Monthly Archives: April 2019

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

FEBRUARY 08, 2019

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?

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. ( )

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. (

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. (

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.

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. (

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. (

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.

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.
( . 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

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.

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.