors a vacuum. In any microbial environment, if you remove one occupant, another virus will take its place. The medical community has seen this in spades with other vaccines, like for Haemophilus Influenza and Streptococcus pneumoniae.54,55Disease pathogens that can cause encephalitis are certainly no exception. “Life finds a way,” as Jeff Goldblum’s character so wisely said in the 1993 movie Jurassic Park.

  1. Based on Merck’s documented conflicts of interest, past and present lawsuits, and the MMR-II package insert, it should be no surprise when parents in WA wish to avoid products sold by Merck. When a customer is unsatisfied with a company’s product, customer service, or ethics, they can choose to not use services or purchase products sold by that company. This is true for social media platforms, companies that make paperclips, and even banks. This is not true though for Merck’s customers purchasing the MMR-II vaccine. Individual vaccines for the three diseases are not available in the U.S., and Merck is the only maker of that specific three-disease vaccine in the U.S. If this bill becomes law, many WA state parents and customers of Merck will have to purchase their product despite objections they have to Merck’s product, customer service, or ethics. A parent would be forced into having their child injected with three live-virus vaccines, a situation that nobody’s immune system would have to manage in an otherwise natural setting, let alone a 1-year-old.

Merck’s MMR-II vaccine, according to its package insert:

  • does not list the number of children studied, or state the use of a randomized or other placebo control group during clinical safety trials,
  • has over 65 potential adverse reactions (nearly all symptoms or complications of natural infection from the three diseases are included), which include: **death**, brain damage, neurological damage, immune system damage, severe allergic reactions, seizures and convulsions, Guillain-Barré syndrome, sensory impairments, bowel disorders, blood disorders, and diabetes to name a few,
  • has no guarantee of performance, estimated duration of efficacy, or warranty from defect by Merck, and has not been evaluated for its carcinogenicity, mutagenicity, or ability to impair fertility by Merck.56

Additionally, Merck:

  • has no liability along with vaccine ingredient suppliers, vaccine vendors, or health care administrators because of the National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act of 1986.57
  • has a revolving door with CDC, hiring Julie Gerberding, former CDC Director where she presided over a massive expansion in the number of vaccines given to children, as president of the vaccine division of Merck, the largest “Big Pharma” company in the world and the market leader in vaccines,58
  • had vaccine sales of $6.2 billion in 2016 alone,59
  • spent $1.02 billion on advertising ($212.2 million on television) in 2006 alone,60
  • spent $6.8 billion on lobbying expenditures for its pharmaceutical/health products in 2018 alone,61
  • is being sued, along with Kaiser Permanente, in the Los Angeles Superior Court by Jennifer Robi based on theories that Merck committed fraud during its clinical trials and then failed to warn Ms. Robi, and other HPV vaccinees, about the high risks and meager benefits of Merck’s HPV vaccine, Gardasil, and62
  • is implicated in studies to have conducted clinical trials and marketing tactics that are untrustworthy.63,64

A congressional hearing before the Committee on Government Reform was held on June 15, 2000, to determine if “the entire process [of licensing and recommending vaccines] had been polluted and the public trust has been violated.65 Here were some of the Committee’s findings in this congressional exposé:

  • 60% of the Food & Drug Administration (FDA) advisory committee members who voted to license an ultimately defective rotavirus vaccine, and 50% of the CDC advisory committee members who voted to add that same vaccine to the recommended childhood vaccine schedule, either had financial ties to the drug company that produced the vaccine or to two other companies developing their own potentially lucrative rotavirus vaccines—Merck and SmithKline Beecham.
  • The rules (related to conflict of interest policies) employed by the FDA and CDC were weak, enforcement was lackadaisical, and committee members with substantial ties to vaccine manufacturers had been allowed to participate in committee meetings.
  • The CDC routinely granted waivers from conflict of interest rules to every member of the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP), and members who were not allowed to vote on a vaccine due to financial conflicts were still allowed to deliberate and advocate for that vaccine during meetings.
  • The chairman of the ACIP (at the time) owned 600 shares of stock in Merck.

Merck is no stranger to professional misconduct as a company. For example, Merck pleaded guilty and paid $950 million in 2011 for its illegal promotion of its drug Vioxx. This fine does not include the **$4.85 billion** Merck agreed to pay in 2007 to settle 27,000 lawsuits by people who claimed they or their family members suffered injury or death after taking the drug.

Knowing very well the drug was unsafe, Merck deliberately suppressed information about the risks.66,67 Merck also made a “hit list” of doctors who criticized Vioxx, according to a Vioxx class action lawsuit in Australia, where the list contained doctors’ names with the labels “neutralise”, “neutralised” or “discredit” next to them.68

  • There are three significant whistleblowers surrounding safety and efficacy of Merck’s MMR-II vaccine. One whistleblower’s story was featured in the film Vaxxed: From Cover-up to Catastrophe. His name is Dr. William Thompson, a senior research scientist for the CDC, and in recorded phone conversations and his statement through his attorney, said that the CDC “omitted statistically significant information” with respect to vaccine safety science involving the MMR-II vaccine.69,70 One of his more disturbing quotes from the conversations was, “Oh my God. I cannot believe we did what we did. But we did.”71 It is quite shameful indeed that Congress has not commissioned a congressional hearing and subpoenaed him yet to get to the bottom of the story.

Two former Merck virologists, Stephen Krahling and Joan Wlockowski, filed a whistleblower lawsuit in 2010 alleging that Merck knowingly overstated effectiveness of its mumps vaccine (part of the MMR-II vaccine) in order to maintain its patent. This was done by skewing tests of the vaccine by adding animal antibodies to blood samples, thus falsifying the results in favor of the drug maker. In 2012, Alabama-based Chatom Primary Care and two individual doctors, all purchasers of the vaccine, filed a proposed antitrust class action based on the allegations in the whistleblower suit. The two suits are now being coordinated before U.S. District Judge C. Darnell Jones and Magistrate Judge Sitarski.72

  • Mortality rates of measles, mumps, and rubella were miniscule by the time their respective vaccines were licensed for use in the United States. Two measles vaccines were licensed in 1963, a mumps vaccine in 1967, and a rubella vaccine in 1969. From 1959 to 1963, there were a total of 10 deaths in WA state from measles, or 2 per year. From 1963 to 1967, there were a total of 2 deaths in WA state from mumps. From 1965 to 1969, there were a total of 0 deaths in WA state from rubella. For some perspective, deaths in WA state from Salmonella infection were 7, 8, and 8 for those same timeframes, respectively. Deaths in WA state from syphilis were 214, 195, and 140 for those same timeframes, respectively.73 No death should be taken lightly. However, death from these diseases in that time was not a public health crisis in the state of Washington.
  • Measles is not as scary as the media makes it out to be, and its incidence in WA was on the decline prior to licensure of measles vaccines. The incidence of measles in WA state was on a noticeable decline from 1939 to 1963 when the first measles vaccines were licensed in the U.S. (Figure 1).74

Figure 1

Moreover, the vast majority of cases of measles in developed nations involve the clinical case definition: “an illness characterized by a generalized rash lasting ≥ 3 days, a temperature of ≥ 101°F, and cough, coryza [runny nose], or conjunctivitis[pink eye].”75 Do any of these symptoms sound life-threatening? Admittedly, complications from diseases always exist, with some severe, but most are very rare and occur in undeveloped, malnourished populations with limited access to healthcare and/or otherwise immunocompromised individuals. For example, child mortality due to measles is 200 to 400 times greater in malnourished children in less developed countries than those in developed ones. In addition, the efficiency of the cellular immune system is tied to the intake of dietary nutrients, including vitamin A, vitamin C, zinc, selenium, and proteins rich in vitamin B. As nutrition, hygiene, and access to healthcare improves, complications from measles diminish.76

Interestingly, humoral immunity (the antibody part of immunity) conferred by the vaccine does not seem to play a major role in the natural recovery from measles. This disconcerting discovery was made back in the 1960s, when scientists were surprised to see individuals with a deficit in antibody production, called agamma-globulinemia, recover from measles just as well as normal antibody producers.77,78,79,80 As long as an individual’s innate immunity is intact, which it tends to be in developing nations, they will recover from measles with no complications.

Given this information and the current measles outbreak in Washington, health authorities could bring attention to the serious problem of malnutrition in our nation. In 2010 (the most recent year with complete figures) 2,948 people died from nutritional deficiencies. Why is there manufactured outrage over an average of 220 cases of measles (no deaths) in the United States the last 9 years, but complete silence over nearly 3,000 American deaths annually from nutritional deficiencies?81,82

In the latest measles outbreak in WA state, the percentage of Clark County residents infected was about 0.01%, or 1 per 10,000 (as of 2/5/19 there were 49 measles cases in Clark County, which has a population of 474,643 as of 2017 data).83,84 As of current reporting, none of these cases have resulted in permanent injury or death. An equal threat to public health in this region is the opioid epidemic (about 18 opioid overdoses per 100,000, or about 2 per 10,000), which is inseparably tied with the immoral behaviors and greedy interests of some pharmaceutical businesses, doctors, HMOs, and regulatory agencies.85,86 Where is the Governor’s state of emergency to combat this problem? Certainly many of those overdoses could have been prevented with proper accountability measures. It flummoxes me that for one “threat” to our community, the Governor declared a statewide emergency, yet he did not for another of similar incidence with potential ripple effects of violence and crime in WA communities. Why the double standard?

Dr. Langmuir, the “father of infectious disease epidemiology,” had this to say about measles in 1962: “This self-limiting infection of short duration, moderate severity, and low fatality has maintained a remarkably stable biological balance over the centuries.”87 Another article in the British Medical Journal in 1950, written by a general practitioner of the time, found measles to be a normally mild infection, with few complications, that was over in a week. This article also said that mothers say, “how much good the attack has done their children and how much better they are after it.”88

Just before the first rollout of the nationwide measles vaccine program, three leading scientists at the Public Health Service (today’s CDC) made a presentation at the American Public Health Association’s annual meeting. They said, “For centuries the measles virus has maintained a remarkably stable ecological relationship with man. The clinical disease is a characteristic syndrome of notable constancy and only moderate severity. Complications are infrequent, and, with adequate medical care, fatality is rare.89

Brady Bunch episode, which aired December 1969, showcases the Brady family’s blasé attitude towards measles.90 One of the children says to her siblings, “If you have to get sick, sure can’t beat the measles.” And here’s the exchange when Mrs. Brady calls Mr. Brady at work to inform him that one of the kids has come down with measles:

Mr. Brady: “Are you sure it’s the measles?

Mrs. Brady: “Well, he’s certainly got all the symptoms: a slight temperature, a lot of dots, and a great big smile.”

Mr. Brady: “A great big smile?

Mrs. Brady: “No school for a few days.

Mr. Brady: “Say hello to my dotted son for me. Tell him I’ll bring him some comic books and I’ll see you later, dear.91

There are other examples of this relaxed attitude towards measles from television shows and movies of that time as well.92 Would these scenes have made sense to an American television audience during a time when measles was much more prevalent than it is today (only 6 years after the introduction of the vaccine), if complications from measles were common? I do not think so.

  • Mumps is a relatively innocuous viral disease when experienced in childhood that usually does not require medical treatment. There is a possibility of extremely rare complications, especially in adults. In reading a lot of the medical literature, orchitis seems to be one of the biggest factors in the rationale for universal vaccination, despite the extremely low risk of complete sterility.93,94,95,96 Mumps was most commonly an infection of children under 15 years of age in the late 1960s. In the mid-to-late 1980s, infection was more common in persons 15 years of age or older.97 Even in the 2016-2017 WA state outbreak, the median age was 21 years old.98 I disagree with the logic of vaccinating **all** children against this disease, especially now since we have the shift of mumps occurring in older age groups that were vaccinated with at least two doses of MMR-II and who are more susceptible to suffering severe complications. If parents are concerned about orchitis or oophoritis in their children who have not yet developed natural immunity, then they can have them vaccinated before they reach puberty to quell those concerns.
  • Rubella is usually a nonthreatening disease when contracted by children. The illness is generally so mild it escapes detection or passes for a cold. In fact, 25-50% of people infected with it will not experience any symptoms.99 In reading a lot of the medical literature, congenital rubella syndrome (CRS), which may cause birth defects, seems to be one of the biggest factors in the rationale for universal vaccination.100 The U.S. began keeping statistics on CRS in 1966, and in that year there were 11 reported cases. In 1967, there were just 10 cases in the U.S., with 14 cases reported in 1968. When the rubella vaccine was introduced in 1969, the CDC reported 31 cases of CRS. In 1970, CRS cases exploded to 77—a greater than 600% increase over pre- vaccine numbers. In 1971, there were another 68 cases.101 These figures remained high for several years. I disagree with the logic of vaccinating **all**children against this disease, especially when the risk of CRS before the vaccine existed was practically nonexistent. If parents are concerned about CRS in their sexually active, pubescent children who have not yet developed natural immunity, then they can have them vaccinated before puberty to quell this concern.
  • Once common, natural childhood infections offered protection from much more deadly diseases later in life. For example, diseases such as measles and mumps, experienced in childhood, protect against many different types of cancers later in life.102,103 In fact, numerous studies have confirmed that natural infections protect against cancer while vaccines—designed to prevent infections—increase cancer risks.104,105,106 Several studies show that measles infections can reverse cancer, and that the virus can be used to treat it.107,108,109Given this fact, it is not surprising to read in the news that high concentrations of a strain of measles virus are being injected into patients by doctors at the Mayo Clinic to treat and cure cancer.110 Similar methods are being used with polio virus for treatment of certain brain cancers.111

A study showed that measles and mumps infections in childhood protect against deadly heart attacks and strokes during adulthood. These results may be explained by the “hygiene hypothesis,” which proposes that infections suffered during childhood are necessary for normal development of the immune system regulating T helper cells, Th1 and Th2, which control inflammation at the arterial wall leading to atherosclerosis.112

  • Children < 1-year-old could be more at risk of measles in the vaccine era. In the most recent measles outbreak in WA state, the media and many parents on Facebook have expressed frustration that babies < 1-year-old are at risk due to the outbreak. The parents often shame the parents of unvaccinated children, however, the cause of their baby’s vulnerability is mostly an effect of a universal measles vaccination program.

In 1963, just before the measles vaccine was introduced, it was extremely rare for babies under one-year-old to develop measles since their mothers had previously contracted measles naturally, and developed protective antibodies that were passed on to their children through the placenta and breastmilk. These babies were usually protected from measles for the first 15 months of life. Vaccinated mothers provide lower titers with a shorter duration of protection than mothers who acquired the measles infection naturally. Babies born to measles-vaccinated mothers are susceptible to the disease during the crucial early months when measles can be especially dangerous.113,114

Breastfed infants of vaccinated mothers have nearly three times the risk of measles infection than those of naturally immune mothers—even in the era of vaccination when there is supposedly less measles virus in the environment.115 Also, infants of mothers born after 1963 are 7-1/2 times more likely to contract the disease than infants of mothers born earlier. This appears to be an unfortunate, unintended consequence of the universal measles vaccination program. Age groups previously invulnerable are now susceptible to higher rates and/or more severe morbidity and mortality.116

In 2005, nearly 60% of 503 hospitalized children with measles were younger than nine months old. Furthermore, in the 2014-2015 Disneyland measles outbreak in CA, the highest incidence per 100,000 population was among infants < 1-year-old.117 This would never have happened in 1962, before the first measles vaccines were licensed in the U.S. Let us not forget though, that thanks to their natural infections, these infants—without any vaccine—will most likely be part of the protective herd for their lifetimes. In my opinion, this should be celebrated as vaccines cannot and do not offer lifetime immunity.118 This is admitted for several vaccines by Dr. Stanley Plotkin in a sworn deposition from January 2018 (minute marker 57:00 in Part 2 and Part 9).119 Dr. Plotkin is the main author of Plotkin’s Vaccines: 7th Edition, which is considered the standard reference on the subject, and is an American physician who works as a consultant to most vaccine manufacturers, including Merck. He played a crucial role in the discovery of a vaccine against rubella virus while working at Wistar Institute in Philadelphia.120

So sad that millions of parents think vaccines will protect their children for a lifetime. Of note, the only collective primary source I could find that shows the **estimated** duration of protection for all vaccines on the CDC’s childhood vaccine schedule is Dr. Plotkin’s $250 book. This information, along with sources for which the estimates are based, needs to be more accessible to the public.

Period Cycle – TCM Diagnosis on Timing

Image may contain: text

Turmeric vs Curcumin: Which Should You Take?

https://www.healthline.com/nutrition/turmeric-vs-curcumin

Turmeric is a spice widely used throughout Asia and a main ingredient in curries.

Due to its yellow color, it’s sometimes referred to as Indian saffron (1).

What’s more, its extensive use in traditional medicine has raised significant interest in its health benefits.

Curcumin is the key active ingredient in turmeric.

This article looks at the benefits of and key differences between turmeric and curcumin, and how to supplement with them.

What Are Turmeric and Curcumin?

Turmeric comes from the root of Curcuma longa, a flowering plant of the ginger family.

It’s often sold in spice jars. However, if bought fresh, it looks similar to ginger root with a more intense yellow to golden color.

In India, turmeric is used to treat skin conditions, digestive issues and aches and pains. In fact, it’s a staple of Ayurvedic medicine, a form of traditional healing (2).

Turmeric contains many plant substances, but one group, curcuminoids, has the greatest health-promoting effects (34).

Three notable curcuminoids are curcumin, demethoxycurcumin and bisdemethoxycurcumin. Of these, curcumin is the most active and most beneficial to health (3).

Curcumin, which represents about 2–8% of most turmeric preparations, gives turmeric its distinct color and flavor (5).

In its own right, curcumin is known for its anti-inflammatory, anti-tumor and antioxidant effects (67).

SUMMARY   Turmeric is used to treat many health problems, such as skin and digestive issues. It contains the active ingredient curcumin, which has anti-inflammatory and antioxidant properties.

 

They Have Many Benefits in Common

Turmeric and curcumin have medicinal properties that provide many health benefits (8).

Here are some of the areas in which both turmeric and curcumin have shown clear benefits, backed by science:

  • Osteoarthritis: Plant compounds in turmeric that include curcumin can reduce markers of inflammation and thus relieve osteoarthritis symptoms (3910).
  • Obesity: Turmeric and curcumin may inhibit the inflammatory pathway involved in obesity and may help regulate body fat (51112).
  • Heart disease: Turmeric and curcumin can reduce “bad” LDL cholesterol and triglycerides and reduce the risk of heart disease as a result (13).
  • Diabetes: Turmeric and curcumin can improve blood sugar metabolism and potentially reduce the effects of diabetes on your body (141516).
  • Liver: A rat study found that turmeric extract and curcumin were protective against chronic liver damage by helping reduce harmful oxidative stress (17).
  • Cancer: Though research is still in its early stages, turmeric and curcumin may reduce the activity of colon and other cancer cells (181920).
  • Antifungal: Turmeric and curcumin can disrupt fungal cell membranes and could be used in conjunction with fungal medication for better outcomes (212223).
  • Antibacterial: Turmeric and curcumin have strong antibacterial effects. They can reduce the growth of many disease-causing bacteria (232425).

SUMMARYTurmeric and curcumin both have antimicrobial and medicinal properties. Studies show that they may benefit people with heart disease, osteoarthritis and obesity.

Turmeric May Have Some Health Benefits Not Attributed to Curcumin

Turmeric is a plant that has gained a lot of respect in the medical world.

Not only is it good for arthritis, but it may also protect your brain as you age. It shows promise in the treatment of Parkinson’s disease (2426).

Turmeric contains various plant compounds that work together to support your body.

A study that looked at the antifungal activity of turmeric found that all eight of its components, including curcumin, were able to inhibit fungal growth.

The study also showed that curdione in turmeric had the best inhibitory effect. However, when combined with the seven other components, its fungal growth inhibition was even stronger (21).

Therefore, though curcumin alone can reduce fungal growth, you may get a much greater effect by using turmeric instead (2122).

Likewise, another study found that turmeric was better at suppressing the growth of tumor cells than curcumin alone (27).

However, since turmeric contains curcumin, it’s hard to determine if turmeric is better than curcumin when it comes to other health conditions.

More studies are needed that directly compare the effects of each.

SUMMARY  Turmeric is composed of plant compounds that possess antioxidant, anti-inflammatory and antimicrobial activities that appear to work better together.

Curcumin May Be More Beneficial Than Turmeric for Specific Conditions

As curcumin is considered the most active ingredient in turmeric, researchers have begun to isolate it and examine whether it could benefit certain conditions on its own (6).

It has been shown to have strong anti-inflammatory and antioxidant effects and can even support wound healing through its antibacterial effects (72128).

What’s more, both turmeric and curcumin have been found to reduce blood sugars in type 2 diabetes. However, an animal study determined that curcumin was better at minimizing diabetes markers than turmeric (15).

Curcumin can specifically lower inflammatory markers such as tumor necrosis factor (TNF) and interleukin 6 (IL-6), which are key contributors to type 2 diabetes (629).

Additional studies are needed that compare the effects of turmeric and curcumin in people with type 2 diabetes.

These are not the only health benefits of curcumin.

It may also reduce osteoporosis risk.

One animal study found that rats who received turmeric extracts enriched with curcumin-like curcuminoids had preserved bone mass, whereas those who had a lower amount of added curcuminoids showed no effect (30).

However, curcumin is often poorly absorbed and can pass through your gut undigested (17).

A helpful tip is to add some black pepper to your meals or supplements that contain curcumin. A substance in black pepper called piperine can increase the bioavailability of curcumin by 2,000% (31).

SUMMARY   Curcumin’s potent antioxidant and anti-inflammatory effects may benefit people with diabetes and osteoporosis but its absorption can be poor. Combining curcumin with piperine in black pepper can significantly improve absorption.

Which Should You Choose?

There is no official consensus on whether it’s best to take curcumin or turmeric supplements.

Most studies that have shown beneficial effects have used extracted turmeric with a high concentration of curcumin or curcumin alone.

When choosing a supplement, it’s important to buy a formula that has been clinically tested and proven to be well absorbed.

In a review on joint arthritis, turmeric extracts with 1 gram of curcumin per day showed the greatest benefit after 8–12 weeks (10).

For those wanting to reduce their cholesterol, 700 mg of turmeric extract twice a day may help (32).

One eight-week study found that 2.4 grams of turmeric powder combined with nigella seeds each day reduced cholesterol, waist circumference and inflammation (33).

Though the research is mixed, one study in athletes found that 6 grams of curcumin and 60 mg of piperine in three divided doses helped reduce muscle damage after exercise (34).

Curcumin is considered to be well-tolerated and has been tested at high doses of up to 12 grams per day (3536).

However, it may cause some side effects like gut discomfort and nausea (13).

SUMMARY  Research indicates that turmeric or curcumin supplements with 1–6 grams of curcumin per day may be beneficial. At high doses, there may be digestive side effects.

The Bottom Line

Turmeric is a golden spice that has been used to treat inflammation, bacterial infections and digestive issues for thousands of years.

It contains curcumin, which has proven antioxidant and anti-inflammatory effects.

There is no official consensus on whether it’s best to take curcumin or turmeric supplements.

Most studies use extracted turmeric with a high concentration of curcumin or curcumin alone.

Both turmeric and curcumin can reduce joint inflammation, cholesterol, blood sugar, as well as tumor, fungal and bacterial growth.

Make sure you have some black pepper with your turmeric powder or supplement, as this will help improve curcumin’s absorption.

The Lies of Vaccination Broken Down For Parents

The Lies of Vaccination Broken Down For Parents

1. Vaccines Don’t Cause Autism – the government and vaccine makers have already admitted legally that vaccines have and do cause Autism. Why are we debating this when it’s already admitted legally………vaccines do cause Autism. The reason that the media is lying to the public about this is so people keep vaccinating. (https://www.jchristoff.com/vaccines-and-autism-is-there-any-connection/ )

2. Vaccines Make You Immune – the medical doctor at this added video link below reviews that the majority of disease outbreaks have been in vaccinated populations, that antibody production from vaccination doesn’t mean you’re protected from the targeted disease and that vaccines are proven to permanently cripple and kill children every year. 

3. Vaccines Have Saved Us From Disease – the doctor at this added link takes great care to explain that the opposite is true, that disease only sky rockets in vaccinated populations (after vaccine drives), now and throughout history. (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KtN0PMJOOjM)

4. Viruses Are Dangerous and Vaccines Are Our Only Weapon Against This Invisible Attack – the doctor at this added link explains that viruses can be cleared from the body without harm with good nutrition and that healthy people are safe from viral infection. Odd that our current system teaches everyone that health can be injected into people, with documented poisons no less….and nutrition/health is never mentioned as a way to avoid disease. (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XSSpoFq7uhM)

5. Polio…Vaccines Saved us From Polio – unfortunately polio wasn’t caused by a virus. Something else caused the paralysis known as polio and vaccines actually increased said paralysis, which in turn was blamed on a polio virus that never existed. Sound confusing? Of course it does but it won’t be after you read the attached article.
(https://www.jchristoff.com/20-things-you-dont-know-about-polio-2)

6. My Doctor Is An Expert On Vaccines – medical doctors learn absolutely nothing about vaccines in medical school, other than the catch phrases that make patients believe that the doctors are educated in this area. Doctors only learn the vaccine schedule, regarding when to vaccinate their patients. Nothing more is taught to medical doctors in medical school regarding vaccination. Doctors come forward themselves to admit and discuss this openly. (https://www.jchristoff.com/what-do-doctors-learn-about-vaccines-in-medical-school/)

7. We Must Listen to Our Doctors Regarding Vaccination – at this added link over 100 medical doctors step forward to explain why vaccines are dangerous, ineffective, why they DON’T improve resistance to disease and why they’re not worthy of any claims the media, government, medicine and science table regarding their application. (https://www.jchristoff.com/medical-doctors-and-phd-scientists-speak-out-against-vaccinations-2/)

If you are still confused about the vaccine issue as a parent and really want to prove to yourself that vaccines are safe and effective, simply take the “Inject Yourself Challenge” as described below.

 

Hospitalisation and Mortality Rate Proportional to Vaccine Doses

In 2006 CDC commissioned harvard to develop a software to make VAERS (vaccine adversed events reporting system) a passive reporting system to one that is active. They used the software in Harvard Pilgrim Healthcare, Inc from june 2006 to octoer 2009. 376,452 were given 1.4 million doses of 45 different vaccines. A total of 35,570 possible adverse reactions were identified, so 2.6% of vaccinations were followed by a possible adverse reaction. This is signifcant as the entire US only recorded 30,000 adversed events after vaccination in one year.
(https://truthsnitch.com/…/cdc-silence-million-dollar…/)

This worked out to LESS THAN 1% of adversed events being reported.

Even so CDC had often used VAERS as part of it’s after market surveillance eventhough there are a number of limitations in the system.

A peer reviewed paper looking at the vaccine injuries recorded in VAERS found damning evidences of how unsafe vaccines are.
(http://www.jpands.org/vol21no2/miller.pdf) . Any other products would have been recalled or totally banned with such bad safety record.

A sample of what was discovered :

Vaccine Doses and Hospitalizations

Of the 38,801 VAERS reports that was analyzed,

For 2 doses 107 of 969 infants were hospitalized: a hospitalization rate of 11%.

For 3 doses 243 of 1959 infants were hospitalized: a hospitalization rate of 12.4 %.

For 4 doses 561 of 3909 infants were hospitalized: a hospitalization rate of 14.4%.

For 5 doses 1463 of 10,114 infants were hospitalized: a hospitalization rate of 14.5%.

For six doses, 1,365 of 8,454 infants were hospitalized: 16.1%.

For seven doses, 1,051 of 5,489 infants were hospitalized: 19.1%.

And for eight doses, 661 of 2,817 infants were hospitalized: 23.5%.

The hospitalization rate increased linearly from 11.0% for two doses to 23.5% for eight doses. Linear regression analysis of hospitalization rates as a function of the number of reported vaccine doses yielded a linear relationship, with an RR of 0.91.

Th same study also look at the fatality ratio or mortality rate

Of the 38,801 VAERS reports that we analyzed, 11,927 infants received one, two, three, or four vaccine doses prior to having an adverse event, and 423 of those infants died: a mortality rate of 3.6%.

The remaining 26,874 infants received five, six, seven, or eight vaccine doses prior to the adverse event and 1,458 of them died: 5.4%.

The mortality rate for infants who received five to eight vaccine
doses (5.4%) is significantly higher than the mortality rate for
infants who received one to four vaccine doses (3.6%), with
a rate ratio (RR) of 1.5 (95% CI, 1.4-1.7).

Of infants reported to VAERS, those who had received more vaccines had a statistically significant 50% higher mortality rate compared with those who had received fewer.

Childhood Vaccinations and Juvenile-Onset (Type-1) Diabetes 

http://www.whale.to/v/coulter.html

Childhood Vaccinations and Juvenile-Onset (Type-1) Diabetes
by Harris Coulter, Ph.D.

President, Center for Empirical Medicine Testimony before the Congress of the United States, House of Representatives, Committee on Appropriations, subcommittee on Labor, Health and Human Services, Education, and Related Agencies April 16, 1997

Diabetes, both juvenile-onset (Type I) and adult-onset (Type II), is a major health problem in the United States, and the number of diabetics is increasing every year. In 1947, there were an estimated 600,000 cases of diabetes in the United States.(1)

Thirty years later, in 1976, Henry Bearn wrote: It is perhaps not generally appreciated that in the United States diabetes, or at least the recognition of the disease, has increased about 300 percent over the last fifteen years. It is the second leading cause of blindness, and the third cause of death. In 1950 there were 1.2 million diabetics in the United States; the estimation now is that there are over 10 million, yet the population has increased by only 50 percent.(2)

Today the Metropolitan Life Insurance Co.’s quarterly Statistical Bulletin estimates that diabetics make up 5 percent of the US population, or 13 million persons.(3) Of these, 85-90 percent are adult onset, which is more or less controlled by diet and exercise; the other 10-15 percent require daily injections of insulin. So, while the US population has approximately doubled since the 1940’s, the number of diabetics has risen more than 20 times. While the statistical data, like any medical statistics, are based to some degree on estimates, there has clearly been a huge increase in the number of diabetics in the United States. Billions Spent to Help Diabetics – Furthermore, diabetics consumer about 15 percent of all health care costs, again according to Metropolitan Life.

People not only die from diabetes (160,000 cases in 1994) but the disease leads to cardiovascular complications, stroke, gangrene of the extremities requiring amputation, kidney failure, and blindness. With an estimated total health bill in the United States of about $1 trillion per year at the end of the 20th century, the annual bill for the care and treatment of diabetics will shortly amount to $100-$150 billion unless steps are taken to prevent this. If the Medicare and Medicaid expenditures for treatment of diabetics could be reduced by half, it would be a major savings.

African Americans At Risk – Of particular concern is the heightened prevalence of diabetes in the American black population. In 1991 the death rate from diabetes in American white males was 11.5/100,000 (resident population), for white females it was 9.6; for black males it was 24.6 and for black females it was 25.7. In other words, the death rate for blacks is 2-3 times as high as for whites (4).

This is an especially serious problem in the armed services. The expected incidence of Type-I (insulin-dependent) diabetes for persons aged 17-34 is 4/100,000 for whites and 90/100,000 for black sailors in the 17-34 age group. (5) The authors of this study admit ignorance about the reason why the diabetes incidence should be higher in black naval personnel. Especially worrisome in this connection, is the ignorance of scientists about the reasons for the steep rise in diabetes. It may be due, in part, to earlier diagnosis or better treatment of the disease, thus preventing or postponing death and/or the development of stroke, kidney failure, and blindness. But this factor cannot account for the tremendous increase in cases since the 1940s. Genetic and Environmental Factors – In any case, the very origin of diabetes is still a mystery. Since the late 19th century, diabetes has been known to be related to the pancreas and, in 1922, Canadians Frederick Banting and Charles H. Best, discovered that the missing factor was insulin – an internal secretion of the pancreas. But why does the pancreas stop, or fail to start, secreting insulin? Or, more specifically, why do the beta-cells of the pancreas cease to perform their functions? The consensus on the causation of diabetes was expressed in 1976 in a paper by Alexander Bearn: “Diabetes appears to be one of those diseases in which susceptibility may be inherited but where environmental factors may lead to the onset of disease and illness.” (6) One environmental factor – viral infection – has been recognized; the other factor of significance for diabetes is the presence of an autoimmune process. (7) But the cause or causes of the epidemic of autoimmune disease in the United States, which commenced in the 1950’s, are themselves mysterious. (8) Since the incidence and prevalence of diabetes continues to rise at a rather rapid rate in the United States and the other industrialized countries, every possible causal or environmental factor is worth examining. On such factor which has hardly been investigated at all is the relationship with childhood vaccinations.

The purpose of my appearance here today is to draw the Committee’s attention to this connection. No Investigation of the Vaccine Connection – As we will see, while there is much circumstantial and “anecdotal” evidence (meaning case histories) in favor of a diabetes/vaccination connection, this has never been officially investigated. The fact that the federal medical establishment – which would be the major source of funds for such an epidemiologic investigation – is itself highly committed to the childhood vaccination program, goes far to explain the absence of any official interest in this connection. This is a major disadvantage of all research on damage from the childhood vaccination program. In fact, several of the vaccines administered for the disease of childhood have been implicated in the causation of diabetes.

1. The Pertussis Vaccine
The vaccine for pertussis, or whooping cough, is part of the DPT shot (diphtheria, pertussis, tetanus) given to all children. The pertussis vaccine includes “pertussis toxin,” a toxin secreted by the microbe which causes whooping cough (the Bordetella pertussis). This toxin, which has been described as one of the most virulent poisons known to science, has several names and has a variety of effects on the body. Pertussis Toxin Affects Pancreas – One of the names for pertussis toxin has traditionally been “islet-activating protein,” signifying that this substance acts specifically and directly on the “islets of Langerhans,” which are the insulin-secreting parts of the pancreas. (9) At least since the 1970s, pertussis vaccine has been known in animal experiments to stimulate over-production of insulin by the pancreas followed by exhaustion and destruction of the “islets” with consequent under-production of insulin; in the first case the outcome is hypoglycemia, and in the latter it is diabetes. (10) Physicians as early as 1949 called attention to low blood glucose in children who had severe reactions to the pertussis vaccine. (11) In 1970, Margaret Pittman wrote: “the infant whose blood sugar level is influenced by food intake may be especially vulnerable to vaccine-induced hypglycemia…the vaccine induces hypoglycemia in mice and rabbits.” Gordon Stewart wrote in 1977: “more than any other vaccine in common use, pertussis vaccine is known pharmacologically to provoke…hypoglycemia due to increase production of insulin.” Two Dutch researchers, Hannik and Cohen, observed in 1978: “infants who show serious reactions following pertussis vaccination suffer from a failure to maintain glucose homeostasis.” And two German researchers, Hennessen and Quast, found in 1979 that 59 out of 149 children who manifested adverse reactions to the pertussis vaccine developed symptoms of hypoglycemia. (12) The next logical step – deciding that the whooping cough vaccine could be responsible for the presently observed increase in the incidence of hypoglycemia and diabetes – has been inhibited by the federal government’s pro-vaccination policy, but enough researchers have spoken out in favor of a diabetes connection to suggest that this is a very real possibility deserving of further investigation.

II. The Measles-Mumps-Rubella Vaccine
The MMR (measles, mumps, rubella) vaccine, especially its mumps and rubella components, has been especially implicated in the causation of Type-I diabetes.

A. Rubella and the Rubella Vaccine
Of the three vaccines making up the MMR shot, the rubella component is the major suspect because rubella (German measles) itself, like mumps, is known to be a cause of diabetes and the action of the vaccine resembles that of the disease. If the disease can cause diabetes, so can the vaccine. Let us first look at the disease.

Rubella Virus Causes Diabetes – In 1978 Margaret Menser wrote: “Since 1968 there has been increasing interest in the possibility that viral infection may play a part in the etiology of diabetes mellitus in man…[but] only one virus consistently produces diabetes in man – the congenitally acquired rubella virus.” (13) “Congenital rubella syndrome” is the name given to the group of impairments and disabilities often seen in babies whose mothers become infected with rubella during pregnancy. These impairments include: heart disease, mental retardation, deafness, and blindness.

E.J. Rayfield and colleagues wrote in 1986: “The congenital rubella syndrome provides the best documentation in humans that a viral infection is associated with the subsequent development of insulin-dependent [Type-I} diabetes mellitus.” (14)

In the 1960’s and 1970’s, researchers came to realize that the effect of the rubella virus does not end at the moment of birth, but that it remains in the organism of the baby and continues to exert its influence for many years thereafter. Especially to be noted is the fact that up to 20 percent of these individuals later come down with Type-I diabetes. This may take from 5 to 20 years to develop, indicating that the rubella virus remains active in the organism for all that time. (15)

This virus acts by forming “rubella-specific immune complexes” (an immune complex” is a mixture of the rubella virus and the antibody to it). P.K. Coyle and colleagues showed in 1982 that such immune complexes are found in individuals with congenital rubella and also in persons vaccinated against rubella. They were not found in persons who had never been infected with rubella nor in those who had had the disease naturally and recovered from it. These immune complexes can and do act on the pancreas. (16)

In 1989, Numazaki and colleagues infected laboratory cultures of human pancreatic islet cells with rubella virus. They found that these infected cells produced much lower levels of insulin and concluded: these results suggest that rubella virus can infect human pancreatic islet cells and that such infection may lead to significant reductions in levels of secreted insulin.” (17)

Thus, rubella itself has been demonstrated to be a causal agent in Type-I diabetes. How about the vaccine?

Rubella Vaccine Virus Persists In Body – P.K. Coyle and colleagues demonstrated in 1982 that “rubella-specific immune complex formation is frequent after vaccination and could be demonstrated in two-thirds of an unselected group of vaccinates for as long as eight months after vaccination.” (18) In fact, the virus has been found to persist in the body of the vaccinated person for as long as seven years after vaccination. (19) This is not surprising, given that in congenital rubella syndrome the virus can persist for at least 20 years and, probably, for a lifetime. (20)

Thus, there is no reason to make a distinction between rubella virus entering the organism as part of the disease process and the same virus entering via a vaccination. It is known, for instance, that “vaccinees sometimes develop mild rubella, including rash, lymphadenopathy, fever, sore throat and headache.” (21) In adult women this occurs in about half the vaccinees. (22) In both cases, immune complexes are formed and persist in the host organism for lengthy periods. Immune complexes from a vaccination can attack the pancreas just as easily as if they were from congenital rubella syndrome. The actual mechanism of such an attack on the pancreas is probably multifactorial. Aside from the possibility that the immune complexes attack the islet cells of the pancreas directly, there is also the likelihood that they generate an allergic (anaphylactic, hypersensitive) or autoimmune state with subsequent autoimmune destruction of the pancreas. Margaret Menser wrote: “Clinically it is not possible to show whether the pathogenesis of the diabetes initiated by the rubella virus is due solely to direct viral invasion of the beta-cells of the islets of Langerhans, or whether the virus induces an immunologic reaction in the islet cells, which then leads to the development of diabetes.” (23)

E.J. Mayfield and colleagues wrote in the same connection: “The mechanism of virus-induced diabetes is not known. Viruses associated with diabetes in animals may cause disease by (1) directly lysing [i.e., dissolving] the beta-cells; (2) triggering an autoimmune response; or (3) specifically impairing the secretory process of beta-cells through a persistent infection.” He concluded that option (2) was the most probable one: the generation of an autoimmune state in which the body, as it were, becomes allergic to itself or to a part of itself. (24)

The reasonableness of this explanation is enhanced by the observation that the rubella vaccine can cause an allergic reaction. (25) A Canadian survey in 1987 found “allergic reactions” in 30 children who reacted adversely to the MMR vaccine. (26) Indeed, the possibility of an anaphylactic reaction from the MMR vaccine is specifically recognized by the Vaccine Injury Table in Title 21 of the Public Health Service Act (this table was developed as a guideline for compensating victims of vaccination under the National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act of 1986, Public Law 99-660).

Diabetes after a rubella vaccination probably represents a combined effect: the virus attacks the islet cells of the pancreas in an organism which has already been weakened by an autoimmune reaction to the same virus.

B. Mumps and the Mumps Vaccine Mumps Infection Can Cause Diabetes – There is copious evidence of a causal relationship between clinical mumps and subsequent development of diabetes. This evidence consists of: data linking mumps with pancreatitis; individual case reports of Type-I diabetes following clinical mumps infection; clusters of Type-I diabetes cases after mumps epidemics; and large epidemiological studies demonstrating parallel curves between outbreaks of mumps and new cases of Type-I diabetes (with a lag of 2-3 years). (27) Furthermore, mumps virus can infect human pancreatic beta cells in vitro and destroy them. (28)

These and similar reports are noted and described in Adverse Events Associated with Childhood Vaccines: Evidence Bearing on Causality (Washington, D.C: National Academy of Sciences, Institute of Medicine, 1993). This compendium was prepared by the Vaccine Safety Committee appointed as part of the overall effort of the federal government to evaluate vaccination risks and benefits as charged by the National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act of 1986 (100 Stat. 3780, 3781). The IOM Committee concluded: “There is evidence suggesting that mumps virus infection can trigger the onset of Type-I diabetes in some individuals. Biologic plausibility data implicating the mumps virus in the pathogenesis of Type-I diabetes include: (1) the association between viral infections, including mumps, and Type-I diabetes in humans; (2) the detection of circulating autoantibodies against pancreatic antigens, particularly islet cells, during convalescence from mumps infection as well as early in the course of Type-I diabetes; and (3) in vitro studies demonstrating that the wild-type mumps virus can infect human pancreatic beta cells. (29)

The question to be answered is whether the mumps vaccine can have the same effect as the clinical infection with mumps.

Diabetes Reported Following Mumps Vaccination – There are many reports in the literature of Type-I diabetes emerging after mumps vaccination. In 1997, Sinaiotis and colleagues reported the onset of Type-I diabetes one month after receipt of mumps vaccine in a 6.5 year old boy. In 1991, Pawlowski and Gries described an 11-year old body who had mumps disease at age 16 months and then received measles-mumps vaccine 5 months prior to the emergence of Type-I diabetes; he had severe abdominal pain and fever one week after vaccination. In 1984, Otten and colleagues reported three cases of Type-I diabetes with onset in one case 10 days and, in other cases, 3 weeks after mumps vaccination in children 3,2 and 16 years of age. In 1986, Helmke and colleagues reported seven children who developed Type-I diabetes in the second to fourth week following mumps or measles-mumps vaccination. In 1979, Quast and colleagues noted that in the first two years after mumps and measles-mumps vaccines were introduced into Germany, two cases of Type-I diabetes following immunization with measles-mumps and mumps vaccines respectively were reported to the manufacturer. (30)

But, oddly enough, despite this finding and despite the series of case studies already noted, the Vaccine Safety Committee concluded that there was insufficient evidence either to accept or reject a causal relation between mumps vaccine and Type-I diabetes. This contradicted its own assertion in the Preface that: “In reaching conclusions favoring acceptance of a causal relation…the committee most commonly relied on case series and individual case reports.” (31)

C. Measles and Measles Vaccine 
There is little convincing evidence of an association between measles as a clinical disease and diabetes; thus there is no reason to suspect the measles component of the MMR vaccine of any causal relationship to diabetes. (32)

III. Haemophilus Influenzae B and Hib Vaccine
A study of haemophilus influenzae B (Hib) vaccine in 114,000 Finnish children found that those who received 4 doses of the vaccine had a higher incidence of Type-I diabetes than those who received only one dose. (33)

IV. Hepatitis B and Hep-B Vaccine
According to J. Barthelow Classen, M.D., a hepatitis B vaccination program in New Zealand, which commenced in 1988, led to a 60 percent increase in Type-I diabetes in the recipients. In the under-20 age group, the incidence of Type-I diabetes prior to the vaccination campaign (i.e. from 1982-1991) was 18.2/100,000 person years. Classen’s data have led the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases to request the Swedish health authorities to investigate the possible connection between the pertussis vaccine and Type-I diabetes. Results are expected to be available in several months. In Classen’s view, the Hepatitis B vaccine and other vaccines can induce Type-I diabetes through the release of interferons, since interferons have already been implicated as causing autoimmunity, including Type-I diabetes. Classen also observes that the package inserts for the various hepatitis B vaccines on the market notes that they cause several autoimmune diseases, and the FDA itself has recognized that they can cause alopecia (baldness) of autoimmune origin. (34)

V. Conclusion
The vaccines discussed above are not an exhaustive list of those suspected of causing Type-I diabetes. Apparently in all cases, factors relating to autoimmunity are involved in the causal chain between vaccination and the emergence of Type-I diabetes. Any vaccine capable of giving rise to the autoimmune state is thus a candidate. Little Research Exists on Vaccination and Autoimmunity – A 1996 article on vaccination and autoimmunity by researchers at Tel Aviv University in Israel throws additional light on this question. (35) The authors note that “in recent decades, although it has been suggested in case reports that some vaccines might trigger autoimmune disorders, the subject has received comparatively little attention in clinical and laboratory studies.”

Such vaccines as influenza, hepatitis A, hepatitis B, rabies, MMR, tetanus and oral polio have all been linked with autoimmune diseases such as reactive arthritis, thrombocytopenia purpura and lupus. Also, the authors note, “it seems that vaccines have a predilection to affect the nervous system: neuritis, demyelination, myasthenia gravis, and Guillain-Barre syndrome have been described.” Furthermore, the incidence of vaccine-induced autoimmunity is twice as high as high in females as in males. The authors conclude: “The subject of the vaccine autoimmunity relationship is still obscure; reports have been rare, not laboratory experimentation on this topic has been undertaken, and there are few animal models. For the time being no conclusions can be drawn.”

Since this is still virgin territory, we may expect far more data in support of the vaccine-autoimmunity connection as work progresses and, specifically, on the connection with Type-I diabetes. Military and African American Populations Need Study – Further evidence of a possible vaccination link is found in the data on diabetes in US Navy enlisted personnel mentioned above. These are individuals in whom Type-I diabetes has appeared after the age of enlistment (since diabetes is a bar to enlistment). Frequent vaccinations seems to be a fact of life in the US armed forces. In the absence of any suggestion as to other possible causative factors which could transform a healthy sailor into a diabetic, the vaccinations which these men and women receive at regular intervals during their naval service must be considered as prime suspects. (36) The greater incidence of diabetes in the US African American population can readily be explained in terms of enhanced susceptibility to vaccine damage. The genetic background of this population may differ in significant respects from that of white populations sufficiently to account for a greater likelihood of vaccine damage.

Public Health Agencies Ignore Diabetes-Vaccine Connection – A striking feature of this whole diabetes/vaccination picture is the division or bifurcation of medical opinion. While researchers are well aware of the significance of vaccinations as etiological agents in the production of diabetes, the Public Health Service and related agencies promoting vaccination programs deny or ignore this relationship or are simply unaware of it. At any rate, the public is not yet being informed of this additional and very real risk from the vaccines which they are compelled to administer to their children.

The seriousness of Type-I diabetes is perhaps not appreciated by the public at large. While not quite a death sentence, it is close to it. Panzram wrote in 1984: “Type-I diabetes, particularly at a young age, must be considered as a rather serious disease, with a 5 to 10-fold higher excess in mortality in comparison with the general population.” (37) Diabetes is the seventh leading cause of death in the United States. Type-I, especially, means a shortened life with many disagreeable features such as stroke, kidney failure, cardiovascular complications, blindness and the need to amputate gangrenous limbs. The bill for treating these conditions is, as already noted earlier, in the neighborhood of $100-$150 billion every year.

VI. Suggestions for Action
As noted throughout this paper, the Public Health Service and other federal health agencies promote vaccination programs and do not readily criticize them. Even the scanty information we have today about vaccine damage would not have been available if the Congress had not adopted the National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act of 1986 (over a presidential veto), compelling these agencies to investigate areas they would have preferred to ignore. The following action items are suggested as ways to prevail on these agencies to pursue further research on these matters and thus increase our knowledge of the vaccination-diabetes connection.

Study Military Personnel – An effort should be made to contact former armed services personnel who contracted Type-I diabetes while on active service. Since diabetes is a bar to military service, one can be relatively certain that these individuals were diabetes-free at the time of enlistment. It would be interesting to ascertain the chronological relationship between one or another of the many vaccinations received by servicemen and women and the date of onset of the first symptoms of diabetes (the testimony of one who did contract diabetes in this way is given in the Appendix).

Study Modification of Vaccination Schedules – Alternative scheduling of childhood vaccinations as a way of minimizing the incidence of Type-I diabetes should be studied. Conduct Cost-Benefit Analyses – Cost-benefit analyses of various childhood vaccines should be prepared based on the assumption that they contribute to the incidence of Type-I diabetes.

Alert Doctors – Physicians should be alerted to Type-I diabetes as a possible consequence of rubella, pertussis and other childhood vaccinations; if that were done, the reporting of Type-I diabetes would be intensified.

Add Type-I Diabetes to Vaccine Injury Compensation Table – Consideration should be given to including Type-I diabetes in the Vaccine Injury Table of the national vaccine injury compensation program created under PL99-660.

NOTES
1. Henry A. Christian, The Principles and Practice of Medicine. Sixteenth Edition. New York: D. Appleton-Century, 1947, 582.
2. Alexander G. Bearn, “Structural Determinants of Disease and Their Contribution to Clinical and Scientific Progress.” SIBA Foundation Symposiums 44 (1976), 25-40, at 28.
3. Washington Post. Health. April 1, 1997.
4. USDHHS, Health United States 1993. Washington, D.C: GPO, 1994-93.
5. Edward D. Gorham, Frank G. Garland, Elizabeth Barrett-Connor, Cedric F. Garland, Deborah L. Wingard and William M. Pugh, “Incidence of Insulin-dependent Diabetes Mellitus in Young Adults: Experience of 1,587,630 US Navy Enlisted Personnel.” A.J. Epidemiology 138:11 (1993), 984-987.
6. Alexander Bearn, op cit, 36-37.
7. Daniel P. Stites, John D. Stobo, H. Hugh Fudenberg and J. Vivian Wells, Basic and Clinical Immunology. Fifth Edition. Los Altos, California: Lange, 1984, 152ff.
8. Ibid., 153.
9. H.L. Coulter and Barbara Loe Fisher, DPT: A Shot in the Dark, Garden City Park, N.Y.: Avery Publishers, 1991, 49-50. 10. Ronald D. Sekura, Joel Moss and Martha Vaughan, Pertussis Toxin. New York and London: Academic Press, 1985, 19-43; J.J. Munoz and R.K. Bergman, Bordetella Pertussis. New York and Basel: Marcel Dekker, 1977, 160ff.; B.L. Furman, A.C. Wardlaw and L.Q. Stevenson, “Bordetella Pertussis-Induced Hyperinsulinemia Without Marked Hypoglycemia: A Paradox Explained.” British Journal of Experimental Pathology 62 (1981), 504-511.
11. Cited in C.S.F. Easmon and J. Jeljaszewicz, Medical Microbiology, Volume 2. Immunization Against Bacterial Diseases. London and New York: Academic Press, 1983, 246.
12. Cited in H.L Coulter and Barbara Loe Fisher, op. cit., 49-50.
13. Margaret Menser et al., “Rubella Infection and Diabetes Mellitus.” Lancet (January 14, 1978), 57-60, at 57.
14. E.J. Rayfield et al, “Rubella Virus-Induced Diabetes in the Hamster.” Diabetes 35 (December, 1986), 1278-1281, at 1278. 15. Ibid., 1280. Daniel H. Gold and T.A. Weingeist, The Eye in Systemic Disease. Philadelphia: Lippincott, 1990, 270.
16. P.K. Coyle et al., “Rubella-Specific Immune Complexes After Congenital Infection and Vaccination.” Infection and Immunity 36:2 (May, 1982), 498-503, at 501.
17. Kei Numazaki et al. “Infection of Cultured Human Fetal Pancreatic Islet Cells by Rubella Virus.” A.J. Clinical Pathology 91 (1989), 446-451.
18. P.K. Coyle et al, op. cit., 501.
19. Ibid, 502. Wolfgang Ehrengut, “Central Nervous System Sequelae of Immunization Against Measles, Mumps, Rubella and Poliomyelitis.” Acta Paediatrica Japonica 32 (1990), 8-11, at 10; Aubrey J. Tingle et al., “Postpartum Rubella Immunization: Association with Development of Prolonged Arthritis, Neurological Sequelae, and Chronic Rubella Viremia.” J. Infectious Diseases 152:3 (September, 1985), 606-612, at 607.
20. E.J. Rayfield et al., op. cit., 1281.
21. Stanley A. Plotkin and Edward Mortimer, Jr., Vaccines. Philadelphia: W.B. Saunders Co., 1988, 248.
22. M. Poyner et al., “The Reactogenicity of Rubella Vaccine in a Population of United Kingdom Schoolgirls.” B.J. Clinical Practice 40:11 (November, 1986), 468-471, at 470.
23. Margaret Menser et al., op. cit, 59.
24. E.J. Rayfield et al., op. cit., 1278, 1280.
25. T.M. Pollock and Jean Morris, “A 7-Year Survey of Disorders Attributed to Vaccination in North West Thames Region.” Lancet (April 2, 1983), 753-757, at 754.
26. Sasson Lavi et al., “Administration of Measles, Mumps and Rubella Vaccine (Live) to Egg-Allergic Children.” Journal of the AMA 263:2 (January 12, 1990), 269-271.
27. Kathleen R. Stratton et al, editors, Adverse Events Associated with Childhood Vaccines: Evidence Bearing on Causality, Washington, D.C.: National Academy Press, 1993, 153-154.
28. Ibid, 156.
29. Ibid, 158-159.
30. Ibid, 154.
31. Ibid, vi.
32. Kathleen R. Stratton, et al., opc. cit., 154, 158.
34. J. Barthelow Classen, “Childhood Immunisation and Diabetes Mellitus.” New Zealand M.J., 109 (May 24, 1996), 195.
35. Arnon Dov Cohen and Yehuda Shoenfeld, “Vaccine-Induced Autoimmunity.” J. Autoimmunity 9 (1996), 699-703.
36. Edward D. Gotham et al, op. cit.
37. G. Panzram, “Epidemiologic Data on Excess Mortality and Life Expectancy in Insulin-Dependent Diabetes Mellitus – Critical Review.” Exp. Clin. Endocrinol. 83: 1(1984), 93-100, at 93.

An Updated Analysis of the Health Risks Part 3

by Gary Null, PhD, and Martin Feldman, MD
(http://www.townsendletter.com/Dec2007/vaccinate1207.htm)

Rotavirus Vaccine
In 2006, the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) recommended vaccination of all infants at two, four, and six months of age with a new vaccine designed to prevent rotavirus gastroenteritis. RotaTeq (Merck & Co.) is a live, oral vaccine that contains five reassortant rotaviruses developed from human and bovine strains.1 The American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) also recommended routine use of this vaccine in infants in 2006.2

The RotaTeq vaccine will almost certainly draw comparisons with a previous oral rotavirus vaccine, RotaShield, which was released by Wyeth Laboratories in 1998. The ACIP and AAP recommended universal use of RotaShield for healthy infants. A year later, however, RotaShield was removed from the market after the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS) received reports of bowel intussusception—an obstruction in which one segment of the intestine telescopes inwardly into another—in babies who had received RRV-TV, as RotaShield was called. By the end of 1999, 121 reports of intussusception in infants administered RRV-TV had been received by VAERS.3 (Of the first 15 reported infants who developed intussusception, eight required a surgical reduction.)

The Centers for Disease Control (CDC) points out that RotaShield was rhesus-based. By contrast, the parent rotavirus strains of the newly released RotaTeq are human and bovine.4 RotaTeq was not associated with an increased risk of intussusception compared with placebo in a trial involving more than 70,000 children.5 The CDC does note, however, that children who have already had this bowel obstruction should not get the rotavirus vaccine, because anyone who has had intussusception is at an increased risk of getting it again.6

An estimated one million US infants were vaccinated with RotaShield following its approval. This vaccine’s history is made worse by the fact that prelicensure trials demonstrated that RotaShield caused bowel intussusception at rates 30 times higher than those expected. This is what emerged from an analysis of prelicensure trial data by the Association of American Physicians and Surgeons.7

If it was already known that the vaccine could cause a potentially lethal condition, why did the FDA approve it? Why had nobody warned doctors to watch for this complication? These and other questions prompted the AAPS to request a Congressional investigation of the vaccine approval process. As Dr. Jane Orient, executive director of the AAPS, wrote in a letter to Representative Dan Burton, “The situation with the rotavirus vaccine may be a clue to a far more serious problem with the vaccine approval process.” Dr. Orient makes the important point that “Decisions about vaccines given to children should be made by parents in consultation with the child’s attending physician, not mandated by a small group of ‘experts’ with minimal accountability.”8

Meningococcal Vaccine
In its first year on the market, the new meningococcal conjugate vaccine (MCV4) was potentially associated with an increased risk of Guillain-Barre syndrome (GBS), a rare neurological disorder that causes increasing weakness in the limbs. The meningococcal vaccine (Menactra) was recommended by the ACIP in May 2005 for routine vaccination of adolescents, college freshmen who live in dormitories, and other high-risk individuals.9

By September 2006, 17 confirmed cases of GBS in recipients of MCV4 had been reported to VAERS (all affected individuals had recovered or were recovering).10Although this association does not necessarily mean the vaccine caused the illness, the CDC has reported that the timing of the onset of GBS symptoms—within one to five weeks of vaccination—is of concern. As of October 2006, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and CDC were monitoring the situation, and the CDC continued to recommend the vaccine for adolescents and others.11

Smallpox Vaccine
The smallpox vaccine was given to infants in the US until 1972. At that time, the global incidence of this disease was well under control, and routine vaccination against smallpox ended. According to the National Network for Immunization Information, it was believed then that the risk of serious adverse events from the smallpox vaccine, including death, outweighed the risk of contracting the disease itself in the US.12 The World Health Organization (WHO) certified that smallpox was eradicated worldwide in 1980.

After the terrorist threats of 2001, the US developed a plan to reintroduce the smallpox vaccine, if necessary,13 to counter a potential attack using the virus as a biological weapon. In State of Immunity, author James Colgrove reports that the Bush Administration announced an ambitious plan in 2002 to vaccinate emergency personnel, health care workers, and adults in the general public on a voluntary basis. The administration failed to win the support of the program from health care providers, however, and less than a year later, the smallpox vaccination plan was ceased.14 Approximately 39,000 civilian health care and public health workers received the smallpox vaccine in 2003.15

Although this vaccination program failed, the proposal to immunize Americans against a biological attack with smallpox should cause us to take a closer look at this vaccine. (The old smallpox vaccine is stockpiled in the US, and new smallpox vaccines are in development.16)

An Unknown Virus 
The modern smallpox vaccine does not contain the smallpox virus itself, but rather a virus called “vaccinia” whose origins are unknown. The CDC states, “The vaccinia virus is the ‘live virus’ used in the smallpox vaccine. It is a ‘pox’-type virus related to smallpox. When given to humans as a vaccine, it helps the body to develop immunity to smallpox. The smallpox vaccine does not contain the smallpox virus, and it cannot cause smallpox.”17 The University of Florida College of medicine information page adds this: “Vaccinia is the virus that was used for vaccination against smallpox. Its exact origin is unknown, however, as it does not appear to be related to any other known pox virus. Some people think that it is a recombinant of smallpox and cowpox, while others think that it may be a derivative of horsepox, a virus that no longer exists (if it ever did).”

Adverse Effects of the Vaccine
The CDC reports that while the smallpox vaccine is safe for most people, serious and life-threatening reactions do occur in rare cases. Serious reactions include a rash or outbreak of sores in one area of the body (the virus may be spread from the vaccination site to other parts of the body or to other people); a widespread vaccinia rash that occurs when the virus spreads from the vaccination site through the bloodstream; and a toxic or allergic reaction to the vaccine. Life-threatening reactions to the smallpox vaccine include eczema vaccinatum (a serious rash involving widespread infection of the skin in people with conditions such as eczema or atopic dermatitis), progressive vaccinia (an infection of the skin with tissue destruction that often leads to death), and postvaccinal encephalitis (inflammation of the brain).18

Another potential complication of the smallpox vaccine is myopericarditis, or inflammation of the heart. The CDC says that while the link between the smallpox vaccine and this condition is not proven, data from recent smallpox vaccinations are “consistent with a causal association” between the two.19 In 2005 the FDA added a new black-box warning to Dryvax (the smallpox vaccine produced by Wyeth) regarding the increased risk of cardiac problems experienced by some recipients of the smallpox vaccine.20

What might the consequences of mass smallpox vaccination be? That was the question addressed in a 2002 article. Using historical data on adverse reactions to the vaccine, the authors estimated that, after excluding high-risk people and their close contacts, a vaccination strategy targeting people one to 29 years old would result in approximately 1,600 serious adverse events and 190 deaths. Vaccination of people from one to 65 years old would result in approximately 4,600 adverse events and 285 deaths. The researchers note that the smallpox vaccine “has a higher complication rate than any other vaccine currently being used.” They conclude that a mass vaccination campaign would have to be careful to exclude high-risk people and their contacts to minimize the complications, but that this approach would leave some people susceptible to the disease.21

In a 2006 paper, researchers estimated the expected frequencies of post-vaccinal encephalitis and death from smallpox vaccines containing two different strains of vaccinia virus: the New York City Board of Health (NYCBH) strain and the Lister strain. They note that other studies of the consequences of smallpox vaccination commonly have used an incidence of approximately one death per million vaccinations. However, these analyses “may give serious underestimates of the number of deaths resulting from vaccination.” This study estimates that vaccination with the NYCBH strain (stockpiled in countries such as the US) would lead to an average of 1.4 deaths per million vaccinations. Vaccination with the Lister strain (stockpiled in countries such as Germany) would lead to an average of 8.4 deaths per million vaccinations.22

Activists Speak Out on Vaccine Dangers
Those who take issue with universal immunization point out that the programs do not distinguish between children who may benefit from a certain vaccine and those who may be hurt by it. Infants are given blanket immunization regardless of their previous or current state of health and their varying susceptibilities to side effects. Ideally, the vaccination system should be much more selective, with parents being given complete information, so they can decide whether the risks associated with a particular procedure outweigh its potential benefits. Just as different races may suffer disproportionately from allergies and food sensitivities, studies indicate that they may experience different reactions to vaccines.

People engaged in the fight against government-mandated vaccines share their concerns here about several vaccination issues.

Provocation Disease
One of the most hazardous and insidious effects of vaccination lies in its potential to induce other forms of disease, a phenomenon known as provocation disease.23-27 The mechanisms that cause this to happen are unclear, although many scientists believe that latent viruses—those already existing in a person—may be stimulated by vaccinations and that this process may be enough to activate a particular illness. Vaccination, therefore, may not be the sole cause but rather the final trigger of an illness.
In his book Vaccination and Immunization: Dangers, Delusions and Alternatives,28 Leon Chaitow states that there is no way of knowing when such latent or incubating situations may be operating, and therefore no way of knowing when a vaccine may produce this sort of provocation.29 He warns that provocation of a latent virus is a potentially dangerous possibility with every vaccination procedure.

Many diseases thought to be caused at least partially by vaccinations do not surface until years later, by which time it is difficult to prove a connection. Two examples of conditions that may be provoked by vaccines are as follows:

  • Allergies According to Dr. Harris Coulter, co-author of A Shot in the Dark,30 and other experts,31 vaccines and allergies are clearly connected. “What does allergy mean? It means that your body is ready to react very, very quickly when exposed a second time to a substance to which it is allergic. If you are allergic to ragweed, [a small amount] of ragweed will start you sneezing. Now, if you vaccinate a person against pertussis or some other bacillus, you are making that person ‘allergic’ to that bacillus. That’s what being vaccinated actually means. It means you are ‘allergic’ to that bacillus, in the sense that your body will react very, very rapidly if exposed to that bacillus a second time.”
  • Immunosuppression and Autoimmune Disease The body needs to experience a full inflammatory response to create immunity, and vaccines do not allow this to happen. Instead, a chronic condition is created that can set the stage for autoimmune disease. Autoimmune diseases such as Guillain-Barre syndrome and thrombocytopenia have been associated with vaccinations.32In Immunization: The Reality Behind the Myth, author Walene James suggests that vaccinations may induce autoimmune disorders because “live viruses, the primary antigenic material of [some] vaccines, are capable of surviving or remaining latent in the host cell for years, without provoking acute disease.”33Live virus vaccines include those for chickenpox, measles, mumps, rubella, and oral polio.34

    Cynthia Cournoyer, author of What About Immunizations?, believes a key principle involved in the many negative effects of vaccines is that the immune system can tolerate only so many challenges, especially before it is given a chance to develop to maturity. “Every child,” she writes, “is born with a finite ability to combat disease. This is his total immune capacity. Once a child experiences a particular disease, permanent immunity is extremely efficient, using probably three percent to seven percent of the total immune capacity of an individual. In the case of routine childhood vaccination, it is likely that as much as 30% to 70% of total immune capacity becomes committed.”35

    Cournoyer proposes that this effect on immunity may substantially reduce a child’s immunological reserves. “Far from producing a genuine immunity, a vaccine may actually interfere with or suppress the immune response as a whole, in much the same way that radiation, chemotherapy, and corticosteroids and other anti-inflammatory drugs do.”36-38Cournoyer continues, “Although the body will not make antibodies against its own tissues, viruses becoming part of the genetic make-up may cause cells to appear foreign to the immune system, making them a fair target for antibody production…. Under proper conditions, these latent pro viruses could become activated and cause a variety of diseases, including rheumatoid arthritis, multiple sclerosis, lupus erythematosus…and cancer.”39

  • Temporary Immunity of Vaccines Vaccines provide only temporary immunity, whereas the contraction of an actual disease confers permanent immunity most of the time. Viera Scheibner, a retired research scientist, writes that “generations of children with this inadequate immunity would grow into adults with no placental immunity to pass on to their children, who would then contract measles at an age when babies are normally protected by maternal antibody….”Perhaps the most unfortunate thing about the idea of eliminating infectious diseases by vaccination is that indeed there is no need to do so. As pointed out by the group of Swiss doctors opposing the US-inspired policy of mass vaccination against measles, mumps, and rubella in Switzerland, ‘We have lost the common sense and the wisdom that used to prevail in the approach to childhood diseases. Too often, instead of reinforcing the organism’s defenses, fever and symptoms are relentlessly suppressed. This is not always without consequences…'”40-42

    Lastly, Scheibner states, “There is no need to artificially immunize our children and ourselves. The body has proper, natural mechanisms to create immunity to diseases. The diseases themselves are the priming and challenging mechanisms of the maturation process leading to the competence of the immune system….”43

Economic and Legal Issues
Cynthia Cournoyer has noted that vaccines are the only products in the US that are legally mandated to be used by every person born.44 Barbara Loe Fisher, cofounder and president of the National Vaccine Information Center (NVIC), Vienna, Va., has advocated the right of individuals to make informed, independent vaccination decisions for themselves and their children for two decades. She paints an ominous picture of things to come: “As consumers, we can bring very little economic pressure on the system to have that product improved or removed, because all of us are required by law to use it. It’s a dream for the pharmaceutical industry involved in making vaccines, because there’s no way anybody can say no. It’s a stable, ready-made market, and the enactment of the compensation law in 1986 has removed almost all liability for drug companies….”

Fisher cautions that state health departments may develop electronic systems to monitor the vaccination status of each child. “…If we don’t act now, the public health infrastructure is going to get more power to intrude in our lives, intrude in our health care choices. It all comes down to whether or not we, as individuals, are going to fight for the right to make informed health care choices, including vaccination choices, for ourselves and our children, and whether we are going to hold the drug companies and government health officials accountable for the injuries, deaths, and chronic illnesses caused by the vaccines they produce, sell, and promote for mass use.”45

The National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act of 1986 created a no-fault compensation program through which plaintiffs can seek compensation for injuries from vaccines recommended for routine administration. The law also provided, however, that evidence of gross negligence would be needed to seek punitive damages against vaccine manufacturers.46 The NVIC said in 2003 that it and other parent groups “have been critical of how adversarial the system is and how difficult it is to get an award.”47 Through fiscal year 2001, the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program had paid $1.3 billion in total awards (petitioner’s awards and attorney’s fees) for approximately 1,660 compensable petitions.48

The compensation program is funded through an excise tax on vaccines. As a result, consumers foot the bill for any injuries or deaths that may result from medical procedures they are required by law to undergo.49-51 Alan Phillips, co-founder of Citizens for Healthcare Freedom, notes: “[Pharmaceutical companies] have been allowed to use gag orders as a leverage tool in vaccine damage legal settlements to prevent disclosure of information to the public about vaccination dangers. Such arrangements are clearly unethical; they force a non-consenting American public to pay for vaccine manufacturers’ liabilities, while attempting to ensure that this same public will remain ignorant of the dangers of their products.”52,53

Vaccine critic Randall Neustaedter adds: “When lawsuits leveled at drug companies began wiping out profits gleaned from the pertussis vaccine, the manufacturers simply stopped production of the vaccine. The United States government stepped in to pay these vaccine-damage claims. Only then did the drug companies agree to resume vaccine production….”54

Right to Refuse Vaccination
All states have laws mandating the vaccination of children before they enter school, but these laws also allow for various types of exemptions to compulsory vaccination. Parents may seek exemptions on behalf of their children. According to the NVIC, all 50 states allow exemptions based on medical reasons, 48 states allow exemptions for people who have a sincere religious belief opposing vaccination, and 18 states allow exemptions based on philosophical, personal, or conscientiously held beliefs.55

The ease of obtaining a vaccination exemption may depend on the type sought and the requirements of the individual’s state. In the journal Pediatrics, researchers say that “in many states, it is easier to claim a religious or philosophical exemption than to adhere to mandated immunization requirements.”56 On the other hand, Kurt Link, MD, states in The Vaccine Controversy that exemptions are often very difficult to obtain and that less than two percent of people who apply for a vaccination exemption obtain one. Link says that parents who are denied an exemption and try to defy the vaccination mandate may have their children excluded from school, may be charged with criminal child abuse or neglect, and may have their children taken into state custody.57

Potential Downside to Exemptions
Parents who refuse vaccinations for their children should be aware of other potential consequences as well. The literature shows that unvaccinated children may be at greater risk of contracting diseases covered by routine vaccines. In the Pediatrics article,58 the authors cite research showing that “exemptors” were 22 times more likely to contract measles than were vaccinated people and six times more likely to contract pertussis.59 In addition, unvaccinated people account for the majority of recent cases of tetanus.60 A study published in 2006 also found that states allowing personal-belief exemptions and states with easier exemption processes were associated with a higher incidence of pertussis.61

Another consideration is that pediatricians may dismiss patients who refuse to be vaccinated. In a survey of 1004 members of the American Academy of Pediatrics published in 2005, 39% said they would dismiss a family for refusing all vaccinations, and 28% would dismiss a family for refusing select vaccines.62

Varying State Laws
According to the NVIC, parents who want to exempt a child from mandated vaccination must know what types of exemptions the law in their state allows and the type of proof that may be required. In many states offering philosophical or personal-belief exemptions, for example, a parent must object to all vaccines, not particular ones. With medical exemptions, some states will accept without question a letter from a physician saying that one or more vaccines would be detrimental to the health of the patient, while the health departments in other states review such exemptions and may decide one is not justified. With religious exemptions, says the NVIC, state laws differ regarding the definition of the exemption and the proof needed of one’s religious beliefs opposing vaccination. In fact, the NVIC does not provide or recommend a prewritten waiver for religious exemptions. If a prewritten waiver does not meet your state’s requirements, you may draw attention to your child and, if challenged on the exemption, end up in litigation with your state or county health department in which you must prove your religious beliefs.63

Another website, Vaccination Liberation, provides links to exemption forms ,and information by state and to sample exemption letters (http://vaclib.org). Joseph Mercola, DO, provides an article on how to legally avoid vaccinations on his website (www.mercola.com/article/vaccines/legally_avoid_shots.htm). Dr. Mercola’s newsletter has covered other vaccination topics as well.

Fisher of the NVIC offers advice for two particular vaccination situations in her book The Consumer’s Guide to Childhood Vaccines64:

  • Newborns Hospitals generally require parents who are delivering a baby to sign a form agreeing to have the newborn treated by medical personnel. Fisher warns that by signing this document, you may also give consent to have your baby vaccinated with hepatitis B. Fisher states, “Read any consent form you sign carefully. If you do not want your newborn vaccinated shortly after birth, you have the right to sign it after writing in an exception, such as, ‘I do not consent to have my child given any vaccinations prior to discharge from the hospital.’ Bring this to the attention of the person admitting you and the nursery supervisor and ask to have it printed on the outside of your chart. Some parents take the extra precaution of not leaving the newborn alone with hospital personnel without being able to observe the baby.”65
  • Sick children Staff in hospitals, clinics or emergency rooms often ask about the vaccination status of children. Fisher states, “You don’t have to provide them with written proof. A verbal answer is satisfactory. However, if you are being questioned closely and feel that you are being pressured into vaccinating your sick child without your consent, you should understand that you have the right to refuse to give permission to have your sick child vaccinated if you believe vaccination at the time will endanger your child’s health or life. You may choose to reassure medical personnel that you will consult a private pediatrician for further guidance about vaccination.”66

The point is that individuals need the freedom to choose. They should not be forced in one direction or another. Fisher stresses this: “Our organization does not tell a parent what to do.67 I want to make that clear. We are an information clearinghouse, and we believe in education. We believe that parents should take the responsibility for making their own decision. In this society, we ought to have the right to make the right decisions without being bullied and harassed and threatened into vaccinating if we do not believe that it is in the best interest of our child.”

Alan Phillips adds, “I don’t advocate that people do or do not vaccinate. I say that there’s a lot of information that people should investigate before they make a decision one way or the other. We’re so steeped in what I would now call the myth of vaccination that it seems nonsensical and counterintuitive to even raise the question. In fact, the first time that I raised the question with a pediatrician I got yelled at. While I think that was unprofessional of the pediatrician, it does demonstrate the degree to which assumptions about vaccinations are held.”68

Dr. Dean Black, author of Immunizations: Compulsion or Choice, states, “As a parent, there might be times I choose to immunize my child. Maybe I would find scientific evidence to back its validity in a case where a disease is so fraught with risk that I dare not expose my child. Maybe then I would choose [to vaccinate]. But I would do so having thoroughly thought about it….What I believe we cannot tolerate as a free nation is to have government bureaucrats come in and say—based upon false statistics—if you don’t immunize your child, you will suffer penalty of law. That, to me, is a gross injustice that simply has to be changed.”69

Holistic Health
Fisher believes that if we are concerned about our health and our freedoms, we should be worrying about the future. “I truly believe that unless the public wakes up to what is happening, and starts standing up for their right to be fully informed about vaccines and their right to make informed independent vaccine decisions, the day will come when we won’t have that right. We will be forcibly vaccinated by law without exception.”70

Fisher urges everyone to stop being complacent, to start becoming informed about vaccines and diseases, and to act. Specifically, she states, “You are going to have to work to amend your state’s laws. If you would like to be better informed and to help get the truth out, please join our grassroots vaccine safety movement.”

Fisher believes that alternative healthcare modalities in the US will play an important role in the vaccine safety movement.71 “Those who are looking into…osteopathic medicine, naturopathic, homeopathic, vitamin therapy, etc., are looking for ways to boost the immune system through more natural means in order to be able to naturally deal with viruses and bacteria that they come in contact with. This is a very important movement.”

Dr. Black agrees. He sees vaccinations as a shortcut for people in our society who have not taken full responsibility for their health. “It’s a way of saying, don’t look at the more natural holistic way of helping the body. Medicine believes disease is the enemy… Medicine fights disease. Natural health care works with it… Medicine believes symptoms are evil. Natural health care believes symptoms are the body’s efforts to rid itself of disease.”72

Curtis Cost, author of Vaccines Are Dangerous: A Warning to the Black Community, adds, “…parents do not need to be terrified into believing that the only way to protect themselves and their children from disease is through vaccines. We know that if parents breast-feed their babies, the risk of death and disease is dramatically reduced because the breast milk contains all the natural nutrients that the mother will naturally give to her child as she breast-feeds. We know that diet has a tremendous effect on disease. If you are not eating a proper diet, your risk of getting various diseases is much greater. So we need to focus on taking control of our health…to focus on eating more organically grown fresh fruits and vegetables, on drinking pure water, and on exercising. These actions build up the immune system.”73

It stands to reason that our approach might be better directed at bolstering natural immunity, by strengthening the body’s own disease-fighting capability, than trying to manipulate a carefully balanced system which may or may not tip to the detriment of the future individual. The old adage, “What doesn’t kill you makes you stronger” describes the credo of the vaccine industry. The problem is that we do not yet know a single silver-bullet remedy for all childhood illnesses that are known to cause no harm to the future adult.

Organizations and Websites

Association of American Physicians and Surgeons
1601 N. Tucson Blvd., Suite 9
Tucson, AZ 85716-3450
Tel: 800-635-1196
Website: www.aapsonline.org
Opposes vaccine mandates that violate the medical ethic of informed consent.

Gary Null’s Website
Website: www.garynull.com
Provides information on optimizing health through nutrition, lifestyle factors and alternative medicine.

Immunization Action Coalition
1573 Selby Avenue, Suite 234
St. Paul, MN 55104
Tel: 651-647-9009
Website: www.immunize.org
Provides educational materials on vaccination for health professionals and the public to help increase immunization rates and prevent disease.

The Institute for Vaccine Safety
Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health
615 N. Wolfe Street
Room W5041
Baltimore, MD 21205
Website: www.vaccinesafety.edu
Provides independent assessment of vaccines and vaccine safety; works to prevent disease using the safest possible vaccines.

National Immunization Program
(Including the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices)
NIP Public Inquiries
Mailstop E-05
1600 Clifton Road, NE
Atlanta, GA 30333
Tel: 800-232-4636
Website: www.cdc.gov/nip/ACIP/default.htm
(Dec. 2007: Page redirects to http://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/recs/acip/default.htm)
A website of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, with information on vaccines, vaccine safety, diseases, other immunization topics, and resources.

National Network for Immunization Information
301 University Blvd.
CH 2.218
Galveston, TX 77555-0351
Tel.: 409-772-0199
Website: www.immunizationinfo.com
Provides up-to-date, scientifically valid information about immunization to help the public, health professionals, and policymakers make informed decisions.

National Vaccine Information Center
204 Mill Street, Suite B1
Vienna, VA 22180
Tel.: 703-938-DPT3
Website: www.909shot.com
Oldest and largest parent-led organization advocating reformation of the mass vaccination system.
MedAlert, a service of the NVIC, has organized information from the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System for online searching (go to www.medalerts.org).

Thinktwice Global Vaccine Institute
P.O. Box 9638
Santa Fe, NM 87504
Website: www.thinktwice.com
Provides information on childhood vaccines and others to facilitate informed decisions; supports the right to accept or reject vaccines.

Vaccination Liberation
P.O. Box 457
Spirit Lake, Idaho 83869-0457
Website: www.vaclib.org
Opposes compulsory vaccination laws; provides information on vaccinations not often made available to the public.

Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS)
P.O. Box 1100
Rockville, MD 20849-1100
Tel: 800-822-7967
Website: http://vaers.hhs.gov
Cooperative program of the FDA and CDC that collects reports on adverse events occurring after vaccinations.

Vaccine Information and Awareness Website
Website: http://home.san.rr.com/via
Works to ensure freedom of choice for parents regarding vaccination.
For information on exemptions, go to http://home.san.rr.com/via/STATES/toc-states.htm.

Vaccination News
P.O. Box 111818
Anchorage, AK 99511-1818
Website: www.vaccinationnews.com
Provides a wide range of news and views on vaccinations and vaccination policy.

VaccineWebsite
Website: www.whale.to/vaccines.html
Provides information on vaccines, adverse events, vaccine critics, diseases targeted by vaccines, medical politics, and more.

Vaccination Exemption Information

Vaccination Liberation: www.vaclib.org

Vaccine Information and Awareness website: http://home.san.rr.com/via

National Vaccine Information Center: www.909shot.com

Joseph Mercola, D.O.: www.mercola.com/article/vaccines/legally_avoid_shots.htm

Books, Videos, and DVDs

The Consumer’s Guide to Childhood Vaccines
by Barbara Loe Fisher
National Vaccine Information Center, 1997

Evidence of Harm: Mercury in Vaccines and the Autism Epidemic
by David Kirby
New York: St. Martin’s Press; 2005

Immunization: The Reality Behind the Myth
by Walene James
2nd Edition
Boston: Bergin & Garvey; 1995

Reverse the Aging Process Naturally
by Gary Null and Martin Feldman, M.D.
New York: Villard Books: 1993

A Shot in the Dark
by Harris L. Coulter and Barbara Loe Fisher
New York: Avery Publishing Group; 1991

State of Immunity: The Politics of Vaccination in Twentieth-Century America
by James Colgrove
University of California Press: 2006

Vaccination and Immunization: Dangers, Delusions & Alternatives
by Leon Chaitow
Wappingers Falls, New York: Beekman Books; 1994

The Vaccine Controversy: The History, Use, and Safety of Vaccinations
by Kurt Link, M.D.
New York: Praeger Publishers; 2005

The Vaccine Guide: Risks and Benefits for Children and Adults
by Randall Neustaedter
Berkeley, California: North Atlantic Books; 1996, 2002

The Virus and the Vaccine: Contaminated Vaccine, Deadly Cancers, and Government Neglect
by Debbie Bookchin and Jim Schumacher
New York: St Martin’s Press; 2004

What Every Parent Should Know About Childhood Immunization
by Jamie Murphy
Earth Healing Products;1993

“Vaccines: The Risks, the Benefits, the Choices” (DVD)
by Sherri J.Tenpenny, DO

“Vaccines: What the CDC Documents and Science Reveal” (DVD)
by Sherri J.Tenpenny, DO

“Building the Immune System Naturally” (VHS)
by Gary Null

“Supercharge Your Immune System” (VHS)
by Gary Null

“Total Health” series, Steps 1 – 7 (DVD or VHS)
by Gary Null

About the Authors

Gary Null, PhD
2307 Broadway
New York, New York 10024 USA
646-505-4660/ Fax 212-472-5139
precisemd@aol.com

Gary Null, PhD has authored more than 50 books on health and nutrition and numerous articles published in research journals. He holds a PhD in human nutrition and public health science from the Union Graduate School. Null maintains a website at www.garynull.com that presents information on how to optimize health through nutrition, lifestyle factors, and alternative medicine.

Martin Feldman, MD practices complementary medicine. He is an Assistant Clinical Professor of Neurology at the Mount Sinai School of Medicine in New York City.

Notes
1. Parashar UD, Alexander JP, Glass RI. Prevention of rotavirus gastroenteritis among infants and children. 
MMWR. 2006; 55(RR12):1-13.
2. American Academy of Pediatrics. Pentavalent rotavirus vaccine implementation for 2006. Posted Nov. 6, 2006.
3. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Surveillance for safety after immunization: Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS)—United States, 1991-2001. 
MMWR Surveill Summ. 2003; 52(No. SS-1):1-24.
4. Parashar, op. cit.
5. US Food and Drug Administration. FDA approves new vaccine to prevent rotavirus gastroenteritis in infants. Press release, February 3, 2006.
6. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Rotavirus vaccine: what you need to know. April 12, 2006.
7. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. RotaShield (rotavirus) vaccine and inusssussception: Q&A. Available at: www.rotavirusvaccine.org/documents/RotaShield_Fact_Sheet_CDC.pdf. (
59KB)
8. Devitt M. CDC calls for suspension of childhood rotavirus vaccine. 
Dynamic Chiropractic. 1999;17(21). Available at: www.chiroweb.com/archives/17/21/04.html. Accessed September 21, 2007.
9. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Update: Guillain-Barre syndrome among recipients of Menactra meningococcal conjugate vaccine – United States, June 2005 – September 2006. 
MMWR. 2006; 55(41):1120-1124.
10. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Frequently asked questions about Guillain-Barre syndrome and Menactra meningococcal vaccine. Last modified October 20, 2006.
11. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Update: Guillain-Barre syndrome among recipients of Menactra meningococcal conjugate vaccine – United States, June 2005 – September 2006. 
MMWR. 2006; 55(41):1120-1124.
12. National Vaccine Information Center. Vaccine information: smallpox. Last updated October 13, 2005.
13. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Vaccines timeline. Available at: www.cdc.gov/nip/vaccine/vacc-timeline.htm. Accessed September 21, 2007.
14. Colgrove J. 
State of Immunity: The Politics of Vaccination in Twentieth-Century America. Berkeley and Los Angeles: University of California Press; 2006:245-247.
15. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Adverse events following civilian smallpox vaccination – United States, 2003. 
MMWR. 2004; 53(05):106-107.
16. National Network for Immunization Information, op. cit.
17. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Smallpox fact sheet: The live virus smallpox vaccine. Page last reviewed February 21, 2006. Available at: www.bt.cdc.gov/agent/smallpox/vaccination/live-virus.asp. Accessed September 21, 2007.
18. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Smallpox Fact Sheet: Reactions after smallpox vaccination. March 28, 2003.
19. Ibid.
20. National Network for Immunization Information, op. cit.
21. Kemper AR, Davis MM, Freed GL. Expected adverse events in a mass smallpox vaccination campaign. 
Eff Clin Pract. 2002; 5(2):84-90.
22. Kretzschmar M, Wallinga J, Teunis P, et al. Frequency of adverse events after vaccination with different vaccinia strains.
 PLoS Med. 2006; 3(8) [Epub ahead of print].
23. Landrigan PJ, Witte JJ. Neurologic disorders following live measles-virus vaccination.
 JAMA. 1973; 223(13):1459-1462.
24. Pollock TM, et al. Symptoms after primary immunisation with DPT and with DT vaccine. 
Lancet. 1984 July; 21:146-149.
25. Hirtz DG, et al. Seizures following childhood immunizations. 
Journal of Pediatrics. 1983; 102(12):14-18.
26. Goldwater PN, et al. Sudden infant death syndrome: a possible clue to causation. 
Medical Journal Aust. 1990; 153:59-60.
27. Denborough MA, et al. Malignant hyperpyrexia and sudden infant death.
Lancet. 1982 Nov 13: 1068-1072.
28. Chaitow L. 
Vaccination and Immunization: Dangers, Delusions & Alternatives.Beekman Publishing; 1996.
29. 
Gary Null Report, November 15, 1994.
30. Coulter HL, Fisher BL. 
A Shot in the Dark. Garden City Park, NY: Avery; 1991.
31. Merritt HH. 
Textbook of Neurology. 6th Edition. Philadelphia: Lea and Febiger; 1979:160.
32. Molina V, Shoenfeld Y. Infection, vaccines and other environmental triggers of autoimmunity. 
Autoimmunity. 2005; 38(3):235-245.
33. James W. 
Immunization: The Reality Behind the Myth. Massachusetts: Bergin & Gervey; 1988.
34. Link K. 
The Vaccine Controversy: The History, Use and Safety of Vaccinations. Westport, Conn.: Praeger Publishers; 2005:14.
35. Cournoyer C. 
What About Immunizations? 6th edition. Nelson’s Books; 1995:34.
36. Ibid.
37. 
Immunization. Special Edition. Santa Fe, NM: Mothering Publications; 1984.
38. Moskowitz R. 
The Case Against Immunizations. Washington, DC: National Center for Homeopathy.
39. Cournoyer, op. cit., p. 35.
40. Scheibner V. 
Vaccination: 100 Years of Orthodox Research Shows that Vaccines Represent a Medical Assault on the Immune System. Victoria, Australia: Australian Print Group; 1993:88-89.
41. Black FL, et al. Inadequate Immunity to Measles Immunity in Era of Vaccine-Protected Mothers. 
Bull WHO. 1984; 62(92):315-319.
42. Lennon JL, Black FL. Maternally derived measles immunity in era of vaccine-protected mothers. 
Journal of Pediatrics. 1986; 108(1):671-676.
43. Scheibner, op. cit., p. 199.
44. Cournoyer, op. cit., p. 160.
45. “Interview with Barbara Loe Fisher.” 
National Vaccine Information Center Newsletter Website.
46. Colgrove J. 
State of Immunity: The Politics of Vaccination in Twentieth-Century America. Berkeley and Los Angeles: University of California Press; 2006:215.
47. National Vaccine Information Center. Press release: Parent coalition for vaccine injured children calls on congress to slow down compensation bill. March 18, 2003.
48. National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program: monthly statistics report, September 30, 2002. US Department of Health and Human Services, Health Resources and Services Administration. Available at: http://www.hrsa.gov/osp/vicp/monthly.htm. Accessed September 21, 2007.
(
Dec. 2007: Link doesn’t work. Statistics reports now online: http://www.hrsa.gov/vaccinecompensation/statistics_report.htm)
49. Cournoyer, op. cit., p. 156.
50. The National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act of 1986 Public Law 99-690, The Compensation System and How it Works. National Vaccination Information Center; 1990.
51. Vaccine injury compensation program statistics. 
NVIC News. August 1994;10.
52. Phillips A. Vaccination: dispelling the myths. 
Nexus. October-November 1997.
53. National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program, Health Resources and Services Administration, Rockville, MD.
54. Neustaedter R. Do vaccines disable the immune system? Internet document. Available at: http://www.healthy.net/scr/article.asp?ID=539. Accessed September 21, 2007.
55. National Vaccine Information Center. Legal exemptions to vaccination. Available at: http://nvic.org/state-site/legal-exemptions.htm. Accessed September 21, 2007.
56. Smith PJ, Chu SY, Barker LE. Children who have received no vaccines: who are they and where do they live? 
Pediatrics. 2004; 114(1):187-195.
57. Link K. 
The Vaccine Controversy: The History, Use and Safety of Vaccinations. Westport, Conn.: Praeger Publishers; 2005:170.
58. Smith, op. cit.
59. Feikin DR, Lezott DC, Hamman RF, et al. Individual and community risks of measles and pertussis associated with personal exemptions to immunization.
JAMA. 2000; 284:3145-3150 [cited by Smith].
60. Fair E, Murphy TV, Golaz A, et al. Philosophic objection to vaccination as a risk for tetanus among children younger than 15 years. 
Pediatrics. 2002; 109(1) [cited by Smith].
61. Omer SB, Pan WK, Halsey NA, et al. Nonmedical exemptions to school immunization requirements: secular trends and association of state policies with pertussis incidence. 
JAMA. 2006; 296(14):1757-1763.
62. Flanagan-Klygis EA, Sharp L, Frader JE. Dismissing the family who refuses vaccines: a study of pediatrician attitudes. 
Arch Pediatr Adolesc Med. 2005; 159(10):929-934.
63. National Vaccine Information Center. Legal exemptions to vaccination. Available at: http://nvic.org/state-site/legal-exemptions.htm. Accessed September 21, 2007.
64. Fisher BL. 
The Consumer’s Guide to Childhood Vaccines. Vienna, Virginia: National Vaccine Information Center; 1997.
65. Fisher, op. cit.
66. Fisher, op. cit, p. 48.
67. Gary Null Interview with Barbara Loe Fisher, April 11, 1995.
68. Gary Null Interview with Alan Phillips, December 17, 1997.
69. Gary Null Interview with Dr. Dean Black, April 7, 1995.
70. Gary Null Interview with Barbara Loe Fisher, April 11, 1995.
71. Ibid.
72. Gary Null Interview with Dr. Dean Black, April 7, 1995.
73. Gary Null Interview with Curtis Cost, December 17, 1997.

An Updated Analysis of the Health Risks Part 2

by Gary Null, PhD, and Martin Feldman, MD
(http://www.townsendletter.com/Nov2007/vaccinate1107.htm)

DIPHTHERIA, TETANUS AND PERTUSSIS VACCINE

Diphtheria Toxoid
According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), the incidence of diphtheria was reduced to zero by 2004, from an estimated average of 21,053 cases per year in the 20th century.1 But as with other infectious diseases, much of the decline in mortality from diphtheria had occurred before the vaccine was used. This mortality rate fell from 40 deaths per 100,000 in 1900 to approximately 16 per 100,000 in 1920, when the diphtheria vaccine was introduced in the US.2

Pertussis Vaccine
Despite high levels of childhood vaccination coverage for pertussis (whooping cough), the largest outbreak of this disease in four decades has occurred in recent years. There were 25,827 reported cases of pertussis in 2004 (the actual incidence could be higher due to underreporting), compared with a low of 1,010 in 1976.3

According to the CDC, the reported rate of pertussis per 100,000 population increased from 1.8 in 1994 to 8.9 in 2004. The 2004 rate was the third consecutive annual increase in the incidence of pertussis. The CDC notes that two-thirds of reported cases of pertussis now occur among adolescents and adults due to the waning of vaccine-induced immunity. This waning occurs five to ten years after receipt of the vaccine. 4

Similar trends in pertussis were noted nearly 20 years ago in a 1988 report. After the US mandated whooping cough vaccination in 1978, the incidence of the disease in the next eight years trebled. The highest incidence was in infants less than one year old. However, the highest relative increase was in adolescents and adults.5

In 2006, the CDC’s Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) addressed the rise of whooping cough among adolescents by recommending that they receive another dose of pertussis vaccine. The Tdap vaccine (which also contains tetanus and diphtheria toxoids) is now recommended for all children age 11 to 18 and replaces the tetanus-diphtheria booster previously given to adolescents. The Tdap booster adds to the five doses of diphtheria, pertussis, and tetanus that children already receive before their seventh birthday.6

Several research papers suggest that immunization programs have not yet brought pertussis under control. A 2006 article reports that pertussis “has reemerged worldwide as a cause of substantial morbidity and mortality in infants, children, and adolescents, despite high vaccination rates.”7 Another report, published in 2005, states that an increased incidence of pertussis “has been observed worldwide since the introduction of widespread vaccination.” These researchers say that there has been “a general shift in the age distribution of pertussis toward older groups” and that “despite high coverage rates for primary immunization in infants and children, pertussis continues to be a global concern, with increased incidence widely noted.”8

On the other hand, the merit of the pertussis vaccine is indicated by a 2006 paper. This research evaluated state-level rates of nonmedical exemptions (those based on religious or personal beliefs) to mandatory vaccination from 1991 to 2004 and the incidence of pertussis among people 18 and younger from 1986 to 2004. The study found that an increased incidence of pertussis was associated with state policies granting personal-belief exemptions and the easier granting of exemptions.9

Replacement of the whole cell pertussis vaccine. The US made a major vaccine substitution in the 1990s when it replaced the diphtheria, tetanus, and whole cell pertussis vaccine (DTP) with a diphtheria, tetanus, and acellular pertussis vaccine (DTaP).10 The whole cell vaccine has been associated with serious adverse reactions (such as seizures and encephalopathy).11

Studies have since found a decline in the number of adverse reactions to pertussis-containing vaccines. An analysis of reports made to the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS) from 1991 to 2001 found that the overall reporting rate decreased substantially after use of the acellular petussis vaccine compared with the whole cell version (12.5 vs. 26.2 reports per 100,000 net doses distributed).12

An analysis of VAERS data from 1995 (when the whole cell vaccine was in use) to 1998 (when the acellular vaccine was predominant) found that the number of reports concerning pertussis fell from 2071 in 1995 to 491 in the first half of 1998. Events categorized as “nonfatal serious” fell from 334 in 1995 to 93 (first-half ’98). However, the decrease in reports involving deaths was modest, from 85 deaths in 1995 to 77 in 1997 and 41 in the first half of 1998.13

Recent comparisons of the whole cell and acellular pertussis vaccines confirm that the older version caused more adverse reactions. One study of VAERS evaluated the number of emergency room visits, life-threatening reactions, hospitalizations, disabilities, deaths, seizures, infantile spasms, encephalitis/encephalopathy, autism, sudden infant death syndrome (SIDS), and speech disorders that began within three days of receipt of pertussis-containing vaccines. The study found statistical increases for all of these events, except cerebellar ataxia, following whole cell vaccination compared with acellular vaccination.14 In Japan, an analysis of two decades of use of the acellular vaccine showed that while neurological illnesses were rare with both types of pertussis vaccine, the incidences of encephalopathy/encephalitis and status epileptics/frequent convulsions, febrile seizures/provocation of convulsions, and sudden deaths were significantly lower with the acellular than the whole cell vaccine.15 A study in Canada reported a 79% decrease in febrile seizures and a 60% to 67% decrease in hypotonic-hyporesponsive episodes following the introduction of the acellular vaccine there.16

Other research has associated the whole cell vaccine with neurological complications, including convulsions, hypotonic-hyporesponsive episodes, paralysis, and encephalopathy.17,18,19,20,21,22 Sadly, the DTP vaccine also has been associated with SIDS, the unexpected death of an infant for which autopsy cannot reveal a determining cause. In 1982 William Torch reported that his investigation of 70 SIDS cases (which was triggered by a report of 12 such deaths occurring within three-and-one-half hours to 19 hours of DPT vaccination) found that two-thirds of the victims had been vaccinated from a half-day to three weeks prior to death.23

Torch reaffirmed a link between DTP and SIDS in 1986, when he presented 11 new cases of SIDS and one of near-miss syndrome occurring within 24 hours of DTP injection24 Analysis of these and more than 150 cases of DTP post-vaccinal deaths reported in the literature—about half of which were sudden or anaphylactic—led Torch to conclude: “Although many feel that the DPT-SIDS relationship is temporal, this author and others maintain a casual relationship exists in a yet-to-be-determined SIDS fraction.”25

Other researchers also have uncovered a relationship between DTP and SIDS.26,27However, the CDC reported in 199628 that several studies conducted in the 1980s did not find an association between DTP vaccination and SIDS.29,30

Pertussis vaccination and asthma. A 1994 study found that children immunized against whooping cough were five times more likely to suffer from asthma than those who did not receive the vaccine.31 Another study of almost 2,000 children born between 1974 and 1984 showed that vaccination against whooping cough was associated with a 76% increased risk of developing asthma and other allergic diseases later in life.32 On the other hand, a study published by the CDC of more than 160,000 children did not find an association between the DTP vaccine and the risk of asthma.33 A 2006 report from the Netherlands also found that receipt of the DTP/polio vaccine in infancy was not related to reported atopic disorders at primary school age.34

Tetanus Toxoid
The literature includes articles on neurological reactions to the tetanus vaccination35-40 and other adverse reactions.41-43

POLIO VACCINE

Three types of polio vaccines have been used throughout the world: 1) the OPV, or oral polio vaccine (Sabin vaccine), consisting of live attenuated poliovirus; 2) the IPV, or inactivated polio vaccine (Salk vaccine), consisting of killed poliovirus and given by injection; and 3) the eIPV, an enhanced potency inactivated polio vaccine, consisting of killed poliovirus with high viral antigen content.

In the United States, the IPV (enhanced potency version) has been recommended for routine childhood vaccination against polio since 2000. Before that, the live attenuated OPV was the polio vaccine of choice for more than three decades. This vaccine, however, actually caused polio—vaccine-associated paralytic poliomyelitis (VAPP)—in a small percentage of recipients.44 The risk of VAPP “became more difficult to justify” as polio was controlled worldwide and importations of wild poliovirus to the US became less likely, according to an article in the Journal of the American Medical Association.45

As a result, in 1996 the government recommended a sequential schedule using both IPV and OPV for the childhood polio vaccination series. The ACIP then recommended the all-IPV schedule in 2000.

According to the CDC, the overall risk for VAPP is approximately one case in 2.4 million OPV doses distributed, while the first-dose risk is one case in 750,000 doses distributed. The OPV has caused the only indigenous cases of polio reported in the US since 1979. Between 1980 and 1998, 144 cases of VAPP were reported.46 Another VAPP case occurred in 1999, and in 2005, a case of imported VAPP was reported in the US after an unvaccinated American woman traveled to Central America and was exposed to an infant vaccinated with OPV.47 In late 2005, four cases of vaccine-derived poliovirus (VDPV) involving a poliovirus strain used in the OPV were identified in unvaccinated children in an Amish community in Minnesota. The source of these infections is not known, since the OPV has not been used in the US since 2000.48

During the time that the trivalent OPV was used in the US (from 1963 to 1999), an inactivated polio vaccine was available. The original IPV, developed by Jonas Salk, was used to immunize American children from 1955 to 1962. According to the JAMA article, the OPV became preferred to the IPV because it provided better intestinal immunity, was able to indirectly vaccinate susceptible contacts through transmission of vaccine polioviruses, was easier to administer, and cost less.49

Although IPV does not cause VAPP, the severity profiles of reports to VAERS on IPV and OPV in infants up to six months of age were “remarkably similar.” Among the most frequent symptoms reported for IPV were fever, SIDS, convulsions, agitation, apnea, and stupor. Reports of fatalities in 1998 per 100,000 doses distributed were somewhat higher for IPV than for OPV. Of 142 fatalities reported for both IPV and OPV in 1997-1998, 89 indicated SIDS.50

Polio vaccine and Guillain-Barre syndrome. GBS is a disease that involves the nervous system and is characterized by muscle weakness, numbness, loss of reflexes, and paralysis.

In Finland, in 1985, there was an increase in the incidence of GBS a few weeks after the implementation of a nationwide campaign using OPV.51,52 And in Brazil, an analysis of 38 cases of paralysis diagnosed as GBS led in all cases to the isolation of the vaccine strains of the poliovirus. All patients had been vaccinated with the OPV months or years before the onset of symptoms.53 In contrast, two other studies failed to find a correlation between GBS and the OPV.54,55

Vaccine viruses also have been isolated from patients with paralysis diagnosed as transverse myelitis (TM), and in patients with facial paralysis (FP).56 Most individuals with TM and FP had received the OPV months or years prior to the onset of disease, indicating that the virus may remain latent and revert to virulence later in time.

Polio vaccine and SV40-related cancers. Research conducted in the past few decades has revealed that several types of cancer may be associated with the receipt of polio vaccines more than 40 years ago that were contaminated with a monkey virus.

In 1960, it was discovered that the Salk IPV was contaminated with SV40 (simian virus 40), which was derived from the monkey cells used to grow the vaccine viruses. The SV40 survived inactivation with formaldehyde, the method used to kill the poliovirus for use in the vaccine. More than 98 million Americans were vaccinated during the time period (from 1955 to 1963)57 that injectable and oral doses of the polio vaccine were contaminated with SV40. These people today have SV40 sequences integrated into their genetic code.

Animal studies have demonstrated the ability of SV40 to integrate its DNA into that of the host cell and induce malignancy. Unfortunately, studies show that the virus retains these same properties in humans and is associated with increased rates of certain cancers.58 Integration and replication of SV40 has been documented in 13% to 43% of non-Hodgkin’s lymphomas,59,60 47% to 83% of mesotheliomas (malignant tumors of the lining of the lungs),61,62 11% to 90% of different types of brain tumors,63-66 50% of osteosarcomas,67 more than 33% of other types of bone tumors,68,69 and 28% of bronchopulmonary carcinomas.70

A continuing concern is that SV40 may be transmitted from person to person. The virus has been detected in people born in the 1980s and 1990s, decades after the tainted polio vaccine was no longer in use.71 SV40 is now present in children, as noted by Kurt Link, MD, in his 2005 book The Vaccine Controversy, and the CDC takes this as evidence that SV40 is a naturally acquired infection unrelated to exposure to the contaminated polio vaccine. But as Dr. Link states, it is more likely that people infected by the vaccine have transmitted SV40 to others or to their offspring (such as through semen). The implication, he says, is that “any SV40 problems may not, as had been hoped, fade away with time. There is even now, ironically, work being done to provide a vaccine against SV40.”72

It should be noted that other research indicates there is no association between SV40 and an increased risk of rare cancers such as ependymomas, osteosarcomas, and mesotheliomas. One study compared rates of cancer after 30 years in birth cohorts who were likely to have received SV40-contaminated vaccine as infants and children with rates in people who not unexposed. Age-specific cancer rates were not significantly elevated for those exposed to the tainted vaccine.73 Another study found no increased number of cancer deaths among 1,073 people who received SV40-contaminated vaccine,74 and a 35-year follow-up found no deaths from the types of tumors that have been linked to SV40.75

CHICKENPOX VACCINE

Another example of changes to the US vaccination protocol was the addition in 2006 of a second dose of varicella (chickenpox) vaccine to the childhood immunization schedule. This dose is recommended for universal vaccination of all children at ages four to six and for any child, adolescent or adult who previously has received only one dose. The first dose of the varicella vaccine was recommended for children in 1995.76

The ACIP recommended the second dose at four to six years of age “to further improve protection against the disease.”77 The fact is, outbreaks of varicella have occurred despite increasing coverage with the first dose of the vaccine. In a survey of 59 jurisdictions (states, large cities, and US territories) by the CDC, 45 jurisdictions were notified of at least once varicella outbreak in 2004, and 13 were notified of six or more. Data obtained on 190 outbreaks in 2004 showed that two-thirds occurred in elementary schools.78

Varicella outbreaks may occur even in highly vaccinated communities, and vaccinated children are still at risk of contracting the disease.79-81 According to the CDC, 11% to 17% of vaccinated children have developed chickenpox—so-called “breakthrough varicella”—in recent outbreaks of the disease among vaccinated schoolchildren.82 In three studies, rates of infection in vaccinated individuals ranged from 18% to 34% anywhere from five to ten years following immunization.83-85

In other recent studies of chickenpox outbreaks, vaccine effectiveness against varicella of any severity ranged from 44% to 87%. Effectiveness was as high as 97% for moderate or severe illness.86-91 Research also shows that people with breakthrough varicella tend to have milder illness than do unvaccinated people who contract the disease,92 although the vaccinated individuals can be just as infectious.93

VAERS received 6,574 reports of adverse events for the varicalla vaccine from March 17, 1995 to July 25, 1998. Approximately four percent of reports concerned serious events (such as anaphylaxis, thrombocytopenia, pneumonia, and convulsions) and deaths.94

The dangers of adult chickenpox. In most cases chickenpox is a benign, self-limiting disease in children, and the natural immunity derived from contracting the disease is permanent. Vaccine-induced immunity, on the other hand, lasts only an estimated six to ten years. The temporary nature of vaccine-induced immunity can create a more dangerous situation by postponing the child’s vulnerability until adulthood, when death from the disease is 30 times more likely.

The National Vaccine Information Center (NVIC), Vienna, Va., advises parents to seriously consider not using the chickenpox vaccine in healthy children. According to Barbara Loe Fisher, cofounder and president, “The case/fatality ratio in healthy children is one death per 100,000 children. In adults, it rises to 31 deaths per 100,000. So it basically is an experiment. That is really what happens with most of these vaccines that they bring out. They really don’t know what the long-term effect is going to be.” Dr. Link, however, cautions that if most children are immunized according to the current US policy of universal vaccination, “it may be unwise to try to avoid vaccination because of the hazard of later acquiring varicella as an adult.”95

The temporary immunity provided by the vaccine is a particular concern for pregnant women. Normally, 90% of adult women are immune to varicella and transfer this immunity to their babies during pregnancy. But the immunity induced by vaccination, which lasts only five to ten years, may be gone by the time a woman enters her reproductive stage, leaving pregnant women at risk of contracting the infection and transmitting it to the fetus. Fetal varicella syndrome is characterized by multiple congenital malformations and is often fatal for the fetus.96 In addition, children born to women whose vaccine-induced immunity has faded are unprotected during the first year of life, when their immune system is still developing, and may suffer fatal complications if exposed to the infection.

Another potential problem in the coming years is an increase in the rate of shingles due to widespread use of the varicella vaccine. As Dr. Link explains, the varicella zoster virus causes both chickenpox and herpes zoster (shingles). The virus could lie dormant for many years and later become active and cause shingles due to a reduction in immunity. One report states that mass vaccination with varicella “is expected to cause a major epidemic of herpes zoster.”97 And while some research has not found in increase in the rate of shingles, reports Dr. Link, it will be years before we know whether the vaccine virus is too weak to be activated or the immunity produced by the vaccine is too weak to control the virus.98

It is of interest that the FDA approved the first vaccine for herpes zoster in 2006. Zostavax is a live vaccine licensed for use in people age 60 and older. In a study of approximately 38,000 people, the vaccine reduced the incidence of herpes zoster by about 50% overall. Effectiveness ranged from 64% for people age 60-69 to 18% for those 80 and older.99

HEPATITIS B VACCINE

The hepatitis B vaccine became commercially available in the US in 1982 and was recommended for certain high-risk groups of people. However, when vaccination programs aimed at these groups did not stem an increase in hepatitis B infections, the ACIP recommended universal immunization of infants against this disease in 1991.100

An analysis of reports made to VAERS over 11 years—from 1991 to 2001—found that hepatitis B was the most frequently mentioned vaccine in 1991-1995 reports and the second-most commonly mentioned (after varicella) in 1996-2001 reports.101

An earlier study found that 12,520 adverse reactions to hepatitis B were reported to VAERS from 1991 to 1994, with 14% of these reactions involving newborns and infants.102 Approximately one-third of reactions involved an emergency room visit or hospitalization, according to the Association of American Physicians and Surgeons (AAPS). There were 440 deaths, about 180 of which were attributed to SIDS.103

Dr. Jane M. Orient, executive director of AAPS, has stated that according to a federal government study, “Children younger than 14 are three times more likely to die or suffer adverse reactions after receiving hepatitis B vaccines than to catch the disease.”104

In adults, hepatitis B vaccination was associated with serious autoimmune disorders in one analysis of VAERS data and a review of the literature, published in 2004. These disorders included arthritis, pancytopenia/ thrombocytopenia, multiple sclerosis, rheumatoid arthritis, myelitis, Guillain-Barre syndrome, and optic neuritis. In adult use of the hepatitis B vaccine, there were 465 positive re-challenge adverse events.105

Other articles associate the hepatitis B vaccine with complications of the nervous system106-110 and joints111-116 and other adverse effects.117 The Institute of Medicine stated in 2002 that “the epidemiological evidence favors rejection of a causal relationship between the hepatitis B vaccine in adults and multiple sclerosis.” (The evidence was inadequate to accept or reject a causal association with other demyelinating conditions.)118 A case-control study published by the CDC in 2003 also found that the hepatitis B vaccine is not associated with an increased risk of multiple sclerosis or optic neuritis.119 However, a case-control study published in 2004 concluded that its findings “are consistent with the hypothesis that immunization with the recombinant hepatitis B vaccine is associated with an increased risk of MS, and challenge the idea that the relation between hepatitis B vaccination and risk of MS is well understood.”120

The purpose of vaccinations is to reduce the risks of complications associated with the diseases they are designed to prevent. Complications from a vaccine should not outweigh those derived from the disease. And yet, according to Dr. Philip Incao, who has studied vaccinations and the immune system for three decades, in the case of hepatitis B, “…the conclusion is obvious that the risks of hepatitis B vaccination far outweigh its benefits.”121

Are vaccine-induced antibodies only temporary? Vaccine supporters claim that the development of an antibody response to a vaccine virus equals protection against the disease. So we now vaccinate children against hepatitis B to prevent them from contracting the disease later in life. But for this to occur, the level of antibodies that are supposed to be protective must remain high for very long periods of time.

A study published in 2004 reports that antibodies to hepatitis B surface antigen (anti-HBs) had disappeared by five years of age in most of the low-risk children studied who were vaccinated from birth against hepatitis B.122 A study in the Gambia found that fewer than half of vaccinees had detectable anti-HBs 15 years after vaccination and that vaccine efficacy against infection among 20- to 24-year-olds was 70.9%. A positive finding was that hepatitis B vaccination in early life can provide long-lasting protection against carriage of the hepatitis B virus—a major risk factor for liver cirrhosis and hepatocellular carcinoma—despite decreasing levels of anti-HBs.123

One study of adult hepatitis B vaccination evaluated the persistence of anti-hepatitis-B antibodies in 635 homosexual men immunized against the virus. After five years, antibodies no longer existed in 15% and had declined sharply—below levels deemed to be protective—in another 27%. Hepatitis B developed in 55 men, and two became carriers of the virus.124 Another study found that after three years, 36% of individuals who initially responded to the hepatitis B immunization lost anti-hepatitis-B antibodies.125

Why then are we needlessly vaccinating millions of children if by the time they’ll be adults and might be exposed to the virus, they won’t have the antibodies that are supposed to protect them? And, in any case, are these antibodies offering protection against the disease?

MEASLES, MUMPS, AND RUBELLA (MMR) VACCINE

In recent years, two of three diseases targeted by the MMR vaccine—measles and rubella—have been virtually eliminated in the United States. The last major resurgence of measles occurred in 1989-1991, when more than 55,000 cases and approximately 120 deaths were reported. The ACIP recommended in 1989 that a second dose of measles-containing vaccine be added to the childhood vaccination schedule, and the incidence of measles began to fall in 1992. A record low of 37 cases were reported in 2004.126,127 In 2000, a panel of experts convened by the CDC determined that measles was no longer endemic in the US.128 Similarly, the incidence of rubella fell to nine cases in 2004, and it was determined that rubella is no longer endemic in the US.129

Despite this success, concerns remain about adverse effects of MMR vaccination. The Institute of Medicine has found evidence that this vaccine can cause anaphylaxis, thrombocytopenia, and acute arthritis.130,131 Other research has associated the vaccine with adverse effects on the nervous system132-137gastrointestinal tract,138 and joints.139-141

Meryl Dorey, editor of the Australian publication Vaccination? The Choice is Yoursand president of the Australian Vaccination Network, points out that the MMR vaccine is associated with Guillain-Barre paralysis, multiple sclerosis, and aseptic meningitis, a swelling of the lining of the brain that can be fatal. The CDC has noted that while cases of Guillain-Barre syndrome following MMR vaccination have been reported, the IOM has found the evidence “insufficient to accept or reject a causal relationship.”142

Measles Vaccine

Vaccine failures. A study published in 1994 evaluated all US and Canadian articles reporting measles outbreaks in schools and found that, on average, 77 % of these infections occurred in vaccinated people. The authors concluded, “The apparent paradox is that as measles immunization rates rise to high levels in a population, measles becomes a disease of immunized persons.”143 The New England Journal of Medicine has reported that 60% of all measles cases among American schoolchildren between 1985 and 1986 occurred in those who were vaccinated.144 Other studies confirm a high percentage of measles among vaccinated subjects.145,146

Vulnerabilities related to the measles vaccine. Natural immunity to measles—derived from contracting the disease—is permanent and is transferred from mothers to babies in utero through the placenta. Babies born to mothers who have had the disease are protected from the infection during their first year of life by the presence of a high concentration of natural antibodies circulating in their blood. Measles vaccination, on the other hand, induces lower antibody titers than does natural infection. Neutralizing measles antibodies passed by vaccinated women to their newborns disappear rapidly, leaving the babies susceptible to the infection in their first year of life, when they are more at risk of complications.

This difference in infants’ immunity levels is reflected in a 1995 study. Researchers found that 71% of nine-month-olds and 95% of 12-month-olds had no detectable neutralizing measles antibodies in their blood. All infants with detectable measles antibodies at nine or 12 months had mothers born before 1963, before the vaccine era.147

Research confirms that antibody response to the vaccine virus is only temporary. One study shows that four years after MMR vaccination, measles antibodies fell below the putative protective levels in 28% of children and were no longer present in another three percent of vaccinees.148 Experimenting with high-potency vaccines produced even poorer results.149

Jamie Murphy, author of What Every Parent Should Know About Childhood Immunization, argues that rather than preventing measles, the vaccine may simply suppress it, only to have it manifest as other forms of disease with age.150 He asserts that quite a few diseases are associated with the measles vaccine, including “encephalopathies (brain damage), aseptic meningitis, cranial nerve palsy, learning disabilities, hyperkinesis, and severe mental retardation….”151 Several studies have documented that measles vaccination produces immune suppression that contributes to an increased susceptibility to other infections.152,153 One study links measles vaccination to Crohn’s disease.154

Problems with vaccine testing. In a response to information provided by the World Health Organization, author and lecturer Trevor Gunn has identified shortcomings in the testing of vaccines and the rationale for mass immunization, particularly with regards to measles.155 One problem is that vaccine studies use seroconversion, or antibody presence in the bloodstream, to indicate effectiveness. When UK health authorities say that the measles vaccine is 90% effective, they do not mean that it reduces the incidence, severity, or death rate of the disease by 90%, but rather that 90% of recipients produce a certain level of antibodies to the viral agents. However, the level of serum antibodies does not correlate with the body’s ability to fight illness. People with low antibody levels may demonstrate immunity, while people with higher antibody levels may have no immunity.

Given this disconnect, says Gunn, we must “place a greater reliance on obtaining efficacy results of immunisation from population studies.” These studies measure the level of disease protection in populations after they’ve been inoculated, using cohort groups matched for age, population, and disease exposure similarities, and so forth. Although WHO quoted references to a number of population studies in its communication with Gunn, the author says that all of the studies were conducted in developing countries. Thus, the results cannot be “directly extrapolate to developed countries,” where people may fear that the risks of vaccination outweigh the risk of contracting a disease such as measles.

In addition, notes Gunn, population studies referenced by WHO show the difficulties of vaccine testing. One study, for example, suggests that measles vaccination reduces childhood mortality by 30%. However, the control group was not non-vaccinated, but rather included children who did not seroconvert and thus were assumed to have no immune response to the vaccine. In this case, we would not know whether deaths in the control group were due directly to the vaccine, to its lack of effectiveness, or to lack of natural immunity provided by the measles itself. In another group in this study, 15 of 123 did not have antibody conversion after vaccination, so their results were excluded as well. Three of this group actually died. We do not know the cause of these deaths, or whether the remaining 12 in the group were prevented from getting the disease.156 In another study, the cohort group was cherry-picked for people who did not have a history of measles. This group may have been less likely to die from measles in general or may be heartier in general than the people who were selected against in the study.157

Mumps Vaccine

Although mumps infection is a largely benign disease when contracted during childhood, it becomes more dangerous in older children and adults, who are more susceptible to severe neurological, testicular, and ovarian complications from the infection. It is alarming to see that vaccination is clearly shifting the occurrence of this disease from young children toward those who are older.158

A large outbreak of mumps occurred in the United States in 2006, with 5,783 cases being reported to the CDC in less than ten months (from January 1 to October 7). The median age for the mumps patients was 22 years, and the highest age-specific rate was among people 18 to 24 years of age, many of them college students.159

Questions about efficacy. The resurgence of mumps raises concerns about vaccine failure. Although the CDC does not know the vaccination history of all the 2006 cases, it has reported that 63% of 1,798 patients in Iowa (which had the highest number of cases) had received one or two doses of the MMR vaccine.160

Other mumps outbreaks have occurred in highly vaccinated populations in the US and Europe.161-163 The populations in several of these studies had virtually complete vaccination coverage. In a high school population with more than 95% coverage, 53 of 54 students who got the disease were vaccinated.164 In a Tennessee school with 98% coverage, 67 of 68 students who got mumps were vaccinated. Thus, mumps cases in this instance were attributed mostly to vaccine failure.165

Perhaps the boldest statement on the efficacy of the mumps vaccine comes from the authors of an epidemiological study conducted in Switzerland. They found a fivefold increase in the number of mumps cases from 1990 to 1993, especially in vaccinated children. Among the authors’ conclusions was: “The Rubini [mumps] strain vaccines, which are the most commonly used in Switzerland, seem to have played an important role in the clear increase in mumps cases since 1990.”166

Urabe strain and meningitis. Another strain of mumps virus used in vaccines has been associated with the development of aseptic meningitis.167 The Urabe strain is not used in vaccines in the US, but it has been used in Canada and the United Kingdom in the past. This strain of mumps virus was identified as the cause of aseptic meningitis in 1989 in patients who developed meningitis 21 days after injection. The virus isolated from these patients was identical to that used in the vaccine.

The Urabe strain of the mumps virus was removed from Canadian vaccines in 1989168 because of a meningitis outbreak. The strain was removed in the UK in 1992. According to Trevor Gunn, when laboratory and hospital reports were cross-linked to vaccination records there, “the [perceived low risk of meningitis from this particular vaccine] rose to between one in 4,000 and one in 21,000.”169 Despite these vaccine withdrawals, a mass immunization campaign targeting children one to 11 years old was carried out in 1997 in Salvador, Brazil, with a Urabe-containing MMR vaccine. An outbreak of aseptic meningitis followed, with 58 cases diagnosed.170

Rubella Vaccine

A study published in 1981 found that 15 years after receiving rubella vaccination, one in 11 children lost protection and became susceptible to re-infection.171 This is worrisome because rubella infection is especially dangerous when contracted during pregnancy, since the fetus may develop malformations if exposed to the virus. Again, the lack of permanent immunity offered by vaccinations is creating serious problems down the line.
Viera Scheibner, a retired research scientist, notes that in a 1991 report on the adverse effects of pertussis and rubella vaccines from the Institute of Medicine, “the evidence indicated a causal relationship between RA 27/3 rubella vaccine and acute arthritis in 13% to 15% of adult women. Also some individuals were shown to go on to develop chronic arthritis.”172

Notes

1. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Comparison of 20th century estimated U.S. annual morbidity and 2004 morbidity from vaccine-preventable diseases. Available at Immunization Action Coalition, www.immunize.org/catg.d/4037stop.htm.
2. United States diphtheria mortality rate from 1900-1967. HealthSentinel.com. Available at: www.healthsentinel.com/graphs.php?id=16&event=graphs_print_list_item.
3. Pertussis Outbreak Digest 2004www.pertussis.com/digest/index.html
(Dec. 2007: Link not working.)
4. Jajosky RA, Hall PA, Adams DA, et al. Summary of notifiable diseases — United States, 2004. MMWR 2006; 53(53):1-79.
5. Hutchins SS, et al. Current epidemiology of pertussis in the United States. Tokai J Exp Clin Med 1988; 13 Suppl:103-109.
6. Broder KR, Cortese MM, Iskander JK, et al. Preventing tetanus, diphtheria, and pertussis among adolescents: use of tetanus toxoid, reduced diphtheria toxoid and acellular pertussis vaccines recommendations of the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP). MMWR Recomm Rep 2006; 55(RR-3):1-34.
7. Munoz FM. Pertussis in infants, children, and adolescents: diagnosis, treatment, and prevention. Semin Pediatr Infect Dis 2006; 17(1):14-19.
8. Tan T, Trinade E, Skowronski D. Epidemiology of pertussis. Pediatr Infect Dis J2005; 24(5Suppl):S10-18.
9. Omer SB, Pan WK, Halsey NA, Stokley S, et al. Nonmedical exemptions to school immunization requirements: secular trends and association of state policies with pertussis incidence. JAMA 2006; 296(14):1757-1763.
10. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Surveillance for safety after immunization: Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS)—United States, 1991-2001. MMWR Surveill Summ 2003; 52(No. SS-1):1-24.
11. Geier DA, Geier MR. An evaluation of serious neurological disorders following immunization: a comparison of whole-cell pertussis and acellular pertussis vaccines. Brain Dev 2004; 26(5):296-300.
12. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, op. cit.
13. Braun MM, Mootrey GT, Salive ME, et al. Infant immunization with acellular pertussis vaccines in the United States: assessment of the first two years’ data from the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS). Pediatrics 2000; 106(4):E51.
14. Geier DA, Geier MR. An evaluation of serious neurological disorders following immunization: a comparison of whole-cell pertussis and acellular pertussis vaccines. Brain Dev 2004; 26(5):296-300.
15. Kuno-Sakai H, Kimuar M. Safety and efficacy of acellular pertussis vaccine in Japan, evaluated by 23 years of its use for routine immunization. Pediatr Int 2004; 46(6):650-655.
16. Le Saux N, Barrowman NJ, Moore DL, et al. Decrease in hospital admissions for febrile seizures and reports of hypotonic-hyporesponsive episodes presenting to hospital emergency departments since switching to acellular vaccine in Canada: a report from IMPACT. Pediatrics 2003; 112(5):e348.
17. Miller DL, et al. Pertussis immunisation and serious acute neurological illness in children. Br Med J 1981 May 16; 282(6276):1595-1599.
18. Gale JL, et al. Risk of serious acute neurological illness after immunization with diphtheria-tetanus-pertussis vaccine. A population-based case-control study. JAMA 1994 Jan 5; 271(1):37-41.
19. Menkes JH, et al. Workshop on neurologic complications of pertussis and pertussis vaccination. Neuropediatrics 1990; 21(4):171-176.
20. Murphy JV, et al. Recurrent seizures after diphtheria, tetanus, and pertussis vaccine immunization. Onset less than 24 hours after vaccination. Am J Dis Child 1984; 138(10):908-911.
21. Stetler HC, et al. History of convulsions and use of pertussis vaccine. J Pediatr1985; 107(2):17517-9.
22. Hirtz DG, et al. Seizures following childhood immunizations. J Pediatr 1983; 102(1):14-18.
23. Torch, WS. Diphtheria-pertussis-tetanus (DPT) immunization: a potential cause of the sudden infant death syndrome (SIDS). Neurology 1982; 32(4):A169 (abstract).
24. Torch WC. Diphtheria-pertussis-tetanus (DPT) immunization may be an unrecognized cause of sudden infant death (SIDS) and near-miss syndrome (NMS): 12 case reports. Neurology 1986 b (suppl 1); 36:149 (abstract).
25. Torch WC. Characteristics of diphtheria-pertussis-tetanus (DPT) postvaccinal deaths and DPT-caused sudden infant deaths syndrome (SIDS): a review. Neurology 1986 a (suppl 1); 36:148 (abstract).
26. Baraff LJ, et al. Possible temporal association between diphtheria-tetanus toxoid-pertussis vaccination and sudden infant death syndrome. Pediatr Infect Dis1983; 2(1):7-11.
27. Walker AM, et al. Diphtheria-tetanus-pertussis immunization and sudden infant death syndrome. Am J Public Health 1987; 77(8):945-951.
28. Update: vaccine side effects, adverse reactions, contraindications, and precautions recommendations of the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP). MMWR 1996; 45(RR-12):1-35.
29. Hoffman HS, Hunter JC, Damus K, et al. Diphtheria-tetanus-pertussis immunization and sudden infant death: results of the National Institute of Child Health and Human Development Cooperative Epidemiological Study of Sudden Infant Death Syndrome Risk Factors. Pediatrics 1987; 79:598-611 [cited by CDC].
30. Bouvier-Colle MH, Flahaut A, Messiah A, et al. Sudden infant death and immunization: an extensive epidemiological approach to the problem in France. Int J Epidemiol 1986; 18:121-126 [cited by CDC].
31. Odent MR, et al. Pertussis vaccination and asthma: is there a link? JAMA 1994; 272(8):592-593.
32. Farooqi IS, Hopkin JM. Early childhood infection and atopic disorder. Thorax 1998; 53(11):927-392.
33. DeStefano F. Gu D, Kramarz P, et al. Childhood vaccinations and risk of asthma. Pediatr Infect Dis J 2002; 21(6):498-504.
34. Bernsen RM, de Jongste JC, Koes BW, et al. Diphtheria tetanus pertussis poliomyelitis vaccination and reported atopic disorders in 8-12-year-old children. Vaccine 2006; 24(12):2035-2042.
35. Bakshi R, et al. Guillain-Barre syndrome after combined tetanus-diphtheria toxoid vaccination. J Neurol Sci 1997; 147(2):201-202.
36. Bolukbasi O, et al. Acute disseminated encephalomyelitis associated with tetanus vaccination. Eur Neurol 1999; 41(4):231-232.
37. Read SJ, et al. Acute transverse myelitis after tetanus toxoid vaccination. Lancet 1992; 339(8801):1111-1112.
38. Topaloglu H, et al. Optic neuritis and myelitis after booster tetanus toxoid vaccination. Lancet 1992; 339(8786):178-179.
39. Schlenska GK. Unusual neurological complications following tetanus toxoid administration. J Neurol 1977; 215(4):299-302.
40. Baust W, et al. Peripheral neuropathy after administration of tetanus toxoid. J Neurol 1979; 222(2):131-133.
41. Fardon DF. Unusual reactions to tetanus toxoid. JAMA 1967;199(2):125-126.
42. Rose I. Adverse reactions to tetanus toxoid. Lancet 1973; 1(7799):380.
43. Sutter RW. Adverse reactions to tetanus toxoid. JAMA 1994; 271(20):1629.
44. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Poliomyelitis prevention in the United States: updated recommendations of the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP). MMWR 2000 May 19; 49(RR-5):1-22.
45. Alexander LN, Seward JF, Santibanez TA, Pallansch MA, Kew OM, et al. Vaccine policy changes and epidemiology of poliomyelitis in the United States. JAMA 2004; 292(14):1696-1701.
46. Ibid.
47. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Imported vaccine-associated paralytic poliomyelitis – United States, 2005. MMWR 2006; 55(4):97-99.
48. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Poliovirus infections in four unvaccinated children – Minnesota, August-October 2005. MMWR 2005; 54(41):1053-1055.
49. Alexander, op. cit.
50. Wattigney WA, Mootrey GT, Braun MM, et al. Surveillance for poliovirus vaccine adverse events, 1991 to 1998: impact of a sequential vaccination schedule of inactivated poliovirus vaccine followed by oral poliovirus vaccine. Pediatrics2001; 107(5):e83.
51. Kinnunen E, et al. Nationwide oral poliovirus vaccination campaign and the incidence of Guillain-Barre Syndrome. Am J Epidemiol 1998; 147(1):69-73.
52. Uhari M, et al. Cluster of childhood Guillain-Barre cases after an oral poliovaccine campaign. Lancet 1989 Aug 19; 2(8660):440-1.
53. Friedrich F, et al. Temporal association between the isolation of Sabin-related poliovirus vaccine strains and the Guillain-Barre syndrome. Rev Inst Med Trop Sao Paulo 1996; 38(1):55-8.
54. Rantala H, Cherry JD, Shields WD, et al. Epidemiology of Guillain-Barry syndrome in children: relationship of oral polio vaccine administration to occurrence. J Pediatr 1994; 124(2):220-223.
55. Ismail EA, Shabani IS, Badawi M, et al. An epidemiologic, clinical, and therapeutic study of childhood Guillain-Barre syndrome in Kuwait: is it related to the oral polio vaccine? J Child Neurol 1998; 13(10):488-492.
56. Friedrich F. Rare adverse events associated with oral poliovirus vaccine in Brazil. Braz J Med Biol Res 1997; 30(6):695-703.
57. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Simian virus 49 (SV40), polio vaccine, and cancer. Last modified April 22, 2004.
58. Vilchez RA, Kozinetz CA, Arrington AS, et al. Simian virus 40 in human cancers. Am J Med 2003; 114(8):675-684.
59. Vilchez RA, Madden CR, Kozinetz CA, et al. Association between simian virus 40 and non0Hodgkin’s lymphoma. Lancet 2002; 359(9309):817-823.
60. Shivapurkar N, Harada K, Reddy J, et al. Presence of simian virus 40 DNA sequences in human lymphomas. Lancet 2002; 359(9309):851-852.
61. Testa JR, et al. A multi-institutional study confirms the presence and expression of simian virus 40 in human malignant mesotheliomas. Cancer Res 1998; 58(20):4505-4509.
62. Carbone M, Pass HI, Rizzo P, Marinetti M, Di Muzio M, et al. Simian virus 40-like DNA sequences in human pleural mesothelioma. Oncogene 1994; 9(6):1781-1790.
63. Martini F, et al. Simian virus 40 footprints in normal human tissues, brain and bone tumours of different histotypes. Dev Biol Stand 1998; 94:55-66.
64. Martini F, et al. SV40 early region and large T antigen in human brain tumors, peripheral blood cells, and sperm fluids from healthy individuals. Cancer Res1996; 56(20):4820-4825.
65. Huang H, et al. Identification in human brain tumors of DNA sequences specific for SV40 large T antigen. Brain Pathol 1999; 9(1):33-42.
66. Bergsagel DJ, et al. DNA sequences similar to those of simian virus 40 in ependymomas and choroid plexus tumors of childhood. N Engl J Med 1992; 326(15):988-993.
67. Lednicky JA, et al. SV40 DNA in human osteosarcomas shows sequence variation among T-antigen genes. Int J Cancer 1997; 72(5):791-800.
68. Carbone M, et al. SV40-like sequences in human bone tumors. Oncogene1996; 13(3):527-535.
69. Rizzo P, et al. Evidence for and implications of SV40-like sequences in human mesotheliomas and osteosarcomas. Dev Biol Stand 1998; 94:33-40.
70. Galateau-Salle F, et al. SV40-like DNA sequences in pleural mesothelioma, bronchopulmonary carcinoma, and non-malignant pulmonary diseases. J Pathol1998; 184(3):252-257.
71. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Simian virus 49 (SV40), polio vaccine, and cancer. Last modified April 22, 2004.
72. Link K. The Vaccine Controversy: The History, Use, and Safety of Vaccinations. Westport, Conn.; Praeger Publishers; 2005:29.
73. Strickler HD, Rosenberg PS, Devesa SS, et al. Contamination of poliovirus vaccines with simian virus 40 (1955-1963) and subsequent cancer rates. JAMA 1998; 279(4):292-295.
74. Mortimer EA, Lepow ML, Gold E, et al. Long-term follow-up of persons inadvertently inoculated with SV40 as neonates. Medical Intelligence 1981; 305:1517-1518 [cited by CDC].
75. Carroll-Pankhurst C, Engels EA, Strickler HD, et al. Thirty-five year mortality following receipt of SV40-contaminated polio vaccine during the neonatal period. Br J Cancer 2001; 85(9):1295-1297 [cited by CDC].
76. National Immunization Program. New ACIP recommendations. NIP’s Immunization Works! Newsletter, July 2006.
77. Ibid.
78. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Public health response to varicella outbreaks — United States, 2003-2004. MMWR 2006; 55(36):993-995.
79. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Outbreak of varicella among vaccinated children—Michigan, 2003. MMWR 2004; 53(18):389-393.
80. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Varicella outbreak among vaccinated children—Nebraska, 2005. MMWR 2006; 55(27):749-752.
81. Buchholz U, et al. Varicella outbreaks after vaccine licensure: should they make you chicken? Pediatrics 1999; 104(3 Pt 1):561-563.
82. National Immunization Program, op. cit.
83. Clements DA, et al. Over five-year follow-up of Oka/Merck varicella vaccine recipients in 465 infants and adolescents. Pediatr Infect Dis J 1995; 14(10):874-879.
84. Johnson CE, et al. A long-term prospective study of varicella vaccine in healthy children. Pediatrics 1997; 100(5):761-766.
85. Takayama N, et al. High incidence of breakthrough varicella observed in healthy Japanese children immunized with live attenuated varicella vaccine (Oka strain). Acta Paediatr Jpn 1997; 39(6):663-668.
86. Galil K, Lee B, Strine T, et al. Outbreak of varicella at a day-care center despite vaccination. N Engl J Med 2002; 347(24):1909-1915.
87. Lee BR, Feaver SL, Miller CA, et al. An elementary school outbreak of varicella attributed to vaccine failure. J Infect Dis 2004; 190(3):477-483. Epub 2004 Jun 29.
88. Haddad MB, Hill MB, Pavia AT, et al. Vaccine effectiveness during a varicella outbreak among schoolchildren: Utah, 2002-2003. Pediatrics 2005; 115(6):1488-1493.
89. Lopez AS, Guris D, Zimmerman L, et al. One dose of varicella vaccine does not prevent school outbreaks: is it time for a second dose? Pediatrics 2006; 117(6):e1070-1077.
90. Galil K, Fair E, Mountcastle N, et al. Younger age at vaccination may increase risk of varicella vaccine failure. J Infect Dis 2002; 186:102-105.
91. Tugwell BD, Lee LE, Gilette H, et al. Chickenpox outbreak in a highly vaccinated school population. Pediatrics 2004; 113(3 Pt 1):455-459.
92. Bernstein HH, et al. Clinical survey of natural varicella compared with breakthrough varicella after immunization with live attenuated Oka/Merck varicella vaccine. Pediatrics 1993; 92(6):833-837.
93. Galil K, Lee B, Strine T, et al. Outbreak of varicella at a day-care center despite vaccination. N Engl J Med 2002; 347(24):1909-1915.
94. Wise RP, Salive ME, Braun MM, et al. Postlicensure safety surveillance for faricella vaccine. JAMA 2000; 284(10):1271-1279.
95. Link, op. cit., p.52-53.
96. Connan L, et al. Intra-uterine fetal death following maternal varicella infection. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol 1996; 68(1-2):205-207.
97. Brisson M et al. Exposure to varicella boosts immunity to herpes zoster. Vaccine 2002; 20:2500-2507.
98. Link, op. cit., p. 52-53.
99. U.S. Food and Drug Administration. Product approval information – licensing action. Zostavax questions and answers. Updated May 26, 2996.
100. Freed GL, Bordley WC, Clark SJ, et al. Reactions of pediatricians to a new Centers for Disease Control recommendation for universal immunization of infants with hepatitis B. Pediatrics 1993; 91(4):699-702.
101. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Surveillance for safety after immunization: Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS) – United States, 1991 – 2001. MMWR 2003 52(SS-1):1-24.
102. Niu MT, Davis DM, Ellenberg S. Recombinant hepatitis B vaccination of neonates and infants: emerging safety data from the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System. Pediatr Infect Dis J 1996; 15(9):771-776.
103. Statement of the Association of American Physicians and Surgeons on Vaccines: Public Safety and Personal Choice before the Committee on Government Reform and Oversight U.S. House of Representatives. Fromwww.aapsonline.org/aaps/
104. Dunbar B. Hearing before the Subcommittee on Criminal Justice, Drug Policy and Human Resources of the House Government Reform Committee. May 8, 1999, transcript by Federal News Service.
105. Geier MR, Geier DA. A case-series of adverse events, positive re-challenge of symptoms, and events in identical twins following hepatitis B vaccination: analysis of the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting Systom (VAERS) and literature review. Clin Exp Rheumatol 2004; 22(6):749-755.
106. Tourbah A, Gout O, Liblau R, et al. Encephalitis after hepatitis B vaccination: recurrent disseminated encephalitis or MS? Neurology 1999; 53(2):396-401.
107. Herroelen L, et al. Central-nervous-system demyelination after immunisation with recombinant hepatitis B vaccine. Lancet 1991; 338(8776):1174-1175.
108. Viral Hepatitis Prevention Board. Hepatitis B vaccine and central nervous system demyelinating diseases. Pediatr Infect Dis J 1999; 18(1):23-24. Review.
109. Nadler JP. Multiple sclerosis and hepatitis B vaccination. Clin Infect Dis1993; 17(5):928-929.
110. Hall A, et al. Multiple sclerosis and hepatitis B vaccine? Vaccine 1999; 17(20-21):2473-2475.
111. Geier DA, Geier MR. A one year followup of chronic arthritis following rubella and hepatitis B vaccination based upon analysis of the Vaccine Adverse Events Reports System (VAERS) database. Clin Exp Rheumatol 2002; 20(6):767-771.
112. Birley HD, et al. Hepatitis B immunisation and reactive arthritis. BMJ 1994; 309(6967):1514.
113. Pope JE, et al. The development of rheumatoid arthritis after recombinant hepatitis B vaccination. J Rheumatol 1998; 25(9):1687-1693.
114. Bracci M, et al. Polyarthritis associated with hepatitis B vaccination. Br J Rheumatol 1997; 36(2):300-301.
115. Hachulla E, et al. Reactive arthritis after hepatitis B vaccination. J Rheumatol 1990; 17(9):1250-1251.
116. Vautier G, et al. Acute sero-positive rheumatoid arthritis occurring after hepatitis vaccination. Br J Rheumatol 1994; 33(10):991.
117. Grotto I, et al. Major adverse reactions to yeast-derived hepatitis B vaccines-a review. Vaccine 1998; 16(4):3293-34.
118. Institute of Medicine. Immunization safety review: hepatitis B vaccine and demyelinating neurological disorders. May 30, 2002.
119. DeStefano F, Verstraeten T, Jackson La, et al. Vaccinations and risk of central nervous system demyelinating diseases in adults. Arch Neurol 2003; 60(4):504-509.
120. Hernan MA, Jick SS, Olek MJ, Jick H. Recombinant hepatitis B vaccine and the risk of multiple sclerosis: a prospective study. Neurology 2004; 63(5):838-842.
121. Incao, Philip, M.D. Letter to Representative Dale Van Vyven, Ohio House of Representatives. March 1, 1999. Provided to http://www.garynull.com by The Natural Immunity Information Network.
122. Petersen KM, Bulkow LR, McMahon BJ, et al. Duration of hepatitis B immunity in low-risk children receiving hepatitis B vaccinations from birth. Pediatr Infect Dis J 2004; 223(7):650-655.
123. Van der Sande MA, Waight P, Mendy M, et al. Long-term protection against carriage of hepatitis B virus after infant vaccination. J Infect Dis 2006; 193(11):1528-1535.
124. Hadler SC, et al. Long-term immunogenicity and efficacy of hepatitis B vaccine in homosexual men. N Engl J Med 1986; 315(4):209-214.
125. Pasko MT, et al. Persistence of anti-HBs among health care personnel immunized with hepatitis B vaccine. Am J Public Health 1990; 80(5):590-593.
126. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Measles, mumps and rubella—vaccine use and strategies for elimination of measles, rubella, and congenital rubella syndrome and control of mumps: recommendations of the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices. MMWR 1998; 47(RR-8):1-67.
127. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Measles – United States, 2004. MMWR 2005; 54(48):1229-1231.
128. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Measles – United States, 1999. MMWR 2000; 49(25):557-560.
129. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Elimination of rubella and rubella congenital syndrome – United States, 1969 – 2004. MMWR 2005; 54(11):279-282.
130. Stratton KR, Howe CJ, Johnston RB Jr. Adverse events associated with childhood vaccines other than pertussis and rubella. Summary of a report from the Institute of Medicine. JAMA 1994; 271(20):1602-1605.
131. Howson CP, Fineberg HV. Adverse events following pertussis and rubella vaccines. Summary of a report of the Institute of Medicine. JAMA 1992; 267(3):392-396.
132. Landrigan PJ, Witte JJ. Neurologic disorders following live measles virus vaccination. JAMA 1973; 223:1459-1462 [cited by CDC].
133. Davis RL, et al. MMR2 immunization at 4 to 5 years and 10 to 12 years of age: a comparison of adverse clinical events after immunization in the Vaccine Safety Datalink project. The Vaccine Safety Datalink Team. Pediatrics 1997; 100(5):767-771.
134. Miller D, et al. Measles Vaccination and neurological events. Lancet 1997; 349(9053):730-731.
135. Sackey AH, et al. Hemiplegia after measles, mumps, and rubella vaccination. BMJ 1993; 306(6886):1169.
136. Kazarian EL, et al. Optic neuritis complicating measles, mumps, and rubella vaccination. Am J Opthalmol 1978; 86(4):544-547.
137. Kline LB, et al. Optic neuritis and myelitis following rubella vaccination. Arch Neurol 1982; 39(7):443-444.
138. Akobeng AK, et al. Inflammatory bowel disease, autism, and the measles, mumps, and rubella vaccination. J Pediatr Gastroenterol Nutr 1999; 28(3):351-352.
139. Chiba Y, et al. Abnormalities of cellular immune response in arthritis induced by rubella vaccination. J Immunol 1976; 117(5 Pt 1):1684-1687.
140. Tingle AJ, et al. Postpartum rubella immunization: association with development of prolonged arthritis, neurological sequelae, and chronic rubella viremia. J Infect Dis 1985; 152(3):606-612.
141. Roberts RJ, et al. Reasons for non-uptake of measles, mumps, and rubella catch up immunization in a measles epidemic and side effects of the vaccine. BJM1995; 310(6995):1629-1632.
142. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Measles, mumps, and rubella – vaccine use and strategies for elimination of measles, rubella, and congenital rubella syndrome and control of mumps. Op. cit.
143. Poland GA, Jacobsen RM. Failure to reach the goal of measles elimination. Apparent paradox of measles infections in immunized persons. Arch Intern Med 1994; 154(16):1815-1820.
144. Markowitz LE, Preblud SR, Orenstein WA, et al. Transmission in measles outbreaks in the United States, 1985-1986. N Engl J Med 1989; 32:75-81.
145. Edmonson MB, Addiss DG, McPherson Jt, et al. Mild measles and secondary vaccine failure during a sustained outbreak in a highly vaccinated population. JAMA 1990; 263:2467-71.
146. Gustafson TL, et al., Measles outbreak in a fully immunized secondary-school population. NEJM 1987; 316(13):771-4.
147. Maldonado YA, et al. Early loss of passive measles antibody in infants of mothers with vaccine-induced immunity. Pediatrics 1995; 96(3 Pt 1):447-450.
148. Miller E, et al. Antibodies to measles, mumps and rubella in UK children 4 years after vaccination with different MMR vaccines. Vaccine 1995; 13(9):799-802.
149. Whittle H, et al. Poor serologic responses five to seven years after immunization with high and standard titer measles vaccines. Pediatr Infect Dis J1999; 18(1):53-57.
150. Murphy J. What Every Parent Should Know About Childhood Immunization. Boston; Earth Healing Products; 1993:114.
151. Gary Null Interview with Jamie Murphy, April 7, 1995.
152. Auwaerter PG, Hussey GD, Goddard EA, et al. Changes within T cell receptor V beta subsets in infants following measles vaccination. Clin Immunol Immunopathol 1996; 79(2):163-170.
153. Ward BJ. Changes in cytokine production after measles virus vaccination: predominant production of IL-4 suggests induction of a Th2 response. Clin Immunol Immunopathol 1993; 67(2):171.
154. Thompson NP, Montgomery SM, Pauder, et al. Is measles vaccination a risk factor for inflammatory bowel disease? Lancet 1995; 345(8957):1071-1074.
155. Gunn T. Response to W.H.O. evidence for vaccine safety and effectiveness.
156. Aaby P, et al. Child mortality related to seroconversion or lack of seroconversion after measles vaccination. Pediat Infec Dis J 1989; 8(4):197-200.
157. Clemens JD, Stanton BF, Chakraborty J. Measles vaccination and childhood mortality in rural Bangladesh. Am J Epidemiol 1988; 128(6 ):1330-1339.
158. Hersh BS, et al. Mumps outbreak in a highly vaccinated population. J Pediatr 1991; 119(2):187-193
159. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Brief report: Update: Mumps activity—United States, January 1—October 7, 2006. MMWR 2006; 55(42):1152-1153.
160. Ibid.
161. Cheek, JE, Baron R, Atlas H, et al. Mumps outbreak in a highly vaccinated school population. Evidence for large-scale vaccination failure. Arch Pediatr Adolesc Med 1995; 149(7):774-778.
162. Briss PA, Fehrs LJ, Parker RA, et al. Sustained transmission of mumps in a highly vaccinated population: assessment of primary vaccine failure and waning vaccine-induced immunity. J Infect Dis 1994; 169:77-82.
163. Vandermeulen C, Roelants M, Vermoere M, et al. Outbreak of mumps in a vaccinated child population: a question of vaccine failure? Vaccine 2004; 22(21-22):2713-2716.
164. Cheek JE, op. cit.
165. Briss PA, op. cit.
166. Zimmermann H, et al. Mumps epidemiology in Switzerland: results from the Sentinella surveillance system 1986-1993. Sentinella Work Group. German. Soz Praventivmed 1995; 40(2):80-92.
167. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Update: vaccine side effects, adverse reactions, and precautions. MMWR 1996; 45(RR-12):1-35.
168. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Vaccines timeline. Last modified April 29, 2005. www.cdc.gov/nip/vaccine/vacc-timeline.htm.
169. Parliamentary Office of Science and Technology. Vaccines and their future role in public health, July 1995, and Dawbarns, Solicitors, Kyngs Lynn, MMR and MR Factsheet.
170. Dourado I, Cunha S, Teixeira MG, et al. Outbreak of aseptic meningitis associated with mass vaccination with a urabe-containing measles-mumps-rubella vaccine: implications for immunization programs. Am J Epidemiol 2000; 151(5):524-530.
171. Hillary IB, et al. Persistence of rubella antibodies 15 years after subcutaneous administration of Wistar 27/3 strain live attenuated rubella virus vaccine. JAMA1981; 245(7):711-713.
172. Howson CP, Fineberg HV. Adverse events following pertussis and rubella vaccines. summary of a report of the Institute of Medicine. JAMA 1992; 267(3):392-396.