Vaccination: Pain, Profit, and Politics - Part 1 By Gary Null, Ph.D., and Martin Feldman, M.D.

Vaccination: Pain, Profit, and Politics - Part 1

By Gary Null, Ph.D., and Martin Feldman, M.D.

 Today we have a major controversy brewing in the U.S. healthcare field.  The 

question is being asked if the vaccinations that we are giving our children are safe 

and effective.  What is the proof that vaccinations are safe?  We have undertaken 

an enormous job of reviewing the world literature to examine whether vaccinations 

are safe, and whether they are effective. We have taken an in depth look at the 

politics, the economic incentives, and the conflicts of interest involved in the 

politics of vaccinations. We have reviewed the scientific literature and we have 

examined the results on the people who have received vaccinations and the health 

effects of these (often mandated) medical procedures.

 We have examined here the myths versus the facts in the science of vaccines, and 

whether the procedures themselves represent good science or whether the 

manufacturers and physicians who provide them support conjecture or good 

scientific practice.  We have examined the lobbying on behalf of the vaccine 

makers, and we have examined the safety and efficacy of the dozens of 

vaccinations that children are receiving in the first months of life.  Our society 

rarely looks at the safety and efficacy of medical manufactures which have 

enormous power to  influence the decisions of the CDC, the FDA, and the 

Institutes of Allergy and Infectious Disease

[1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10]

, but the 

media rarely hears of the trajedies and the side effects.  We do, however, hear that 

vaccines promise to prevent some new condition, (such as genital warts.

[11] [12] [13]

)

 However, we have innundated the developing baby's body with dozens of 

vaccines

[14]

, but no industry advisor or anyone in the FDA has ever suggested that 

this is too much. We are overwhelming the child's system with adverse effects, and 

all this has happened in the last 40 years.

 Let us now examine the truth:

Life Expectancy in the 20

th

 Century When we take a look at the article by 

David R. Francis, entitled, "Why do Death Rates Decline"

[15]

, to get a general idea 

about how vaccinations might play a role in general health throughout the 20th 

century, we see that mortality rates decline steadily but rapidly throughout the 20th 

century.  Using this logic, vaccine advocates might wonder why increased rates of 

vaccination in the past two decades wouldn't have made mortality rates decrease 

faster than in the first half of the century. However, we learn that:  "During the twentieth century, mortality rates declined quite rapidly in the 

United States and in all developed countries. Except for a 10-year period between 

1955 and 1965 when the mortality rate was essentially flat, mortality rates have 

declined at the relatively constant rate of approximately 1 to 2 percent per year 

since 1900.

[16]

" 

  If vaccines were the cause of the decline of disease, then shouldn't the rates 

of mortality have declined more rapidly in the latter half of the 20

th

 century, with 

the use of more and more required vaccinations?

 The second point that Francis makes is that in the second half of the 20th century, 

the most mortality decline occurred in people who were in mid- life.  Vaccine 

advocates might argue that mortality rates ought to have declined more quickly in 

very young and school aged children: 

 "In the latter four decades of the century, about two-thirds of life 

expectancy improvements resulted from mortality reductions for those over age 

45.

[17]

"

Thus, the most improvements in terms of mortality in the second half of the 

20

th

 century occurred in people beyond the age of childhood vaccinations.

 The third point that the author makes is self explanatory:  improved nutrition and 

public health measures in children were more important than medical intervention 

in 1900.  This was the height of the measles outbreak.  In addition, 

"Infectious diseases were the leading cause of death in 1900, accounting for 

32 percent of deaths. Pneumonia and influenza were the biggest killers. Therefore, 

improved nutrition and public health measures, particularly important for the 

young, were vastly more important in this period than medical interventions.

[18]

"

The fourth point Mr. Francis makes is that in the mid 20th century, 

penicillin, sulfa drugs, and antibiotics contributed to a mortality decline in 

children:  

"Between 1940 and 1960, infectious diseases as a cause of death continued 

to decline. But more of this decline was attributable to medical factors, such as the 

use of penicillin, sulfa drugs (discovered in 1935), and other antibiotics. These help 

the elderly as well as the young, thereby reducing mortality across the age 

spectrum. By 1960, 70 percent of infants could be expected to survive to age 

65.

[19]

"Vaccinations were not mentioned in this paragraph.

 The fifth important point of Mr. Francis is that smoking habits of Americans is an 

important factor in reducing mortality rates throughout the 20th century. The 

important issue to note here is that smokers generally begin their habit well after 

vaccination schedules have been completed, and that smoking causes a huge health 

risk despite vaccinations received:

"Smoking cessation and better diets also are factors in [mortality decrease]: 

per capita consumption of cigarettes rose from essentially zero in 1900 to more 

than 4,000 per year per capita in 1960, or over two packs per smoker per day. 

Since then, per capita consumption has fallen by more than 50 percent. These 

trends affect death from heart disease and from smoking-sensitive cancers with a 

10 to 20-year lag.

[20]

"

Trevor Gunn, a biochemist in England,  claims that immunity from 

vaccination is shorter lived than natural immunity provided by the illness itself.  

First, a child may contract an illness in adulthood for which it was vaccinated in 

childhood, and second, a mother may not be able to impart immunity provided by 

vaccination as easily as the immunity she developed over the course of her natural 

life. 

[21]

According to a leaflet by the CDC, figures of average morbidity by various 

illnesses were reduced as a result of vaccination according to the flyer 

entitled,"What would happen if we stopped vaccinations?

[22]

"  The leaflet, 

however, does not include information on the other public health measures that 

coalesced to provide increased public health in the 20th century as well.

A detailed review of morbidity and illness factors in Union Soldiers in the 

Civil war illustrates that the onset of what we think of now as 'old age' illnesses occurred in much younger men during the 19

th

 century, but improved throughout 

the 20

th

 century: 

"chronic illnesses affected young and middle aged men to a much 

greater degree in the past than today.  [In a study of two cohort groups 

of Union Soldiers] one quarter of men aged 20-24 and over half of 

men aged 35-39 were rejected as unfit to serve due to illnesses such as 

cardiovascular disease and hernias.  Similarly, elderly men were more 

likely to suffer from chronic conditions than in the past...Of men aged  

60-64 during the 1890-1910 period, 90% suffered from a chronic 

condition, as compared to 75% of same aged men in 1994.

[23]

"

For example, for two of the conditions studied that we know now to be 

related to inflammation

[24] [25] [26] [27]

and stress

[28]

 (particularly as results from 

diet

[29] [30] [31] [32] [33] [34] [35] [36] [37] [38]

and lifestyle

[39] [40] [41] [42] [43]

), that is, heart 

disease and arthritis, we see that the average age for onset for the 1830-1845

[44]

cohort was approximately 56 years of age, whereas the average age of onset for the 

1918-1927 cohort was approximately 66 years

[45]

, or a difference of 10 years in the 

age of onset in the later group.  Similarly, for the arthritis sample, the average age 

of onset for the 1830-1845 cohort was approximately 54 years whereas the later 

cohort was approximately 65 years

[46]

 .  

So we see that as time goes on, at least two public health markers were 

improved greatly in the 20

th

 century; the age of onset of chronic disease in the 

forms of heart disease and arthritis was increased considerably.  These health 

factors, too, were improved without the help of vaccinations.

[47] [48] [49] [50]

(We will 

discuss this assertion later in this paper)

For more than a hundred years, however, two basic assumptions have been 

put forth by public health officials. One is that vaccines are safe.

[51] [52]

The second 

is that vaccines are effective for the conditions for which they're given.

[53]

 The 

public and our legislators have, by and large, accepted these assumptions as true, 

and as a result it is now compulsory in many states that children have as many as 20 

[54] [55]

separate inoculations before entering school, or 33 by the time they are 

finished with secondary education. Some of these are given as early as the first few 

weeks of life.

[56]

We've been told that the end of polio, for example, as a serious health threat 

is due to mass inoculation programs

[57] [58]

, and again we have accepted the official 

dogma without question. But as we shall see, this is not exactly the truth.

[59]

 What's 

more, a disturbing reality that generally has gone unrecognized is the ever-growing 

number of people suffering adverse reactions to vaccinations

[60]

. These individuals 

are predominantly infants and children, and the problems they've incurred as a 

result of vaccination go far beyond sore arms and transitory fever: Conditions such 

as autism, attention deficit disorder, minimal brain dysfunction, and other 

biochemical and neurological abnormalities have been linked to the effects of 

vaccines

[61]

. Most tragically, so has SIDS-sudden infant death syndrome.

[62]

[63]

Although the government agencies such as the CDC

[64]

, the National Institutes 

of allergy and infectious disease 

[65] [66]

, among others

[67] [68] [69] [70]

, have tried to 

debunk a possible link between the proximity of vaccinations and untimely deaths 

of children in the first few months of life, we cite the government's involvement in 

supporting the cigarette industry in the first half of the 20

th

 century

[71] [72]

, and the 

widespread use of pesticide. The government also touted the benefits of hormone 

replacement therapy until 2002

[73] [74]

, for which women are now suffering breast 

cancer

[75] [76]

, stroke

[77]

, and dementia

[78]

; the government does not have a good 

track record on the issue of dangerous NSAIDS such as Vioxx

[79]

, for the use of 

which over 100,000 deaths are attributed

[80]

.  As a result, the fact that we do not 

accept the government data on this issue does not mean that we are slanted, but it 

means that we are careful to point out the differences between the data that is 

reported and what the government deems is true.  We examine the government's 

point of view on SIDS on page 18 of this paper.  

Because of underreporting of these troubling statistical links

[81] [82] [83]

,

however, a full picture of the effects of vaccination has not emerged. The problem 

of underreporting is a deep-seated one

[84]

. Yet the official line is that a small 

minority must accept negative consequences for the greater good of the majority.This investigation is an attempt to uncover the truth. In three parts, we will 

discuss facts that challenge our assumptions about vaccine safety and 

effectiveness, look at the effects associated with specific vaccines, and summarize 

some of the legal, political and economic issues surrounding the use of vaccines. 

The series has required a review of thousands of articles. We are presenting 

information based upon hard science; hundreds of references are included here for 

those who want to read further. For people challenging mandatory vaccination 

policies, the reference section will be particularly helpful.

Why We Should Question Our Assumptions

We think of vaccinations as panaceas and look to science to develop new 

ones for every known affliction, from the common cold to AIDS. Jamie Murphy, 

author of What Every Parent Should Know About Childhood Immunization,

[85]

attributes society's general acceptance of vaccinations, in large part, to state laws 

that dictate children must receive vaccines before they can attend school.

     

However, we must take a close look at our assumptions and ask, are we 

seeing the full picture? The reasons we should challenge our beliefs include the 

following:

Safety issues. Significant adverse effects have been reported with every type 

of vaccine 

[86] [87]

. These reactions can occur soon after vaccination (short-term 

reactions) or several months to years later (long-term)

[88]

. Delayed reactions are 

more insidious and less obviously linked to vaccination, and thus necessitate largescale epidemiological studies to be proven.

One would think that before injecting children worldwide with hundreds of 

millions of doses of vaccines, enough clinical trials would be performed to 

determine exactly what the effects of this large-scale human genetic experiment 

would be. Lack of funding is not the problem. Each year, more than $1 billion

[89][90]

 is appropriated by Congress to federal health agencies to develop, purchase, and 

promote the mass use of vaccines in the U.S. but not to fund independent 

researchers to investigate vaccine-related health problems.

In the meantime, as an example of the volume of adverse reactions reported 

to the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS), there were 38,787 such 

events between 1991 and 1994. Of these, 45 percent occurred on the day of 

vaccination, 20 percent on the following day, and 93 percent within two weeks of 

vaccination. Deaths were most prevalent in children 1 to 3 months old and were 

defined as sudden infant deaths. (The author of the paper makes it clear that, 

"sudden infant death syndrome has not been associated with vaccination."

[91]

 Since, 

as has been amply documented, only one-tenth of vaccine-induced reactions are 

reported to the VAERS (by some estimates, this is figure is even greater)

[92]

,

[93]

, this 

number vastly underestimates the real incidence of vaccine-associated 

complications. Furthermore, no link has been established when the adverse event 

occurs long after the time of vaccination

[94]

.  In fact, a 1998 study in the Lancet and 

a recent review claim that no link exists between the MMR vaccine and subsequent 

long-term health events such as autism or bowel obstruction.

[95] [96] [97]

Another area of concern is that many doctors refuse to vaccinate themselves 

and their families,

  [98] [99] [100]

even though physicians belong to a high-risk 

category and are urged to accept vaccinations because of their continued exposure 

to infectious disease. A 1981 article in the Journal of the American Medical 

Association reports that the lowest vaccination rate among medical personnel for 

the German measles vaccine occurred among obstetrician/gynecologists and the 

next lowest rate occurred among pediatricians.  

[101]

 The authors conclude, "The 

fear of unforeseen vaccination reactions was the main reason for the low uptake 

rate of physicians to be vaccinated." In the British Medical Journal, a 1990 article 

tells us that of 598 doctors questioned about hepatitis B vaccine, 86 percent believe 

that all general practitioners should be vaccinated against this disease. Yet 309 of 

those practitioners had not been vaccinated themselves. 

[102] [103]

  A 2004 article in 

the Journal of Occupational Medicine summarizes these findings, and others, 

including the fact that some doctors are unconcerned with regards to vaccination 

protection, while in that over 80% received Hep B inoculation, only 49% 

confirmed immune response to the virus, and only half did any preventive 

measures after needle stick injuries.

[104]Vaccinations Are Based on Unsound Principles. According to Jamie 

Murphy, "Vaccines are portrayed as being indispensable and somehow better at 

disease protection than what our innate biological defenses and nutritional 

resources have accomplished for thousands of years.... Before the introduction of 

the measles and mumps vaccines, children got measles and they got mumps, and in 

the great majority of cases those diseases were benign."

[105]

Walene James, author of Immunization: The Reality Behind the Myth,

[106]

believes that the full inflammatory response is necessary to create real 

immunity.

[107]

 James summarizes the work of Dr. Richard Moskowitz, past 

president of the National Institute of Homeopathy, as stating, "'Vaccines trick the 

body so that it will no longer initiate a generalized inflammatory response. They 

thereby accomplish what the entire immune system seems to have evolved to 

prevent. They place the virus directly into the blood and give it access to the major 

immune organs and tissues without any obvious way of getting rid of it. These 

attenuated viruses and virus elements persist in the blood for a long time, perhaps 

permanently. This, in turn, implies a systematic weakening of the ability to mount 

an effective response, not only to childhood diseases but to other acute infections 

as well.'"

Murphy observes that vaccines, unlike childhood diseases, do not produce 

permanent immunity. "The medical profession does not know how long vaccine 

immunity lasts because it is artificial immunity. If you get measles naturally, in 99 

percent of the cases, you have lifelong immunity. If you have German measles you 

will have lifelong immunity. The chances of getting measles twice, German 

measles twice, or even whooping cough twice [are remote].... However, if you get 

a measles vaccine or a DPT vaccine, [it does not give you 100% assurance]  that 

the vaccine will prevent you from getting the disease." 

[108]

     

In "Vaccination: Dispelling the Myths," Alan Phillips writes, "The clinical 

evidence for vaccination is their ability to stimulate antibody production in the 

recipient, a fact which is not disputed. What is not clear, however, is whether or 

not such antibody production constitutes immunity. For example, a-gamma globulinemic children are incapable of producing antibodies, yet they recover from 

infectious diseases almost as quickly as other children....Natural immunization is a 

complex phenomenon involving many organs and systems; it cannot be fully 

replicated by the artificial stimulation of antibody production....[Our] 

immunological reserves may thus actually be reduced, causing a generally lowered 

resistance."

[109] [110]

     

Phillips adds: "Another component of immunization theory is 'herd 

immunity,' ...when enough people in a community are immunized, all are 

protected.... there are many documented instances showing just the opposite-fully 

vaccinated populations do contract diseases; with measles, this actually seems to 

be the direct result of high vaccination rates...."

[111], [112] [113]

Writing in Nexus, Phillips makes the point that immunization practice 

assumes that all children, regardless of age and size, are virtually the same. "An 8-

pound 2-month-old receives the same dosage as a 40-pound five-year-old," Phillips 

points out. "Infants with immature, undeveloped immune systems may receive five 

or more times the dosage (relative to body weight) as older children." What's more, 

random testing has revealed that the number of "units" within doses has been found 

to range up to three times what the label indicates, with quality control tolerating a 

rather large margin of error.

Questionable Science. Many scientific studies tell us that vaccines are safe 

and effective when this is not necessarily the case. 

110 112 113

Doctors and vaccine 

proponents often quote studies done solely on antibody production in the blood, 

not taking into account clinical experiences.  We must note, however, that clinical 

experience is important, and particularly with regards to the treatment of viral 

infections that have not or cannot be treated at the time with vaccine.  For 

example, we know that transmission at the time of birth of the chickenpox virus is 

dangerous to the livelihood of the infant, and that low birth weight contributes to 

susceptibility to death from the virus

[114]

, thus indicating a possible need for 

doctors to be clinically aware of the mother's risk factors for low birth weight 

infants

[115] [116]

.  For example doctors recommend the following for the outcome of 

a healthy birth weight including no alcohol consumption, drug use, and adequate 

nutrition

[117]

 as well as regular prenatal checkups

[118]

 .  In addition to being aware of the causes of low birth weight infants, the use of the antibody titer VZIG in a 

timely manner can sometimes prevent death

[119]

.  As opposed to the chickenpox 

vaccine (which contains live, attenuated chickenpox virus), VZIG contains immune 

fractions from the blood of people that can help those who are dangerously 

immune compromised for a short period of time

[120]

.  Other non-vaccine 

alternatives are being made available for this widespread virus; the use of 

acyclovir, which has been determined to be useful in lessening the severity of 

chickenpox infection in children, might be preferable to the VZIG treatment (we 

note that VZIG does contain the preservative thimerosol

[121]

), but the use of 

acyclovir during pregnancy has not yet been widely tested

[122]

 in the clinical 

setting, and shows that much more research is needed in non vaccine alternatives.

Dr. Dean Black, author of Immunizations: Compulsion or Choice, brings up 

an issue that needs more attention-what if we stopped compulsory vaccination? 

"By looking at what happens in countries where vaccinations are no longer 

required," he says, "we can get an idea of what would truly happen if we were to 

cease demanding compulsory immunization in America. In 1975, Germany 

stopped requiring pertussis [whooping cough] vaccinations, and the number of 

children vaccinated promptly began to drop. Today, it has dropped to well below 

10 percent. What has happened in Germany from pertussis over that period of 

time? The mortality rate has continued to decrease."

[123]

The Natural Evolution of Disease. Immunization supposedly puts an end 

to disease. We attribute the decline in polio to the polio vaccine, the 

"disappearance" of smallpox to the smallpox vaccine, and so forth.

[124], [125], [126], 

[127], [128], [129]

But are vaccinations the magic bullets we believe them to be? Dr. Harris 

Coulter, an expert on the pertussis vaccine, co-author of A Shot in the Dark,

[130]

and 

author of Vaccination, Social Violence, and Criminality,

[131]

concludes 

otherwise.

[132]

 Regarding infectious diseases of the past, he states, "The incidence 

of all of these infectious diseases was dropping very rapidly, starting in the 1930s. 

After World War II, the incidence continued to drop as living conditions improved. 

Clean water, central heating...these are the factors that really affected people's 

tendencies to come down with infectious diseases much more than vaccines. The vaccines might have added a little bit to that downward curve, but the curve was 

going down all the time anyway."

Dr. Coulter's view is supported by the Australian Nurses Journal: "A careful 

study of the decline in disease will show that up to 90 percent of the so-called 

'killer diseases' had all but disappeared when we introduced immunization on a 

large scale during the late thirties and early forties."

[133]

 A similar statement is 

made by the Medical Journal of Australia: "The decline of tetanus as a disease 

began before the introduction of tetanus toxoid to the general population. The 

reasons for this decline are the same for the decline in all other infectious diseases: 

improved hygiene, improved sanitation, better nutrition, healthier living 

conditions, etc." 

Alan Phillips elaborates on this theme: "We just assume that vaccinations 

are responsible for disease decline, which is not the case. For if you check the 

statistics, you will find that the vast majority of disease decline proceeded 

vaccines. In the case of measles, for example, there was a 97 percent decline 

preceding vaccination; in the case of pertussis, 79 percent. When you look at the 

graph of the decline in death rate over the course of the century, you see that the 

rate of decline, post-immunization, was virtually the same as the decline preimmunization, suggesting that it's difficult to tell whether or not the vaccine had 

any effect on an already well-established decline in disease deaths."

[134], [135]

Phillips attacks the notion that vaccines are responsible for the dramatic 

reduction in infectious disease during this and past centuries. "According to the 

British Association for the Advancement of Science, childhood diseases decreased 

90 percent between 1850 and 1940, paralleling improved sanitation and hygienic 

practices, well before mandatory vaccination programs. Infectious disease deaths 

in the U.S. and England declined steadily by an average of about 80 percent during 

this century (measles mortality declined over 97 percent) prior to vaccinations. In 

Great Britain, the polio epidemics peaked in 1950, and had declined 82 percent by 

the time the vaccine was introduced there in 1956. Thus, at best, vaccinations can 

be credited with only a small percentage of the overall decline in disease-related 

deaths this century....

[136]Toxic Vaccine Ingredients and Manufacturing Processes. Walene James 

urges parents to think about the effects the ingredients of vaccines could have on 

their children's health: "There are three categories of ingredients. The first are 

cultured bacteria and viruses....The second ingredient in vaccinations is the 

medium in which they are cultivated. This can include...dog kidney tissue, monkey 

kidney tissue, chicken or duck egg protein, chick embryo, calf serum, pig or horse 

blood, and cowpox pus. These foreign proteins are injected directly....They are 

very toxic since they do not get filtered through the digestive process or pass 

through the liver."

"These proteins are foreign to the body, and are in a state of decomposition. 

They are composed of animal cells, and therefore contain animal genetic material. 

It is possible for the genes in these cells to be picked up by the live, attenuated 

viruses used in vaccines. These viruses then implant a foreign alien genetic 

material from animal tissue cultures into the human genetic system...."

The last category of vaccine ingredients, James says, includes stabilizers, 

neutralizers, carrying agents, and preservatives. "Many people feed their children 

healthy foods. They would never think of giving their children formaldehyde...or 

aluminum phosphate to eat....These are preservatives and carrying agents that are 

injected...without buffering by the digestive process, or censoring by the liver."

[137]

As examples of the ingredients used in vaccines, we list the contents of five 

common childhood vaccines below. These ingredients are current according to the 

latest information available to us, but they are subject to change at any time:

     

Hepatitis B vaccine: This genetically engineered, noninfectious viral 

vaccine is derived from hepatitis B surface antigen produced in yeast cells. The 

Recombivax HB vaccine (Merck & Co.) uses a fermentation medium consisting of 

a yeast extract, soy peptone, dextrose, amino acids and mineral salts. The protein is 

purified, then treated with formaldehyde and coprecipitated with alum (potassium aluminum sulfate) to form bulk vaccine adjuvanted with amorphous aluminum 

hydroxyphosphate sulfate. There is no detectable yeast DNA in the vaccine, but it 

may contain not more than 1% yeast protein.

[138]

 For the Engerix-B vaccine 

(SmithKline Beecham), the antigen is absorbed on aluminum hydroxide, and the 

product contains no more than 5% yeast protein. The product also contains sodium 

chloride and phosphate buffers. The pediatric/adolescent and adult formulations of 

Engerix-B do not have preservatives but may contain a trace amount of thimerosal 

(a mercury derivative) from the manufacturing process.

[139]

 Recombivax HB is 

supplied in pediatric/adolescent and adult formulations with and without a 

preservative.

[140]

     

DPT vaccine: This vaccine includes diphtheria and tetanus toxoids and 

acellular pertussis vaccine absorbed. The components of the acellular pertussis 

vaccine are isolated from phase 1 Bordetella pertussis culture grown in a modified 

Stainer-Scholte medium. They are treated with formaldehyde. For the Tripedia 

vaccine (Aventis Pasteur), the Corynebacterium diphtheriae cultures are grown in 

a modified Mueller and Miller medium, while the Clostridium tetani cultures are 

grown in a peptone-based medium containing a bovine (meat) extract. Both are 

treated with formaldehyde, and the detoxified materials are purified by serial 

ammonium sulfate fractionation and diafiltration. The toxoids are absorbed using 

aluminum potassium sulfate (alum). The product contains sodium chloride, gelatin, 

and polysorbate 80. The one-dose vial does not have a preservative but contains a 

trace amount of thimerosal from the manufacturing process; the multidose vial 

contains thimerosal as a preservative.

[141]

 For the Infanrix vaccine (SmithKline 

Beecham), the diphtheria toxin is produced in a Linggoud and Fenton medium 

containing a bovine extract, and the tetanus toxin is produced in a modified 

Latham medium. Both are treated with formaldehyde, and each is absorbed onto 

aluminum hydroxide. The product contains 2-phenoxyethanol as a preservative, 

sodium chloride, and polysorbate 80.

[142]

     

Inactivated polio vaccine: The IPOL product (Aventis Pasteur) is a highly 

purified, inactivated vaccine that contains three types of poliovirus. The viruses are 

grown in cultures of VERO cells, a continuous line of monkey kidney cells. The 

cells are grown in Eagle MEM modified medium, supplemented with newborn calf 

serum that is tested for adventitious agents before use and originates from 

countries free of bovine spongiform encephalopathy. For viral growth, the culture medium is M-199, without calf serum. (The residual calf serum protein is less than 

1 ppm in the final vaccine.) Neomycin, streptomycin and polymyxin B are used in 

the production process. The vaccine also contains 2-phenoxyethanol and 

formaldehyde (0.02% maximum) as preservatives.

[143]

MMR vaccine: The M-M-R II live virus vaccine (Merck & Co.) contains 

(1) Attenuvax, a more attenuated line of measles virus propagated in chick embryo 

cell culture; (2) Mumpsvax, a strain of mumps virus propagated in chick embryo 

cell culture; and (3) Meruvax II, the Wistar RA 27/3 strain of live attenuated 

rubella virus propagated in WI-38 human diploid lung fibroblasts. The product 

contains sorbitol, sodium phosphate, sucrose, sodium chloride, hydrolyzed gelatin, 

human albumin, fetal bovine serum, and neomycin. It does not contain a 

preservative.

[144]

Chickenpox vaccine: The Varivax vaccine (Merck & Co.) is prepared from 

the Oka/Merck strain of live, attenuated varicella virus. The virus originated from a 

child with natural varicella. It was introduced into human embryonic lung cell 

cultures, adapted to and propagated in embryonic guinea pig cell cultures and 

propagated in human diploid cell cultures (WI-38). The vaccine contains sucrose, 

hydrolyzed gelatin, sodium chloride, monosodium L-glutamate, sodium phosphate 

dibasic, potassium phosphate monobasic, potassium chloride, residual components 

of MRC-5 (human diploid) cells including DNA and protein, and trace amounts of 

sodium phosphate monobasic, EDTA, neomycin, and fetal bovine serum. There is 

no preservative.

[145]

Noting that vaccines include a host of undisputed toxins, such as aluminum 

phosphate and formaldehyde, Alan Phillips reminds us that many of the ill effects 

of vaccines did not exist at anywhere near today's levels 30 years ago. He cites 

autism, ADD, hyperactivity, dyslexia, and a host of allergies as examples.

[146]

In his book What Every Parent Should Know About Childhood 

Immunization, Jamie Murphy seconds the views of Phillips: "What could 

formaldehyde, aluminum, phenol...or any number of other deadly chemical substances used in vaccines possibly have to do with preventing disease in 

children? The fact that they are needed at all in the vaccine formula argues that the 

product is toxic, unstable and unreliable with or without their presence."

[147]

The Use of Thimerosal. In July 1999, the American Academy of Pediatrics 

(AAP) issued a statement urging the removal of the mercury-containing 

preservative thimerosal from vaccines.

[148]

 The Centers for Disease Control and 

Prevention (CDC) reported that as of April 2001, all seven of the vaccines 

recommended for use in all children contained either no thimerosal or trace 

amounts only. These vaccines include hepatitis B, Haemophilus influenzae B, and 

DTaP (which formerly contained thimerosal as a preservative) and MMR, polio, 

varicella and pneumococcal (which have never contained thimerosal).

[149]

The FDA explains that the vaccines are now being produced as either 

thimerosal-free or thimerosal-reduced products. The term thimerosal-reduced, it 

says, usually indicates that trace amounts of mercury-less than 0.5 micrograms per 

0.5 mL vaccine dose-may remain from the use of thimerosal in the manufacturing 

process, but that thimerosal is not added as a preservative. The term preservativefree means the vaccine does not have a preservative but, again, that trace amounts 

may remain from the manufacturing process.

[150]

The reason for the AAP's strong recommendation in 1999 was a growing concern 

about the risk of exposing the developing brains of infants to mercury. As more 

vaccines were being mandated for children, the cumulative level of mercury 

exceeded that deemed safe by guidelines. With the new pediatric vaccines, the 

FDA says, "the most likely maximum amount of ethyl mercury that an infant may 

be exposed to from the routine vaccination schedule has been reduced from 

approximately 187.5 mcg to <3 mcg."

[151]

While this change is certainly welcomed, we should ask why such a dangerous, 

known neurotoxin was allowed to be used in vaccines in the first place. Mercury 

exposure has been associated with nerve cell degeneration,

[152]

 adverse behavioral 

effects,

[153]

 and impaired brain development.

[154]

 It has also been linked to degenerative chronic conditions such as Alzheimer's disease. The developing fetal 

nervous system is the most sensitive to its toxic effects, and prenatal exposure to 

high doses of mercury has been shown to cause mental retardation and cerebral 

palsy.

[155]

Yet the CDC recommends the influenza vaccine, which for the most part 

still contained mercury until late 2002, to all pregnant women, despite the 2001 

urging from the Institute of Medicine that "full consideration be given to removing 

thimerosal from any biological product to which infants, children, and pregnant 

women are exposed." The CDC's homepage, today, September 6, 2006, quotes, 

"Today, with the exception of some Influenza (flu) vaccines, none of the 

vaccines used in the U.S. to protect preschool children against 12 infectious 

diseases contain thimerosal as a preservative."

This means that some of the country's most vulnerable, are still receiving 

mercury in its shots, as the flu vaccine is recommended for those most at risk, 

including the elderly, those with weakened immune systems, and very young 

children.

In 2001 the FDA was in discussions with manufacturers of influenza virus 

vaccines regarding the development of thimerosal-free or -reduced products.

[156]

According to the CDC, one manufacturer of influenza vaccine, Evans Vaccines, 

had reduced-thimerosal influenza vaccines available by the 2002-2003 flu season. 

This Fluvirin product had less than 1 mcg of thimerosal per dose; other influenza 

vaccines at the time had 25 mcg.

[157]

 For the pediatric market, another 

manufacturer, Aventis Pasteur, announced in September 2002 that the FDA had 

approved a license to market a preservative-free influenza vaccine for infants aged 

six to 35 months. A supply of the preservative-free Fluzone was available for the 

2002-2003 flu season.

[158]Despite the change over, this still begs the question as to how many children are 

still suffering the effects of mercury-toxic injections from as late as the 2000 and 

2001 flu seasons.

It should also be noted that while the mercury content of childhood vaccines has 

been eliminated or greatly reduced, vaccines may still contain formaldehyde (a 

highly carcinogenic material used to embalm corpses) and/or aluminum.

New vaccines continue to be approved:  in 2003 the "first live attenuated 

influenza vaccine licenced for 5-49 year old persons"

[159]

 was approved, and in 

2004 "inactivated influenza vaccine was recommended for all children 6-23 

months of age"

[160]

However, the CDC site does not state specifically which flu 

vaccinations contain the thimerosol: "certain Influenza (flu) vaccines and tetanusdiphtheria vaccines (Td) given to children age 7 and older contain thimerosal as a 

preservative."

Unproven Vaccines, Unmonitored Medicine The widespread use of 

experimental vaccines during Desert Storm has often been cited as a possible cause 

of Gulf War syndrome. Dr. Garth Nicolson elaborates: "I'm not a big fan of 

experimental vaccines. There have been too many mistakes. Usually you find these 

things out years later. Often agents that we think innocuous turn out to be 

harmful." He explains that during the Gulf War, the established procedures of 

vaccination were ignored. Normally, only one inoculation should be given at a 

time, but the military insisted on giving multiple shots at once, which, according to 

Nicolson, is the worst thing you can do because it suppresses the immune system. 

[5]

The troops immunized for the Gulf have been called guinea pigs, and for 

good reason. They received experimental vaccines, e.g., those for anthrax and 

botulinum that were not approved for use by the FDA and have since proven to 

cause potentially dangerous side effects. In 1991,  "Anthrax vaccine was 

administered to about 150,000 troops in the [Gulf War] theater, about 1/5 of those 

deployed."

[161]

 Soldiers who were given these experimental vaccines, without 

informed consent, have reported suffering from a variety of neurological problems 

and aberrant bleeding from all parts of their bodies. Because of these vaccines' 

experimental nature, many questions have arisen as to why our government 

dispensed them. Not the least of these questions is, what about the Nuremberg Code? Developed by the Allies after World War II in response to inhumane Nazi 

experimentation, the Nuremberg code says that voluntary and informed consent is 

absolutely essential from all human subjects who participate in research, whether 

during peace or war. [11]

Vaccine Failures. According to Phillips, "The medical literature has a surprising 

number of studies documenting vaccine failure. Measles, mumps, smallpox, and 

polio outbreaks have all occurred in vaccinated populations. In 1989, the CDC 

reported: Among school-aged children, [measles] outbreaks have occurred in 

schools with vaccination levels of greater than 98 percent. They have occurred in 

all parts of the country, including areas that had not reported measles for years. 

The CDC even reported a measles outbreak in a documented 100 percentvaccinated population. A study examining this phenomenon concluded, 'The 

apparent paradox is that as measles immunization rates rise to high levels in a 

population, measles becomes a disease of immunized persons.'...These studies 

suggest that the goal of complete immunization is actually counterproductive, a 

notion underscored by instances in which epidemics followed complete 

immunization of entire countries....In the U.S. in 1986, 90 percent of 1,300 

pertussis cases in Kansas were 'adequately vaccinated.' Seventy-two percent of 

pertussis cases in the 1993 Chicago outbreak were fully up to date with their 

vaccinations."

[162], [163], [164], [165], [166], [167], [168], [169], [170]

Effects of Specific Vaccines

With this section, we begin an examination of the effects of specific 

vaccines. Seven vaccines will be covered in this and the next two installments of 

this series: diphtheria, pertussis and tetanus, polio, chickenpox, hepatitis B, 

measles, mumps and rubella, smallpox, and the now-withdrawn rotavirus vaccine.

DIPHTHERIA, PERTUSSIS, AND TETANUS VACCINES

Diphtheria Vaccine

In the 15 years following the introduction of the diphtheria vaccine in 1894, 

the number of deaths in England and Wales rose 20 percent. Between 1895 and 

1907, there were 63,249 cases of diphtheria in individuals treated with anti-toxin; 8,917 people died, a fatality rate of 14 percent. In the same time period, there were 

11,716 cases not treated with anti-toxin; only 703 died, a fatality rate of 6 percent.

From a book by Greg Beattie, entitled, "Vaccination A Parent's Dilemma," 

we examine official charts taken from the Commonwealth of Australia, on the 

decline in death rates from Whooping Cough, Diptheria, measles, and Scarlet 

Fever.  We see that in each case, the bulk of the death rates from each illness 

declined in large measure even before the vaccine for the illness had been given.  

Lest we think, however, that these may be figures unique to Australia, the author 

states that, "Graphical evidence on the decline in death rates from infectious 

disease for USA, England, New Zealand and many other countries shows the exact 

same scenario[s]"  Whooping cough death rates, for example, when the 

vaccinations were given, between 1940 and 1960, had already declined to almost a 

tenth of their original rate at their height in 1880.  During the decade between 1940 

and 1950, when the Diptheria vaccine was originally given, death rates had 

declined to almost a quarter of their rate in 1880, and the measles deaths, at their 

height in the 1900's, had already declined to its modern low rates by the mid 

1960's, when the first vaccine was given.  

The CDC's paper on reduction of illnesses in the 20

th

 century mentions that 

one of illnesses that was reduced to zero by the year 2004, was diptheria, from an 

average of 21, 053 deaths per year in the 20

th

 century.

We know from Greg Beattie's work that the earliest vaccinations for childhood 

illnesses were given in the late 1930's for diptheria.  When we  examine the figures 

from the Union soldiers'study, mentioned earlier; we note that only the last of the 

children for the later cohort (1918-1927) would have been children when the 

Diptheria vaccinations were given.   Although heart damage can occur in untreated 

Diptheria cases, most Diptheria onset occurs in adolescents and adults.  Most of the 

later cohort would already have been adolescents at the time of the Diptheria 

vaccine, so it is unlikely that the onset of the Diptheria vaccination alone had an 

effect on the outcome of delayed onset of heart disease already noted in this group 

of people. 

47 48 49 50Similarly, it may be true that childhood illnesses could have a role in the formation 

of joint inflammation later in life, but again, only the last children of the later 

cohort in the union soldiers' study would have received the Diptheria vaccine in 

later childhood, so this would have a negligible effect on the outcome of all joint 

pain in this cohort group.  

Acellular Pertussis Vaccine

Until 1996 the whole-cell vaccine was the only whooping cough vaccine 

available in the U.S. for children in their first year of life. This vaccine included all 

the components of the bacterium Bordetella pertussis, including the toxic ones, and 

was associated with high rates of adverse reactions. In Japan, a lack of trust among 

the public of the whole-cell vaccine led to the development of a new, purified 

acellular vaccine that has been used exclusively in the country since 1981.

[171]

Even though a safer vaccine was widely used in Europe and Japan, it wasn't 

until 15 years later that the purified acellular pertussis vaccine was approved by the 

U.S. FDA for use in combination with the diphtheria and tetanus toxoids for all 

doses in the vaccination series.

[172]

 A 1996 study showed that the rate of adverse 

reactions reported to VAERS in 1991 to 1993 dropped from 9.8 per 100,000 

vaccine doses to 2.9 per 100,000 after substitution of the acellular pertussis vaccine 

for the whole-cell vaccine for the fourth and fifth dose of DPT vaccination.

[173]

Vaccine Failure. Ninety-one percent of pertussis cases in Nova Scotia, 

Canada, had received at least three doses of vaccine. Researchers concluded that 

"pertussis remains a significant health problem in Nova Scotia despite nearly 

universal vaccination."

[174]

 In this case, the pertussis vaccination proved 

ineffective.

Pertussis vaccination also has been shown to increase the susceptibility of 

certain individuals to the infection, as a 1997 report by the CDC clearly describes. In the Netherlands, 96 percent of children have received at least three shots of 

pertussis vaccine by the age of 12 months. Yet pertussis has been endemic in the 

country for the past two decades.

[175]

Increasing Cases of Pertussis in Infants and Adults. After the United 

States mandated pertussis vaccination in 1978, the incidence of the disease in the 

following eight years trebled. While cases of pertussis were increasingly seen 

among every age group, the highest incidence was registered in infants less than 1 

year old, and the highest relative increase was seen in adolescents and adults. It is 

important to note that infants suffered from the most complications, with rates of 

hospitalization, pneumonia, convulsions, and encephalopathy being the highest in 

children 0 to 6 months old.

[176]

According to one article, the incidence of pertussis increased each year in 

England and Wales after an accelerated immunization schedule was introduced.

[177]

Since the immunity provided by the vaccine, unlike that derived from natural 

infection, is only temporary, more adults are now contracting the disease and are 

transmitting it to infants, where the infection manifests with particular severity and 

can often lead to death.

Epidemics of pertussis striking infants have also been reported in Australia, 

despite extensive vaccination coverage.

[178]

DPT Safety. The U.S. Department of Health and Human Services estimates 

that every year approximately half a million DPT shots are followed by reactions 

severe enough to contraindicate the administration of more pertussis vaccine. One 

in seven children should be turned away for further pertussis vaccine. In practice, 

though, this does not happen. 

[179], [180]

 And, as pointed out by Alan Phillips, "The 

FDA's VAERS (Vaccine Adverse Effects Reporting System) receives about 11,000 

reports of serious adverse reactions to vaccination annually, some 1 percent (112+) 

of which are deaths from vaccine reactions. The majority of these deaths are 

attributed to the pertussis (whooping cough) vaccine, the 'P' in DPT. This figure alone is alarming, yet it is only the tip of the iceberg. The FDA estimates that only 

about 10 percent of adverse reactions are reported...."

DPT Vaccination and Neurological Damage. The scientific literature 

contains documentation of the damaging effects of DPT vaccination on the nervous 

system. Neurological complications include convulsions, hypotonichyporesponsive episodes (a collapse-shock-like status), paralysis, and 

encephalopathy.

FURTHER READINGS: Articles in the literature associate DPT 

vaccinations with neurological problems

[181], [182]

and convulsions.

[183], [184], [185], [186]

DPT Vaccination and Asthma. In a 1994 study published in the Journal of 

the American Medical Association, Dr. Michel Odent found that children 

immunized against whooping cough were five times more likely to suffer from 

asthma than those who did not receive the vaccine.

[187]

Dr. Odent's is not a solitary voice. Another study, performed by Farooqi et 

al. on almost 2,000 children born between 1974 and 1984, showed that vaccination 

against whooping cough is associated with a 76 percent increased risk of 

developing asthma and other allergic diseases later in life.

[188]

     

DPT Vaccination and SIDS. Sudden infant death syndrome (SIDS) is the 

unexpected death of a child occurring without any apparent explanation, and for 

which autopsy cannot reveal a determining cause. Every year, 5,000 to 6,000 

children die from SIDS. The incidence peaks in infants aged 2-4 months, which 

correlates with the introduction of a majority of vaccine injections. It is worth 

noting that approximately 85 percent of SIDS cases occur during the first six 

months of life, and that the first three DPT shots were given to children at 2, 4, and 

6 months of age when these studies were conducted.A study conducted by researchers at the Mayo Clinic looked at the incidence 

of SIDS in Olmsted County, Minnesota, over several decades and found that it 

increased steadily from a rate of 0.55 per 1,000 live births in 1953 to 128 in 1992. 

That's a great increase in this 40-year study period. However, when the authors 

compared mortality from SIDS to overall infant mortality, they came up with an 

even more distressing finding. The increase of SIDS as a percentage of total infant 

deaths increased from 2.5 in 1953 to 17.9 in 1992.

[189]

 So from 1950 to 1990, a 

combination of lifestyle changes, improved sanitary conditions, and progress in 

medical technology resulted in a reduction of practically all causes of infant death 

except one-sudden infant death.

In 1982, at the 34th Annual Meeting of the American Academy of 

Pediatrics, Dr. W. Torch presented an abstract entitled "Diphtheria-PertussisTetanus (DPT) Immunization: A Potential Cause of the Sudden Infant Death 

Syndrome (SIDS)." Triggered by a report of 12 such deaths occurring within 3-1/2 

to 19 hours of DPT vaccination, Torch's investigation looked at 70 SIDS cases. He 

found that two-thirds of the victims had been vaccinated from a half day to three 

weeks prior to death.

[190]

Torch reaffirmed a link between DPT and SIDS in 1986, when he presented 

11 new cases of SIDS and one of near-miss syndrome (NMS) occurring within 24 

hours of DPT injection. All cases presented with SIDS pathology, yet none were 

diagnosed as "postvaccinal" death.

[191]

 Analysis of these and other more than 150 

cases of DPT postvaccinal deaths reported in the literature-about half of which 

were sudden or anaphylactic-led Torch to conclude that "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."

[192]

 Other researchers 

also have uncovered a relationship between DTP immunization and SIDS.

[193], [194]

Tetanus Vaccination and Neurological Damage. The literature includes 

articles on neurological reactions to the tetanus vaccination

[195], [196], [197], [198], [199], 

[200]

 and other adverse reactions.

[201], [202], [203]In Part 2: The effects of vaccines for polio, chickenpox, hepatitis B, and 

measles, mumps and rubella.

Vaccination: Pain, Profit, and Politics - Part 2

By Gary Null, Ph.D., and Martin Feldman, M.D.In Part 1 of this series, we discussed the reasons why we should challenge our 

assumptions that vaccines are safe and effective. These reasons include the adverse 

effects associated with vaccines, the unsound principles on which they are based, 

questions about whether immunization really eliminates disease, the toxic 

ingredients used in vaccines, and vaccine failures. In Part 1 we also began to look at 

the effects of specific vaccines with a discussion of the diphtheria, pertussis and 

tetanus vaccine; we continue that process in Part 2 with a look at the polio, 

chickenpox, hepatitis B, and measles, mumps and rubella vaccines.

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.

Today, the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) 

recommends exclusive use of the IPV for routine childhood polio vaccination in the 

U.S. (the enhanced-potency version is the only IPV in use in the U.S.). The ACIP 

changed its polio vaccine recommendation to the all-IPV schedule, effective January 

2000, to eliminate the risk for vaccine-associated paralytic poliomyelitis (VAPP), 

the condition caused by the previously recommended oral polio vaccine.

[204]

Until 1996, all children in the U.S., except those with a compromised immune 

system and their close contacts, were immunized with the live attenuated OPV 

vaccine. However, the vaccine actually caused polio in a small percentage of people. 

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. In fact, the only indigenous cases of polio reported in the U.S. since 

1979 have been associated with the use of OPV. Between 1980 and 1998, 144 cases 

of VAPP were reported.

[205]

Despite these occurrences, the ACIP recommended the use of OPV in the U.S. 

because it believed the benefits of the oral vaccine outweighed the risk for VAPP. In 

1996, the ACIP recommended a sequential schedule of IPV and OPV to "decrease 

the risk for VAPP but maintain the benefits of OPV." It then recommended the allIPV schedule as of January 2000, citing several reasons: the substantially reduced 

likelihood of poliovirus being imported into the U.S. due to rapid progress made in 

the global polio eradication initiative; the acceptance of the sequential schedule; and 

the lack of declines in childhood immunization coverage.

[206]

The CDC states that, "in 1955 the inactivated polio vaccination was 

licenced."

[207]

  In 1954, the largest vaccination trial to date was undertaken across the 

country.  Up to 600,000 children throughout the country were vaccinated due to 

efforts by parents, community activists, and teachers, both in the efforts of pursuing 

science and bettering public health.  Children and their parents were told that they 

were 'pioneers' in an effort to eradicate a debilitating scourge.  In homage to the 

passionate public effort, researchers stated that 95% of children received the three 

shots required by the trial.    Whereas the design of the study was vigorous, there 

were complaints as to the follow through. The setup of the study was as follows: 

Each child received three vaccinations on a rigorous schedule, and the two arms of 

the study had differing control groups which would even out the counterbalancing 

effects of income, nutrition, and class; however, it was often reported that the entire 

dose was not given per child, or that in the control group which was to have received 

a placebo injection, liquid from the experimental group remained in the syringe, 

thereby giving the placebo child a weak inoculation.  Despite the fact that the 

government review of the outcome of polio vaccination was to have been considered 

positive, critics said that there was not a huge difference between the observed and 

placebo control groups and the actual groups that received the vaccinations.

In three of the trial groups, numbers of children in the study tested were 

between 200,000 and 225,000.  In order to compare effectiveness, we will average 

the outcomes based on numbers tested at 200,000:Therefore, for in areas where a placebo shot was given, along with the 

vaccination, an average of 32.87 children came down with polio out of 200,000 who 

received the shots, whereas an average of 114.30 children out of 200,000 came down 

with the illness who did not receive the vaccination.  

In the next cohort group, an average of 34.24 children out of 200,000 came 

down with polio after receiving the vaccination whereas an average of 91.01 

children out of 200,000 came down with polio in the control group who was just 

observed rather than actually receiving the shots.  Although the numbers for the two 

arms of the study may be similar, it appears that the lower number in the 

observational control may be slightly more accurate for a couple of reasons:  First, 

there were complaints that the actual givers of the vaccines contaminated the control 

groups with the active vaccine, and second, the control group of observed children 

was much larger than the control group who received a placebo [725, 123 as 

compared to 201, 229 in the placebo group];  it is well known that a larger cohort 

group is desired for better scientific accuracy.

The one positive aspect of the placebo arm of the study as noted by author 

David Oshinsky was that the children were more likely to be of the same age, class, 

and upbringing, since those who were vaccinated tended to have parents who were 

better educated and more willing to commit their children to a scientific study for the 

'betterment of scientific inquiry'.  It is just such attitudes that we wish to examine 

closely in this paper, for these are the vulnerabilities that the mainstream medical 

community uses when coercing the public to use vaccinations.

[208]

After the auspicious start as seen by the CDC's National Immunization 

program, we will examine the timeline for the various vaccinations given in the US:

Polio was seen originally as a mystery because the sanitation measures that had 

brought typhoid and cholera into abeyance did not seem to have an effect on polio.  In fact children brought up in middle class homes were more likely to develop the 

paralyzing illness than those in poorer neighborhoods.  

For example: "[Franklin Roosevelt] had avoided the common illnesses until his 

arrival at boarding school as a teen.  From that point forward, his medical history 

resembled an encyclopedia of contagious diseases.  The list included typhoid fever, 

swollen sinuses, infected tonsils, stomach problems, endless sore throats."

[209]

  We 

know that later he was said to have contracted polio but some have attributed his 

illness to Guillain Barre syndrome as well, which we see below, has an association 

with Polio.

Originally, The Polio outbreaks were one of the first times it was suggested that 

a less-antiseptic environment may have had a protective effect upon the child.  It was 

later found that polio was a viral infection, and was passed through the mouth,

[210]

but was an infection of the digestive tract that spread through the nerves to the brain 

and spinal cord.  One of the early researchers on polio noticed that boys tended to 

get polio more often than girls, and during periods where they had stressed their 

bodies, such as playing outside on a hot day.  Franklin Roosevelt was said to have 

contracted polio after playing rigorously in the water with his children.  

Whether rich or poor, however, author David Oshinsky points not to large 

issues of public sanitation, but to issues of personal hygiene: 

"the words 'American' and 'cleanliness' rarely graced the same sentence before 

the twentieth century.  In 1900 toothbrushes were still rare in the United States, 

deodorants and shampoos almost unheard of.  Few people bathed more than once a 

week or rinsed their hair more than once a month.  Fewer still washed their hands 

before eating or after using the toilet.  Spitting was almost universal.  Travelers 

shared beds and chamber pots with complete strangers.  Most houses, lacking 

screens, attracted swarms of insects in warm weather.  Water supplies were 

unfiltered, and food was poorly refrigerated, if at all."

[211]It is clear to anyone with a modicum of common sense that these would be ideal 

conditions to spread a virus of the digestive tract.  In an article entitled Introduction 

to Contagion

[212]

, we discover that it is important to note the way a disease is 

transmitted when examining the ways in which the epidemics have happened 

throughout the ages:

For example: whether virus or bacteria, there are illnesses that are spread 

through droplets that are ingested, which are present in the air due to respiratory 

expulsion.  There are also water borne illnesses, that can be picked up by a cut in the 

skin or when a person ingests quantities of water from an infected source.  Other 

diseases can be transmitted through food, and still others through physical touching, 

such as through the hands, through the saliva, or through sexual contact.

In an epidemic of cholera, for example, the CDC states that,"the source of the 

contamination is usually the feces of an infected person. The disease can spread 

rapidly in areas with inadequate treatment of sewage and drinking water."

[213]

David Oshinsky writes of non-polio outbreaks:  

"mortality rates had dropped dramatically since the 1870's, the result of better 

sanitation, a healthier diet, and stunning breakthroughs in research...Other epidemic 

diseases like cholera and typhoid fever had been tamed by better sanitation, 

attacking the filth that spread their deadly germs.  In most places this involved the 

regulation of sewage, the purification of water, and the pasteurization of milk.  It 

included public health campaigns to educate people about quarantining the sick and 

keeping their dwellings clean."

[214]

Guillain-Barre Syndrome and Polio Vaccine. 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 Guillain-Barre 

syndrome that followed by a few weeks the implementation of a nationwide oral 

poliovirus vaccine campaign.

[215], [216]

 And in Brazil, 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 oral polio vaccine months or 

years before the onset of symptoms.

[217]

Furthermore, vaccine viruses also have been isolated from patients with 

paralysis diagnosed as transverse myelitis (TM), and in patients with facial paralysis 

(FP).

[218]

 Most individuals with TM and FP had received the oral polio vaccine 

months or years prior to the onset of disease, indicating that the virus may remain 

latent and revert to virulence later in time. It is noteworthy too that in Brazil, cases 

of wild-type poliomyelitis have not been reported since 1989, while vaccineassociated paralysis is still occurring.

[219]

The Cancer Connection to the Polio Vaccine. In 1960 it was discovered that 

both the Salk and Sabin vaccines, which had been administered to millions of 

people, were contaminated with SV40 (simian virus 40), derived from the monkey 

kidney cells used to grow the vaccine viruses. The SV40 survived inactivation with 

formaldehyde, the method used to kill the poliovirus, and was therefore injected with 

the vaccine into 98 million people in the U.S.

[220]

 and hundreds of millions 

worldwide. These individuals 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 to induce malignancy. Unfortunately, a growing number of 

studies are showing that the virus retains these same properties in humans as well as 

in animals. Integration and replication of SV40 has been documented in 13 percent 

of non-Hodgkin's lymphomas,

[221]

 16 percent of Hodgkin's lymphomas,

[222]

 11 

percent to 90 percent of different types of brain tumors,

[223],[224],[225],[226]

 83 percent of 

mesotheliomas (malignant tumors of the lining of the lungs),

[227]

 28 percent of 

bronchopulmonary carcinomas,

[228]

 50 percent of osteosarcomas,

[229]

 and more than 

33 percent of other types of bone tumors.

[230],  [231]Chickenpox Vaccine

In 1995 the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) and the ACIP 

recommended universal chickenpox (varicella) vaccination of children aged 12 to 18 

months. They also recommended that the vaccine be given to children aged 18 

months to 12 years who have not been vaccinated or who lack a reliable history of 

the disease.

The fact is that in the vast majority of cases, chickenpox is a benign, selflimiting disease in children. Natural immunity, derived from contracting the disease, 

is permanent. Vaccine-induced immunity, on the other hand, is only temporary, 

lasting an estimated six to 10 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 on healthy children. Barbara 

Loe Fisher, cofounder and president of the NVIC, elaborates: "Our organization is 

questioning the recommendation...that all healthy children be vaccinated with the 

chickenpox vaccine....

"...In children, chickenpox is, by and large, a very mild disease. The 

case/fatality ratio in healthy children is 1 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. 

"The other thing about the chickenpox vaccine is that the vaccine virus could lie 

dormant in vaccinated individuals, and then reactivate later in life in the form of 

herpes zoster, which is also known as shingles, or perhaps [in the form of] other 

immune system disorders...." Fisher is not the only one to question the appropriateness of the official 

recommendations concerning this vaccination. According to the results of one 

survey, 58 percent of pediatricians interviewed did not recommend varicella 

vaccination of all infants.

[232]

Discounting the numerous concerns of doctors, researchers, and parents, in 

February 1999 the CDC expanded its guidelines for varicella vaccination and 

required that all children entering child care centers and elementary and middle 

schools receive varicella vaccination unless they have evidence of immunity.

[233]

In the meantime, 6,580 adverse events-including 14 deaths-were reported to the 

Vaccine Adverse Events Reporting System in association with varicella vaccination 

between March 17, 1995 and July 25, 1998.

[234]

 The actual number could be at least 

10 times higher, if we take into consideration the proven fact that only 10 percent of 

adverse events are commonly reported.

Another concern regards pregnant women. Normally, 90 percent 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 10 

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.

[235]

 Thus, we need lifelong immunity from natural 

infection.

In addition, children born from women whose vaccine-induced immunity has 

faded are unprotected during their first year of life, when their immune system is 

still developing, and may suffer fatal complications should they be exposed to the 

infection.Is the Chickenpox Vaccine Effective? If the effectiveness of the vaccine is 

measured by its ability to prevent the disease from occurring, the answer is simply 

no. As we read in an article published in Pediatrics, "In 1998, three years after 

vaccine licensure, child care centers in Los Angeles County continued to report 

varicella outbreaks." These outbreaks occurred in child care centers with high 

vaccine coverage as well as in those with low coverage, meaning that the infection 

spread regardless of child vaccination status.

[236]

An interesting article clearly shows how questionable the data are claiming 

reductions of diseases following immunization campaigns. This is what often 

happens: Reporting of a specific disease is encouraged until the start of a vaccination 

program. Thus, the disease appears to be present at certain rates. Then, after the 

vaccine enters the market, reporting is no longer required and therefore not done, 

and the rates of the disease seem to drop. But in reality the drop results from changes 

in reporting requirements and practices, not from an actual decline in the number of 

cases.

Vaccination against chickenpox will not prevent a child from contracting the 

disease. Rates of infection in vaccinated individuals-so-called "breakthrough 

varicella"-range from 18 percent to 34 percent in the 10 years following 

immunization.

[237], [238], [239]

 Furthermore, even if vaccination reduces the number of 

skin lesions, the duration of the infection, and the occurrence of fever in individuals 

who develop breakthrough disease, it does not reduce the rate of constitutional 

complaints and that of complications.

[240]

One study found that 18.6 percent of children who responded to varicella 

vaccination developed breakthrough disease after exposure to the infection in the 

five to 10 years following immunization.

[241]

 Another study showed that 20-30 

percent of vaccinees developed varicella in the 10 years following immunization.

[242]

In a third study, 34 percent of individuals vaccinated against chickenpox developed 

breakthrough disease in the seven to 10 years following immunization.

[243]FURTHER READINGS: Articles discuss the potential downside to the mass 

use of the chickenpox vaccine and reactions associated with it.

[244], [245],  [246]

Hepatitis B Vaccine

The hepatitis B vaccine, commercially available in the United States since 

1982, was supposed to be given to every American child within 12 hours of birth. In 

spite of this measure, "the incidence of acute hepatitis B in this country has risen 

from 55 per 100,000 in 1981 to 63 per 100,000 in 1987," according to the New 

England Journal of Medicine.

[247]

          Additionally, strong side effects have been 

reported following the use of this vaccine. In 1990, the Journal of Pediatric Child 

Health had this to say on the subject: "There have...been reported six serious 

illnesses in a series of 200,000 hepatitis vaccinations, including aseptic meningitis, 

grand mal seizure, and possible transverse myelitis, as well as 56 minor illnesses 

considered likely due to the vaccine. These minor illnesses include neurological 

tremors, Bell's palsy, hives, herpes zoster, psoriasis, musculoskeletal generalized 

myalgia, joint inflammation...influenza-like syndrome, injection site reaction, 

diarrhea, vomiting, and headache." 

The authors conclude with these recommendations: "Until further evidence can 

be gathered on possible side-effects or complications from the hepatitis B vaccine, it 

may be worth considering only giving the vaccine to people at high risk, rather than 

to all the population." 

According to Barbara Loe Fisher, "Today, hepatitis B recombinant vaccine used 

in the U.S. is derived from hepatitis B surface antigens produced in yeast cells. A 

portion of the hepatitis B virus gene is cloned into the yeast (a common baker's 

yeast) and the vaccine is produced from cultures of this recombinant yeast strain. 

The vaccine is treated with formaldehyde and contains...hepatitis B virus surface 

antigen...yeast protein [and] aluminum hydroxide...."

[248]The unfortunate reality is that vaccination against hepatitis B has played an 

uncertain role in preventing the spread of the infection in high-risk individuals. In 

fact, the incidence of hepatitis B infection has risen 37 percent since the introduction 

of the vaccine.

[249]

 Despite the evidence of vaccine failure, though, in 1991 the CDC 

recommended universal hepatitis B immunization of infants.

[250]

Though substantial decrease in deaths were shown for various illnesses 

throughout the 20

th

 century, many illnesses still show a significant number of deaths, 

which calls to question what is really causing the decreases in deaths from particular 

illnesses:  For example, Hepatitis A was reduced from 117,333 average deaths in the 

20

th

 century to 24, 291 in 2004.  Similarly, Hepatitis B went from 66, 232 per year 

during the entire 20

th

 century to 17358 in 2004.  What is misleading about the chart 

is that we do not know how many people throughout the 20

th

 century had been 

vaccinated against hepatitis before they died, or that the apparent greater than 70% 

decrease in deaths for both Hep A and Hep B were due to vaccination or other health 

factors.  It is also known that Hep B infection when untreated can cause liver cancer, 

so we may not know the final outcomes for some Hep B related mortality for those 

who were infected in the year 2004, for some time yet.

Health care workers have not rushed to get this injection. A 1990 article in the 

British Medical Journal reports that 86 percent of 598 doctors questioned about 

hepatitis B vaccine believed all general practitioners should receive it, but 309 of 

these doctors had not been vaccinated themselves.

[251]

 In another study, only 25 

percent of nurses and 49 percent of doctors had been immunized, despite the fact 

that 87 percent of the medical staff and 57 percent of the nurses reported a history of 

needle stick injury.

[252]

 And the reaction among family physicians is even less 

enthusiastic: Only 17 percent of 300 family physicians agreed that a 

recommendation of hepatitis B vaccination was warranted for all newborns in their 

practice.

[253]

Is the Hepatitis B Vaccine Safe? As we learn from a study published in the

Pediatric Infectious Diseases Journal, between 1991 and 1994, 12,520 adverse 

reactions to hepatitis B vaccination were reported to the Vaccine Adverse Event 

Reporting System, with 14 percent of these reactions involving newborns and 

infants.

[254]The fact is that the number of reports of complications following hepatitis B 

vaccination is growing steadily. The Association of American Physicians and 

Surgeons (AAPS) reports, "About one-third of the reactions were serious enough to 

result in an emergency room visit or hospitalization, and there were 440 deaths, 

including about 180 attributed to sudden infant death syndrome or SIDS."

[255]

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."

[256]

Dr. Jane M. Orient, executive director of the Association of American 

Physicians and Surgeons, puts the facts plainly. According to a recent federal 

government study, she says, "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."

[257]

Is the Hepatitis B Vaccine Effective? Vaccine supporters claim that the 

development of an antibody response to the virus contained in the vaccine equals 

protection against the disease. So we are now vaccinating millions of children 

against hepatitis B to prevent them from contracting the disease later in life. But for 

this to happen, the level of antibodies that are supposed to be protective has to 

remain high for very long periods. The evidence proves that this is not happening.

A study published in the New England Journal of Medicine evaluated the 

persistence of anti-hepatitis-B antibodies in 773 homosexual men immunized against 

the virus. Of these, 635 produced antibodies. After five years, however, such 

antibodies no longer existed in 15 percent of the respondents, and their levels 

declined sharply-below levels deemed to be protective-in another 27 percent. In fact, hepatitis B developed in 55 men, and two individuals became carriers of the hepatitis 

B virus.

[258]

 Another study shows that after three years, 36 percent of individuals 

who initially responded to the hepatitis B immunization lost anti-heptatitis-B 

antibodies.

[259]

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?

          Adverse Reactions to Hepatitis B Vaccine. The National Vaccine 

Information Center, in its report on hepatitis B vaccination, cites 38 reports in the 

international medical literature presenting evidence that hepatitis B vaccination is 

causing chronic autoimmune and neurological disease in children and adults. Yet 

this is not information given in the vaccine manufacturer's literature.

Tourbah et al. reported in a 1999 article published in the journal Neurology that 

eight patients developed encephalitis and central nervous system demyelinating 

disease within 10 weeks of receiving hepatitis B vaccination.

[260]

          

FURTHER READINGS: Articles in the medical literature associate the 

hepatitis B vaccine with complications affecting the nervous system

[261], [262], [263], [264]

and the joints

[265], [266], [267], [268], [269]

 as well as other adverse effects.

[270]

Measles/Mumps/Rubella (MMR)Vaccine

As with hepatitis B, physicians are notoriously reluctant to follow their own 

advice when it comes to measles vaccination. One study reported that obstetrician 

gynecologists had the lowest vaccination rate among doctors for the German measles vaccine. Pediatricians didn't fare much better. The authors attributed such 

findings to "fear of unforeseen vaccine reactions."

[271]

The fact that the MMR vaccine is particularly ineffective, with a high 

percentage of those inoculated getting the disease, is undoubtedly a factor here.

[272], 

[273], [274], [275], [276], [277], [278], [279], [280], [281], [282], [283]

According to The New England 

Journal of Medicine, 60 percent of all measles cases among American 

schoolchildren between 1985 and 1986 occurred in those who were vaccinated.

[284]

  

Scientist Trevor Gunn also points out that for several reasons, there is underreporting of illness caused by vaccination.  These include:  financial backlash from 

vaccination producers, and the restricted length of time for which adverse symptoms 

must occur-In England "72 hours for whooping cough and 8-20 hours for the 

MMRP" vaccines.

The Journal of the American Medical Association published a study indicating 

that among 235 cases of student measles reported in Dane County, Wisconsin, in 

1986, more than 96 percent had received a measles vaccine.

[285]

A study reported in 

Morbidity and Mortality Weekly found that 58 percent of 1,600 cases of measles in 

Quebec, Canada, in 1989 occurred in those who had already been vaccinated.

[286]

And the World Health Organization has conceded that those administered the 

measles vaccine have a 14 times greater likelihood of contracting the disease than 

those who remain unvaccinated.

[287]

Jamie Murphy, author of What Every Parent Should Know About Childhood 

Immunization, believes that the vaccine may in fact be causing the illness. "In one 

Chicago study," he says, "90 percent of people vaccinated for measles got measles. 

Another group did not get vaccinated and had a very low percentage of measles." 

Murphy believes that this information should serve as a red flag, causing people to 

realize that vaccines are not working.

[288]

Murphy's observation raises a question that no one has answered: Why are 

people who are vaccinated for these conditions getting them? He thinks the answer 

is that the vaccine does not provide true immunization."The vaccine can never duplicate the kind of immunity that we get from nature. 

Back in the 1950s, when I got the measles and 80 percent of children got either 

measles or mumps...it strengthened your immune system....Also, when a natural 

epidemic of measles occurs, as it does every three to four years in the United States, 

those children who have been vaccinated, because they did not get a true immunity 

from the vaccine, become susceptible to measles."

The CDC states that there has been a resurgence of measles in the United states 

in the past few years, but attributes the problem to the rise in un-vaccinated children.

Murphy argues that rather than preventing measles, the vaccine may simply be 

suppressing it, only to have it manifest as other forms of disease with age.

[289]

 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...."

[290]

          

Results of two separate studies by the Institute of Medicine, one in 1991 and 

another in 1994, showed there to be strong evidence that the MMR vaccine can 

cause acute arthritis, anaphylaxis, thrombocytopenia, and even death.

[291]

Even the package insert accompanying the MMR vaccine says that the vaccine 

may lead to arthritis or arthralgia, either long-term or temporary.

[292]

 Meryl Dorey, 

editor of the Australian publication Vaccination? The Choice is Yours and president 

of the Australian Vaccination Network, points out that the MMR vaccine is also 

associated with Guillain-Barre paralysis, multiple sclerosis, and aseptic meningitis, a 

swelling of the lining of the brain, which can be fatal. "According to Japanese 

studies," she notes, "one in 1,044 children who get this vaccine can get aseptic 

meningitis. It's one of the reasons why Japan withdrew the use of the MMR vaccine 

in 1994."

[293]Viera Scheibner, a retired research scientist, reports that "In April 1993, the 

Ministry of Health and Welfare in Japan decided to discontinue the use of measles, 

mumps, and rubella vaccine (Sawada et al., 1993). This decision was prompted by 

published reports of vaccinated children and their (unvaccinated) contacts 

contracting mumps from the MMR vaccine, and reports of one in 1,044 vaccinees 

developing encephalitis."

[294], [295]

Dorey highlights the problem of shed vaccine virus, noting that it is incorrect to 

say that the MMR vaccine viruses are not infectious. "According to a study 

published in the British Medical Journal, July 4, 1987, immunocompromised 

children should be kept away from MMR vaccinated children for two weeks after 

vaccination due to the...[possible shedding] of the virus.

"These events of infection occur because the vaccines contain live virus 

which can grow in the body and are excreted by the body."

[296], [297]

  The CDC 

tells us that in 1967 the "mumps vaccination was licenced." 

[298]

  However, 22 

years later, in 1989, the Urabe strain of the Mumps virus was removed from 

Canadian vaccines because of a meningitis outbreak. Trevor Gunn cites that 

during this time in the UK:

"cross linking laboratory and hospital reports to vaccination records records, the 

[perceived low risk from meningitis from this particular vaccine] rose to between 1 

in 4000 and 1 in 21,000."

These figures led to the removal of this strain in the UK by 1992.  (From the 

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)Measles Vaccine

A study published in 1994 in the Archives of Internal Medicine evaluated all 

U.S. and Canadian articles reporting measles outbreaks in schools and found that, on 

average, 77 percent of all measles cases in these outbreaks were occurring among 

vaccinated individuals. The authors concluded that "the apparent paradox is that as 

measles immunization rates rise to high levels in a population, measles becomes a 

disease of immunized persons."

[299]

One of the reasons for the resurgence of measles infection is that the antibody 

response to the vaccine virus is only temporary. One study shows that four years 

after MMR vaccination, measles antibodies fall below the putative protective levels 

in 28 percent of children and are no longer present in another 3 percent of 

vaccinees.

[300]

 Experimenting with high-potency vaccines produced even poorer 

results.

[301]

These are just samples of the numerous studies showing that the supposed 

protection offered by the vaccine is short-lasting. By contrast, natural immunity-that 

derived from contracting the disease-is permanent and is transferred from mothers to 

the babies in utero through the placenta. At birth, babies born from 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 on 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 

published in the journal Pediatrics. Researchers found that 71 percent of 9-monthold infants and 95 percent of 12-month-olds had no detectable neutralizing measles 

antibodies in their blood. All infants with detectable measles antibodies at 9 or 12 

months had mothers born before 1963, before the vaccine era.

[302]Measles infection is still a severe disease in adults. A study published in the

American Journal of Medicine in 1993 shows that, of 68 patients over 14 years old 

who developed measles, 33 required hospitalization. Of these, nine were admitted to 

the intensive care unit, six required mechanical ventilation, and two died. The 

authors concluded: "Measles in adults may result in severe, life-threatening 

complications that utilize substantial medical resources. Physicians need to 

appreciate the clinical presentations and manifestations of severe measles in adults 

and to provide measles vaccine to nonimmune adults during community-wide 

outbreaks."

[303]

 Again, immunization has failed to protect children from infection 

and has created a vulnerable population of infants and adults who are at risk of 

developing severe complications. What is the remedy proposed? Again-more 

vaccination!

Another problem found with measles vaccination, documented in several 

studies, is that it produces immune suppression that contributes to an increased 

susceptibility to other infections.

[304]

 One study shows that immunization with live 

measles virus vaccine produces transient immune depression in vaccine 

recipients.

[305]

Trevor Gunn, BSc, wrote an article to the World Health Organization on the 

inadequacies he feels regarding the safety claims made by vaccine administrators 

particularly with regards to measles vaccinations around the world:

[306]

Mr. Gunn felt he was misunderstood in his letter, by the WHO representative 

who responded to him, CJ Clements, saying that Mr. Gunn claimed that vaccines 

provided no safety, when, in fact, Mr. Gunn was only demonstrating the 

shortcomings in the studies that the WHO used to 'prove' effectiveness of vaccines 

when he requested that the World Health Organization prove the effectiveness of 

vaccines before continuing to give them.

First of all, he pointed out that studies on effectiveness use sero-conversion, or 

antibody presence in the blood stream to indicate effectiveness of vaccines.  Mr. 

Gunn points out that the amount of antibody presence the blood does not correlate with the body's ability to fight illness.  Mr Gunn states,  "in the UK the government 

health authority quotes figures of the measles vaccine as being 90% effective."

[307]

Mr. Gunn points out that this does not mean that the vaccine is 90% effective in 

preventing illness, but it means that it produces antibodies in the patients 90% of the 

time.  Mr. Gunn calls for more accurate studies that measure the level of disease 

protection afforded to populations, after they've been inoculated, using cohort groups 

matched for age, population and disease exposure similarities, etc.  A 1991 Press 

Release by the CDC entitled:  Immunization Initiative, praises the benefits of 

immunization and gives a basis for the quoted figure of 90% effectiveness of 

vaccinations mentioned in the above Trevor Gunn article:

The CDC's evidence for "saving countless lives and preventing untold illness 

and suffering" is as follows: First, they cite a figure that before the use of the 

measles vaccine in 1963 , between half and one million people had measles per year, 

from which 500-1000 people succumbed mortally.  We remember here, however, 

David Francis' point that "improved nutrition and public health measures in children 

were more important than medical intervention in 1900", at the height of the measles 

outbreak in America, and although the author claims that measles is making a 

comeback in recent years, he does not give the figures on how he infers that the 

number spiked in the late 1980s as compared to the vaccine's effectiveness in first 

the two decades since its use.

He does state, however, "a number of urban epidemics of measles [happened] 

during 1989 and 1990."  It is important that we examine the numbers of measles 

cases that were reduced, however, after the introduction of the measles vaccine.  

From the Greg Beattie book, "Vaccination A Parent's Dilemma", from 1960-1970, 

the death rate from measles remains essentially flat.  The CDC report, however, 

stated that, "in the last 2 years, 45,000 cases of measles and over 100 deaths 

occurred."  The author cites that, "Almost one-half of all cases have occurred in 

unvaccinated preschool children."  We do not, however, learn in this article, how 

many deaths occurred in the un-vaccinated group.The author seems to be using this figure to bolster his argument that measles 

cases rose as a result of lack of vaccinations.  However, if half of all cases of 

measles occurred in children who were un-vaccinated, then according to his 

reasoning measles should not have occurred in a significant number of children who 

were in fact vaccinated.  Public health officials tend to use the counter intuitive 

claim that the un-vaccinated children provide a contagious health risk to those who 

are in fact vaccinated.  This seems to belie the whole premise that the vaccination is 

supposed to protect the child who has been inoculated.  There seems to be some 

magical thinking with some public health officials regarding the so called, herd 

immunity-that it only works if all or most children are vaccinated.

We note here especially, the two year period following the 1963 introduction of 

the measles vaccine, that David  Francis stated that the childhood decline in 

mortality rate was still, "essentially flat," as noted in our paragraph above.  The CDC 

is proud of the figure that measles deaths were reduced from 4 million per year 

throughout the 20

th

 century to 37 in 2004.

[1]

  Trevor Gunn notes, however, that other 

public health factors play a significant role in outcomes of disease in third world 

countries.

In another report from the WHO on a previously mentioned project in 

Bangladesh, Gunn points out that in one area, the study showed 36% effectiveness, 

and another area showed 46% effectiveness.  This was due, the WHO said, to a local 

epidemic of diarrea which affected the outcome of mortality.  In addition to Mr 

Gunn's assertions, the WHO's defense also points out the weakness of a one -point 

solution to a region where childhood mortality is caused by a host of factors, 

including the main one, (which is lack of nutrition and clean drinking water.)  

Another study, E. Holt, et al from the Journal of Pediatrics, Vol. 85, No 2 

pp188-194, February 1990

[308]

 studied measles outbreaks in a particular area in 

Tahiti.  Although the study was nine months in length as opposed to the 10 months 

in the previous study, it showed greater effectiveness in death reduction than the 

previous Bangladeshi study.  Dr. Gunn suggests that the paper may be manifesting 

the common trait among many vaccine cohort studies that he quotes from the 

Lancet, "gains in survival of a vaccinated group tend to diminish over time to 

approach a survival rate of unvaccinated individuals"

[309]

. (The Lancet April 4, 1981 

765).

Mr. Gunn points out the difficulties with several of the third world studies with 

regards to vaccine effectiveness in measles and other illnesses:  In the study, P. Aby, 

et Al, Pediat Infec DisJ 8: 197-200, 1989

[310]

, Gunn tries to answer whether the measles vaccination would lead to greater or fewer deaths, due to the benefits 

provided by measles in the form of natural immunity in developing countries.  While 

this is a good question ideally, points out Mr. Gunn, the experiment was poorly 

carried out:  Although the study claims that the vaccine prevented 30% of measles 

death, the methods of the paper reveal that the control group was not a nonvaccinated group, but included children who did not sero-convert, and so were 

assumed to have no immune response to the vaccine.  In this case, then, we would 

not know whether deaths in the control group were due directly to the vaccine, due 

to lack of effectiveness of the vaccine, or due to lack of natural immunity provided 

by the measles itself.

In another group of people in this study, 15 out of 123 did not have antibody 

conversion after vaccination, so their results were excluded as well.  Three of this 

group actually died.  In this case, then, we do not know the cause of death of those 

who died, and we still do not find out if those remaining 12 who did not register 

measles antibodies in their blood, were prevented from getting measles at all.

In referring to a paper by Clemens et al, American Journal of Epidemiology, 

Vol 128, No. 6 1330-39

[311]

, Mr. Gunn complains that the cohort group of the study 

was cherry picked for people who did not have a history of measles.  Mr. Gunn 

pointed out that this group may have been less likely to die either from measles in 

general, or may in general be heartier than the people who were selected against in 

the study.

Gunn points out that : "In the UK, over 95% of the mortality had occurred 

before the introduction of the measles vaccine."  In addition, therefore, in a 

developed country, it is difficult to assess the particular role in health prevention 

vaccination plays, because specific tests have not been developed to test vaccination 

related disease prevention.  He also states that it must be important to assess the risks 

of any new medical product administered to the children of an entire population.  He 

points out the hypocrisy of such organizations as the American Academy of 

Pediatrics, whose officials claim that, "the benefits of immunization far outweigh the 

risks," without in reality examining the actual safety of these vaccines.

Gunn points out that there is evidence which links inoculation with illness: The 

Lancet, Vol. 345, April 29, 1995, shows that there is a link between Crohn's Disease 

and the Measles vaccination: the manufacturer's label includes the possible adverse effects:  "fever, rash, coryza, pharyngitis, bronchitis, convulsions, encephalitis, 

thrombocytic purpura, and even death." 

Although some researchers point to good news, "specifically it has been shown 

that children contracting measles were less likely to suffer from allergic conditions 

such as asthma, eczema, and hayfever," (Lancet June 29, 1996)  Gunn also points 

out that infection may cause deleterious effects without the usual measles rash, 

causing, "sebaceous skin diseases, degenerative diseases of bone and cartilage, and 

certain tumours."  He states that the Lancet study, January 5, 1985 suggests that 

interference with the body's own symptomology by repressing measles rash 

symptoms could in fact, interfere with the body's ability to fight the illness 

altogether.  Gunn's rationale for bolstering this idea is the study he mentions from 

the (American Journal of Medicine, Volume 68, pps 344-355, 1980) that people are 

more likely to die from an infection if they are unable to produce a fever in response 

to it.  

Mumps Vaccine

Aseptic meningitis has been epidemiologically associated with receipt of the 

mumps vaccine.

[312]

 In 1989, it was finally determined that it was the strain of virus 

used in the vaccine that caused mumps meningitis. The virus isolated from patients 

who developed meningitis 21 days after injection was identical to that used in the 

vaccine. 

Aypical mumps contracted after receipt of the vaccine is another problem. In 

1980, reports surfaced of atypical mumps in previously vaccinated children, with 

symptoms including fever, appetite loss, nausea, and a generalized rash. The atypical 

mumps occurred when wild natural mumps virus circulated among unvaccinated 

children-a normal event associated with immune system development in humans. 

All the children contracting atypical mumps had been injected with viral vaccine 

five to seven years earlier.Concerning the mumps vaccine's effectiveness, the scenario with mumps is 

very similar to that with measles. There are several studies reporting outbreaks of 

mumps occurring in populations with virtually complete vaccine coverage. Cheek et 

al., for example, writing in the Archives of Pediatric and Adolescent Medicine, 

report a measles outbreak in a highly vaccinated (more than 95 percent) high school 

population. Fifty-three of 54 students who got the disease were vaccinated.

[313]

Another study reported an outbreak of mumps in a Tennessee school with 98 

percent vaccine coverage, where 67 of 68 students who got mumps had been 

previously vaccinated. Thus, mumps cases in this instance were attributed mostly to 

vaccine failure.

[314]

While 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.

[315]

Perhaps the boldest statement on the efficacy of the mumps vaccine in 

preventing the disease comes from the authors of a study conducted in Switzerland. 

They conducted an epidemiological analysis of mumps cases there and 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."

[316]

Rubella Vaccine

Unfortunately, rubella vaccination is similar to measles and mumps 

immunization in terms of lack of efficacy in preventing the targeted disease. A study 

published in the European Journal of Epidemiology shows that after the Swiss began 

a rubella mass vaccination campaign in 1985, the incidence of rubella remained 

unchanged during the period from 1987 to 1992. The authors concluded: "MMR mass vaccination has not interrupted the circulation of rubella virus in 

Switzerland."

[317]

Also, a study published in the Journal of the American Medical Association in 

1981 shows that 15 years after receiving rubella vaccination, one in 11 children lost 

protection from the vaccine and became susceptible to re-infection.

[318]

 This is 

particularly 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 vaccination is 

creating serious problems down the line.

Viera Scheibner has looked in depth into the research on rubella, and informs 

us: "As Cherry (1980) wrote, despite distribution of over 83 million doses of rubella 

vaccine since 1969, there were periodic upswings in incidence. There was also a 

shift in the age groups susceptible to rubella. 'Essentially, we have controlled the 

disease in persons 14 years of age or younger but have given it a free hand in those 

15 or older.' "

[319], [320]

Scheibner adds: "In August 1991, the Institute of Medicine released a report on 

adverse effects of pertussis and rubella vaccines. The evidence indicated a causal 

relationship between RA 27/3 rubella vaccine and acute arthritis in 13 percent to 15 

percent of adult women. Also some individuals were shown to go on to develop 

chronic arthritis."

[321]

FURTHER READINGS: Articles associate the MMR vaccine with adverse 

reactions affecting the nervous system,

[322], [323], [324], [325], [326]

the GI tract,

[327]

 and 

joints.

[328], [329], [330]In Part 3: The smallpox and rotavirus vaccines, provocation diseases associated 

with vaccines, economic, political and legal issues, and the right to refuse 

vaccination.Vaccination: Pain, Profit, and Politics - Part 3

By Gary Null, Ph.D., and Martin Feldman, M.D.

In Parts 1 and 2 of this series, we examined factors countering our beliefs that 

vaccines are safe and effective. We also discussed the effects of specific vaccines, 

including those for diphtheria, pertussis and tetanus, polio, chickenpox, hepatitis B, 

and measles, mumps and rubella. In this final installment, we look at the smallpox 

vaccine, the withdrawn rotavirus vaccine, and the provocation diseases associated 

with vaccines. Finally, we discuss the economic, political and legal issues of 

vaccination, the right to refuse vaccination, and the need to achieve freedom of choice.The Smallpox Vaccine

Smallpox was the impetus for the invention of the vaccine in the New World.  It "was 

introduced into the Americas in the 16

th

 Century and Australia in the 18

th

 Century.  It 

had been present in Africa, Asia and Europe since at least 400 BCE."

[331]

 It was said to 

have traveled along trade routes and to have erupted every ten years.  Variolation, the 

process of sharing a small bit of infected matter with an uninfected person started in 

Africa and was present in Europe in the 18

th

 century.  From the US National library of 

Medicine, "In contrast to Asians and Africans who inoculated by blowing dried 

smallpox scabs up the nose, Europeans and their American cousins tended to inoculate 

through a puncture in the skin."

[332]

  Some, however, died as a result of the procedure, 

and epidemics were also started this way.  It is also widely known that measles 

infections in families were 'gotten through with' by making sure that if one child got 

telltale signs of swollen glands and fever, the other children in the home or the 

neighborhood were invited to share a bedroom, in order to spread the infection and get 

it over all at once.  Even in the late      20

th

 century, well into the 1970's, chickenpox 

was shared in much the same way, allowing children in a family or a neighborhood to 

get through the infection, with the assumption that it could cause greater 

complications as an adult, and that infection would not likely occur twice.  

It was Jenner who first popularized the vaccine program with his smallpox vaccine. A 

close look at history reveals that the procedure never worked, however. Neil Miller, a 

medical research journalist, natural health advocate and author of Immunization 

Theory Vs. Reality: Expos on Vaccinations,

[333]

 summarizes the story, as follows: "In 

1796, Jenner came on the scene saying that when dairy maids caught cowpox they 

could no longer catch smallpox. His medical colleagues disputed his claims, as the 

research of the times indicated numerous cases of dairy maids and other individuals 

catching cowpox and coming down with smallpox. Yet Jenner persisted, and he 

published a treatise on this idea in 1798. He called his treatise Inquiry, and became 

famous for it."

Edward Jenner, a country doctor and a Fellow of the Royal Society formulated the 

idea of vaccines fashioned after the old country tale that those who got cowpox were 

protected from smallpox. In order to test this theory, on May 14, 1796, he removed 

some fluid from Sarah Nelmes' hand which had cow pox lesions, and injected it into 

the arm of James Phipps, who was a healthy eight year old boy. Later, Jenner injected 

the boy with smallpox.

[334]

 When James did not come down with smallpox, Jenner 

concluded "that the cow-pox protectsthe human constitution from the infection of smallpox"

[335]

   He subsequently self-published An Inquiry into the Causes and Effects 

of the Variola Vaccine in June 1798 detailing the James Phipps experiment along with 

other observations. 

Jenner's cowpox vaccine consisted of dry or liquid pus taken from the ulcers of cows 

or humans with cowpox or from the pustules of horses with horse-grease, an infection 

of the heel. Inoculation involved cutting a small hole into the skin and inserting the 

virus from the pus into the arms of the patients with a lancet.  Then Jenner's method of 

transferring a small amount of infected smallpox material from one person to another, 

as we learned earlier, is called variolation, and there were many variations of this 

procedure.

  Critics noted that variolous inoculation, however, could cause bad cases of smallpox, 

so intricate methods were developed to administer it:  Typically, a lancet was used to 

insert variolous material into a small cut of the skin. The variolous matter was taken 

from someone going through the earliest stage of a mild smallpox vesicle growth in 

which there was barely any fluid. This material was then inserted into one patient. 

Subsequently when mild symptoms occurred, new material was taken from that 

patient and then used on other patients. The process of collecting variolous matter was 

continued from arm to arm.

[336]

 A smallpox epidemic in France revealed that the 

inoculation failed badly to protect the patients of Dr. Gatti in France. As a result, Paris 

outlawed these inoculation practices. 

[337]

Jenner, however, espoused a milder technique of variolation: "I have the strongest 

reason for supposing that if either the punctures or incisions be made so deep as to go 

through it and wound the adipose membrane, that the risk of bringing on a violent 

disease is greatly increased. I have known an inoculator whose practice was to cut 

deep enough (to use his own expression) to see a bit of fat," and there to lodge the 

matter. The great number of bad cases, independent of inflammations and abscesses 

on the arms, and the fatality, which attended this practice, was almost inconceivable; 

and I cannot account for it on any other principle than that of the matter being placed 

in this situation instead of the skin. It was the doctor's practice to make as slight an 

incision as possible upon the skin, and there to lodge a thread saturated with the 

variolous matter... it has been proved that variolous matter, when much diluted with 

water and applied to the skin in the usual manner, will produce the disease." 

Creighton, a 19

th

 century historian put it this way, "The matter for inoculation was not 

taken from a natural or accidental eruption of smallpox; it was taken from the local 

pustule alone of an artificial inoculation, and it was taken from the very earliest period 

of the local pustule at which any fluid could be got at all, or "just before the 

commencement of the eruptive fever."

[338]Critics of variolation cite that over scrupulous variolators could actually fail to give 

any inoculation at all: By that means, as [Salmade], a French variolator of the time 

reports, " the smallpox becomes at length weakened to the point of nullity, so that the 

last inoculations are without effect."

[339]

  Thus, weakened variolation might not cause 

any illness, but it also might not engender any immunity, either.

[340]

Jenner's early efforts to coerce his colleagues to his way of thinking were 

"ineffectual; his brethren were acquainted with the rumor, but they looked upon it as 

one of those vague notions from which no accurate or valuable information could be 

gathered, especially as most of them had met with cases in which those who were 

supposed to have had cowpox had subsequently been affected with smallpox."

[341]

Creighton added, "Certainly for those who knew by inspection what the pox of the 

cows' teats was, and most of all for those who had suffered the painful and often 

obdurate ulcers on their own hands, there would be no suggestion of real likeness to 

smallpox, or of the one disease being in any way related to the other. It was the jingle 

of the names that brought the two together in the first instance."

[342]

 The "diseases 

themselves were totally unlike. It was just because Jenner had no profound sense of 

these empirical realities that he went blundering into visionary nonsense in the first 

instance, and at length into systematic mystification and chicane[ry]."

[343]

  "In the monograph by Nicholas Massa, of Venice, he says they [smallpox pustules] 

occurred over the whole body-on the limbs, on the face and head, and amongst the 

roots of the hair. In his particular description we find such terms as elevated, tumid, 

moist; red, livid, whitish; small, dry, itching ; broad, flat, soft. They came out 

comparatively early in the disease (second or third week even), and their outbreak was 

often the signal for the notorious pains in the head and limbs to abate."

[344]

  Cowpox, on the other hand, was the ulcerous pox of the cows' teats, which can infest 

the skin, namely the hands, of those who milk the cows. Those infected will also feel a 

flu-like illness often accompanied with swollen and painful glands in the armpits. 

Horse-grease, another illness which Jenner conflated into his smallpox theory affected 

the hocks of horses causing inflammation and swelling.  Contact with the diseased 

heels created an infection with burning white blisters which later become painful 

corroding ulcers.

[345]

  Clayton, a veterinarian in Jenner's county spoke of the separate nature of horse 

grease from cowpox:  He wrote that he was "extensively employed, particularly in 

curing the [horse-]grease" and also elaborated that "the grease is most prevalent in the 

winter, at which time he has never known the cowpox to occur... [also] he could not recollect ever to have had horses with the grease and cows with the cowpox under 

care at the same farm... [Furthermore] he is very certain he has frequently had cows 

with the cowpox, where no horses whatever have been kept."

[346]

 However, Jenner did 

not see it that way. In the opening of the first chapter of his Inquiry, he wrote that 

horse-grease "is an inflammation and swelling in the heel, from which issues matter 

possessing properties of a very peculiar kind, which seems capable of generating a 

disease in the human body,...which bears so strong a resemblance to the smallpox that 

I think it highly probable it may be the source of the disease.

Jenner's Inquiry paved the way for universal acceptance of vaccination as a gold 

standard of modern medicine's ability to protect us from disease. Jenner's previous 

"medical papers" however, were spurious. Previous to his papers on cow-pox, one was 

on the subject of preparing a tartar emetic, and an another was on the observation of 

calcified coronary arteries of the heart in a case of someone who suffered from angina 

pectoris. His "philosophical papers " are represented solely as observations on the 

cuckoo, in the Philosophical Transactions for 1788." 

[347]

 It was this paper on the 

cuckoo, which was essentially a piece of fantasy,  that propelled Jenner into the Royal 

Society which was chaired at that time by Sir Joseph Banks, a friend of Jenner's, a 

year later.

[348]

Jenner's Inquiry paper involved about 2 years of research and one single experiment 

involving cowpox and smallpox inoculations on the one patient, James Phipps. His 

status as a fellow of the Royal Society and his strength as a salesman were the reasons 

for his success in twisting myth into science. Dr. Baron, Jenner's own biographer, 

wrote that Jenner frequently mentioned cowpox innoculation immunity to smallpox in 

the meeting at the Society which involved Fewster of Thornbury, the chief authority 

on cow-pox. 

Dr. Charles Creighton M.A. M.D, professor of Microscopic Anatomy at Cambridge, 

wrote the section on 'Vaccination' in the ninth edition of the Encyclopedia Britannica, 

published in 1888. A year later, he also wrote JENNER AND VACCINATION - A 

Strange Chapter of Medical History, a detailed history of Edward Jenner's 

professional life.  Creighton stressed that one danger in using variolous inoculation as 

a measuring stick for smallpox infection was that the cowpox vaccine 

"caused a swelling and obstruction of the absorbent glands in the armpit and neck, and 

to that extent made them incapable for the time, and in some cases for long after, of 

taking up and passing into the lymphatic circulation another virus inoculated under the 

skin at the same place... Apart from the swollen and clogged state of the absorbent glands after cowpox [inoculation], the mere presence of a sore of any kind on the arm 

served to divert and obviate the full action of a new infection"

[349]

Many of the children used as test subjects were from poor households, orphanages and 

foundling hospitals. These children often have chronic swelling of the lymphatic 

glands. Even Jenner noticed the tendency to resist variolous inoculation.  He said in 

his Inquiry, "There are many who, from some peculiarity in the habit, resist the 

common effects of variolous matter inserted into the skin."

[350]

He did not mention who 

these people are, nor did he feel the need to stop using the variolous test as barometer 

for smallpox immunity since he discovered some people are immune to the variolous 

test. 

James Phipps, living proof of Jenner's smallpox immunity, very likely fell into this 

category. After writing the Inquiry, Jenner noted that James "has been very unwell 

lately, I am afraid that he got tubercles in the lungs. He was recently inoculated for the 

smallpox... for the twentieth time, all without effect."

[351]

 Being a test subject with 

numerous cowpox and variolous inoculations and having tubercles in the lungs are 

signs that James Phipps likely had swollen lymphatic glands too. Creighton elaborates 

in that "an eruption after cowpox has the same significance as an eruption after the 

pox proper; it is a secondary effect, or a sign that the constitution has been touched by 

the infection. A person still under the influence of the secondaries of cowpox would 

not be a likely subject for smallpox engrafted on the top of it... [Furthermore,] the 

mere presence on the skin of spots or pimples or vesicles or blebs would hinder the 

full evolution of smallpox by inoculation... The presence of any common eruption, 

even itch, was well known to prevent the cowpox itself from taking. Jenner began, 

about the year 1804, to explain the failure of cowpox by an ambitious doctrine of 

"herpes"... it had this grain of truth in it, that an infection inserted under the skin 

would not have a fair chance of being absorbed if the skin were already engaged with 

an eruption even of the most ordinary kind. In so far as that was a plea for the failure 

of cowpox, it was a plea for the failure of inoculated smallpox." 

[352]

Ironically, the variolous inoculation was later used as one of the many excuses for 

cowpox vaccine failure and subsequently played a part in creating the first English 

mandatory vaccination program in 1853. The idea is that variolous inoculations were, 

in addition to causing the smallpox revival, encouraged people to ignore the 'true 

protector', cowpox vaccine. In 1840, England, spurred on by the Medical Society, 

passed a law to protect the public from variolous inoculation under penalty of 

imprisonment. The strict penalty was made by Mr. Wakley, editor of The Lancet.  He 

blamed variolous inoculation for 17,000 smallpox deaths in one year, and he also added that smallpox would disappear if variolations were prevented and vaccination 

adopted.

[353]

There was, however a general revival of variolous inoculations over cowpox 

vaccination. Despite the fact that the public had 40 years of Jenner's vaccination, 

smallpox was still a continuous plague. Creighton wrote, 

"In the disastrous epidemic among children at Norwich in 1819, ...due to overcrowding of the town by a great influx of families from the country while trade was 

brisk, the failures of vaccination were so obvious to those directly concerned that the 

common people insisted on having their children inoculated in the old way to save 

them from the contagion."

[354]

In 1853, the Compulsory Vaccination Act was instituted, mandating vaccination for 

children. Built on the precedent of the law that made variolation illegal in Great 

Britain in 1840, the new idea, propagated by the Vaccination Committee, was that 

preventing smallpox required the cowpox vaccine.

[355]

Yet despite the vaccinations, from 1857 to 1859, the smallpox epidemic killed 14,244 

people. From 1863 to 1865, a second outbreak claimed 20,059 lives. A more stringent 

compulsory vaccination law was passed in 1867, and those who evaded inoculation 

were prosecuted. An intensive four-year effort to vaccinate all people between the 

ages of 2 and 50 resulted in 97.5 percent of the population being vaccinated. The 

following year, though, England experienced its worst-ever smallpox epidemic; 

44,840 lives were lost. Overall, from 1871 to 1880, during this period of compulsory 

vaccination, the death rate from smallpox leapt from 28 to 46 per 100,000.

The early years of the 19th century in Europe saw a noticeable reduction of the 

epidemic outbreaks of the all disease including smallpox. This fact gave ammunition 

to the vaccine establishment. In 1904, Dr. Charles Ruata, M.D. pointed out the 

specifics in the rise and fall of diseases in England in the period before and after the 

turn of the 19

th

 century. Using data from the Reports of the Royal Commission, who 

have a pro-vaccination view, and from the annual reports of the Registrar-General, he 

made twelve charts, "each showing the comparative rise or fall of small-pox mortality 

and other diseases in various places and under different conditions; and all these 

without exception demonstrate either that vaccination has no effect whatever, or that it 

tends to increase rather than decrease small-pox mortality."

[356]

 His smallpox diagram 

of London shows that the disease "decreased during the ten years before vaccination at 

very nearly the same rate as it did in the ten years after vaccination...General mortality 

also decreased after 1800 more rapidly than before 1800. Yet the Royal Commissioners declare that there was nothing but vaccination to produce the decrease 

of small-pox, and that there was no improvement in sanitation in the beginning of the 

nineteenth century, as compared with the latter part of the eighteenth century, to 

account for the difference."

[357]

Ruata cited five primary reasons for the decline of most diseases in London after the 

1700's. First, diseases, especially during epidemics, are much higher in cities. Many 

city dwellers moved to newly built "West-end squares and suburbs." Secondly, 

sanitation on the streets was improved, while the roads were better maintained. That 

lead to the third reason; better roads allowed more fresh meat, vegetables and milk to 

be brought into the city, which gave the inhabitants better nutrition. The fourth reason 

was an improved water supply. Finally, the dead were not rotting in the city anymore 

as cemeteries were built outside London while many city graveyards were 

permanently closed. He added that these results strikingly decreased, "the death-rate in 

a number of the most fatal diseases (as recorded in a Table by Dr. Farr, reprinted in 

the Third Report of the Royal Commission) to fully one-half in 1801-10 as compared 

with 1771-80; an amount of improvement which has never occurred in any similar 

period during the whole of the 270 years for which we have official statistics."

[358]

          One of the greatest smallpox epidemics in Europe happened between 1870 and 

1872. By this time, cowpox vaccination was established with many countries adopting 

mandatory vaccination in at least some form. In German Prussia the official death 

count was 124, 948. No records were kept for the vaccinated or unvaccinated although 

there was some evidence that the vaccinated were at least comparable to the 

unvaccinated.

[359]

 In England and Wales, the official registration report showed 42,210 

deaths from 1871 to 1872. This is a staggering figure considering the fact that England 

established a mandatory children's vaccination program in 1853 under the strict 

penalty of imprisonment for violators.

[360]

  

Leicester, a manufacturing town in England with 200,000 inhabitants, offers us a great 

insight into the nature of cowpox vaccination. Having suffered greatly in previous 

epidemics, Leicester was one of the most completely vaccinated towns in all of 

England up to 1872. According to Ruata, in 1871, the "small-pox deaths during that 

year...[were] more than 3,500 per million of the population, or about one thousand per 

million more than the mortality in London during the same epidemic. Here an almost 

completely vaccinated community suffered more than unvaccinated and terribly 

unsanitary London, on the average of the last forty years of the eighteenth century." 

After their horrible experiences, Leicesterians refused vaccination even under the 

threat of imprisonment. By 1890, their ratio of vaccinated versus unvaccinated was 

reversed to only 5 percent vaccinated. Doctors scolded them: "that once small-pox was introduced it would run through the town like wildfire and decimate the 

population. Yet it has been introduced again and again, but it has never spread; and 

from that day to this [1904], no town in the kingdom of approximately equal 

population has had such a very low small-pox mortality as this almost completely 

unvaccinated and--as the doctors say--unprotected population!"

[361]

Modern smallpox vaccinations include the following ingredients: " live vaccinia virus, 

with 'some microbial contaminants,' according to the Working Group on Civilian 

Biodefense, polymyxcin B sulfate, streptomycin sulfate, chlortetracycline 

hydrochloride, and neomycin sulfate, glycerin, and phenol -a compound obtained by 

distillation of coal tar, and vesicle fluid from calf skins."

[362]

The CDC website admits that the smallpox vaccine is not made from smallpox virus: 

"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."

[363]

 Juniors at Stanford University, Jennifer 

Aguayo and Jessica Caldern, write, "Vaccinia virus is a big mystery in virology. It is 

not known whether vaccinia virus is the product of genetic recombination, or if it is a 

species derived from cowpox virus or variola virus by prolonged serial passage, or if it 

is the living representative of a now extinct virus."  The university of Florida College 

of medicine information page writes something similar: "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)."

Historians cite improvements in America in the 20

th

 century to the smallpox vaccine 

which included the pedal injection system for mass injections, a special 'bifurcated 

needle' in 1961 that penetrated the skin twice in one injection, and the all out mass 

eradication effort, called E2  which was considered to have wiped out smallpox on a 

grand scale in Sierra Leone.

[364]

  The CDC notes that smallpox was reduced from an 

average of 29,005 deaths per year during the 20

th

 century to 0 cases on 2004.  In 1971 

the CDC states that "small pox vaccination was ended in the United States." 

[365]

Despite this fact, in 2001 as a result of terrorist threats, "the United States established 

a plan to reintroduce Smallpox vaccine if necessary."

[366]

Edward Jenner is indeed a man who changed the world. The current history displays a 

Renaissance man of great integrity, but with the bogus variolous tests and cries of 

spurious cowpox, Jenner managed to create a myth of smallpox immunity from his cowpox vaccines. That myth became a Teflon medical dogma. In spite of the 

overwhelming evidence of cowpox vaccination failures during the many smallpox 

epidemics, vaccination was still propped up as a gold standard of medicine by an 

industry that would not let it die. The result of the vaccine establishment's tenacity is 

the resurgence of the boast that vaccination eliminated smallpox today. A vaccine is 

created only for one purpose and one alone; that is to provide immunity to the 

vaccinated from the attack of the single disease that it was made to defend against. If 

cowpox vaccine works, there should not even be one death from smallpox in the 

vaccinated. Jenner stated in his Inquiry, unequivocally, "that the person who has been 

thus affected [by vaccination] is forever after secure from the infection of the 

smallpox." The number of smallpox deaths in the vaccinated in the past 200 years is 

also unequivocal; truthfulness aside. Proper hygiene, sanitation and better living 

conditions are the true conquerors of smallpox.

Rotavirus Vaccine  Rotavirus is a common virus that usually causes mild and selflimiting diarrhea in children. In 1998 Wyeth Laboratories, Inc., of American Home 

Products, released RotaShield, a new vaccine against the infection. Since four major 

types of rotavirus cause disease in humans, the vaccine was tetravalent, consisting of 

genes from four viral strains. 

The Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP), American Academy of 

Pediatrics (AAP) and American Academy of Family Physicians (AAFP) 

recommended universal use of RotaShield for healthy infants at 2, 4, and 6 months of 

age. (Although the AAFP had been in favor of voluntary vaccination or vaccination of 

high-risk infants only, the ACIP had wanted the universal recommendation.) A year 

later, though, the vaccine was removed 

from the market after 99 cases of bowel intussusception-a bowel obstruction in which 

one segment of the intestine telescopes inwardly into another-and two deaths were 

reported to the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System.

Bowel intussusception is a severe condition that often requires surgical intervention 

and can lead to death in the absence of prompt treatment. For example, of the first 15 

reported infants who developed bowel intussusception, eight had to have surgical 

reduction, including one infant who had 7 inches of intestine removed. (1) These 15 cases, it should be noted, constituted but a small fraction of the actual number of 

intussusception cases caused by RRV-TV, as the new vaccine was called. According 

to the Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report of July 16, 1999, "because reporting to 

VAERS of adverse events following vaccination is incomplete, the actual number of 

intussusception cases among RRV-TV recipients may be substantially greater than 

that reported."

[367], [368]

 And so it was. As soon as the Centers for Disease Control and 

Prevention (CDC) began warning doctors about the possibility of this complication, 

cases of bowel intussusception started being reported around the country. This is yet 

another important example of how vaccine complications, unless specifically looked 

for, go unnoticed by the medical community and thus by society at large.

After it was approved, an estimated 1 million U.S. infants were vaccinated with 

RotaShield. What is even worse about the history of the rotavirus vaccine is not only 

the fact that it caused the hospitalization and deaths of several children, but the fact 

that prelicensure trials had already demonstrated that it caused bowel intussusception 

at rates 30 times higher than those expected. This is what emerged from analysis of 

prelicensure trial data by the Association of American Physicians and Surgeons 

(AAPS).

[369]

Is the Approval Process Tainted? So here is the question: If the fact that the vaccine 

could cause a potentially lethal complication was already known, why did the FDA 

approve it? Why had nobody warned doctors to watch for this complication? Indeed, 

these and more questions prompted the AAPS to request a Congressional investigation 

of the vaccine approval process. 

As Dr. Jane Orient, executive director of the AAPS, writes 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."

[370]Lessons of History

As we've seen again and again, there has been a direct relationship between 

vaccinations and an increased incidence of the diseases they supposedly prevent. This 

contradiction has prompted several researchers to conclude that vaccines are neither 

safe nor effective.

          

In a 1926 British Medical Journal article, a Dr. Parry asks why vaccine statistics 

reveal a higher death rate among the vaccinated: "How is it that smallpox is five times 

as likely to be fatal in the vaccinated as in the unvaccinated? How is it that in some of 

our best vaccinated towns, for example, Bombay and Calcutta, smallpox is rife, while 

in some of our worst vaccinated towns, such as Leicester, it is almost unknown? How 

is it that something like 80 percent of the cases admitted into the smallpox hospitals 

have been vaccinated, while only 20 percent have not been vaccinated? How is it that 

in Germany, the best vaccinated country in the world, there are more deaths in 

proportion to the population than in England? For example, 28 deaths in England in 

1919 per 100,000, and 707 in Germany? What is the explanation?"

[371]

Tuberculosis. Trevor Gunn makes the point that "Improvements in living standards 

have almost as much an effect on reducing mortality as that predicted vaccination." 

Mr. Gunn responded to the allegations by the World Health Organization that double 

blind studies were unethical because they limit the control group from receiving the 

benefits of life saving immunity. First of all, he pointed out that double blind placebo 

controlled trials of tuberculosis vaccine were initiated after some children died after 

receiving inoculations from a contaminated batch of vaccines.  The results of the 

double blind study showed no increase in immunity from receiving the vaccination, 

and possible increase in actual tuberculosis cases for the cohort that did in fact receive 

the inocculations. Despite this fact, Gunn says the vaccine has continued to be used.  

Gunn also points out other flaws in the tuberculosis studies, which he feels ought to be 

taken into account in all studies on vaccination effectiveness:

1)That there were not standards for diagnosis, so that before and after comparisons of 

illness were not accurate.2)Studies did not take into account the importance of public health factors when 

examining illness related causes.

          

In addition, those who take issue with universal immunization programs point out that 

the programs don't discriminate between children who may benefit from a certain 

vaccine and those who might be hurt by it. Babies are given blanket immunization 

regardless of their previous or current state of health and regardless of their varying 

susceptibilities to side effects. Ideally, there should be a much more selective 

vaccination system, with parents given complete information so they can make up 

their own minds as to whether the risks associated with a particular procedure 

outweigh its potential benefits. Just as different races are known to suffer 

disproportionately from various allergies and food sensitivities, studies also indicate 

that they may experience different reactions to vaccines.

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.

[372], [373], 

[374], [375], [376], [377]

 The mechanisms that cause this to happen are unclear, although 

many scientists believe that latent viruses-those already existing within a person-may 

be stimulated by vaccinations, and that this may be enough to activate a particular 

illness. Vaccination, therefore, may not be the sole cause but rather the final trigger 

for an illness.

In his book Vaccination and Immunization: Dangers, Delusions & Alternatives,

[378]

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 vaccination 

may produce this sort of provocation.

[379]

 He goes on to warn 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. Some of the 

relationships between vaccines and the specific conditions they provoke are discussed 

below.

Allergies. According to Dr. Harris Coulter, co-author of A Shot in the Dark

[380]

 and 

author of Vaccinations, Social Violence, and Criminality, among other experts,

[381]

says that 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."

Sudden Infant Death Syndrome (SIDS). Sadly, many studies have shown 

vaccination to be a cause of sudden infant death syndrome. Reports Alan Phillips, 

founding director of Citizens for Healthcare Freedom, Durham, N.C.: "One study 

found the peak incidence of SIDS occurred at the ages of 2 and 4 months in the U.S., 

precisely when the first two routine immunizations are given, while another found a 

clear pattern of correlation extending three weeks after immunization. Another study 

found that 3,000 children die within four days of vaccination each year in the U.S. 

(amazingly, the authors reported no SIDS/vaccine relationship), while yet another 

researcher's studies led to the conclusion that half of SIDS cases-that would be 2,500 

to 5,000 infant deaths in the U.S. each year-are caused by vaccines."

[382], [383], [384], [385]

          

According to Viera Scheibner, a retired research scientist, "Baraff et al. (1983) 

investigated 145 SIDS victims who died in Los Angeles County between January 

1979 and August 1980: Fifty-three of these babies had received a DPT immunization, 

27 within 28 days of death. Six deaths occurred within 24 hours and 17 occurred 

within 1 week of DPT immunization. These sudden infant deaths were 'significantly 

more than expected were there no association between DPT immunization and SIDS.' 

"

[386], [387]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.

In Immunization: The Reality Behind the Myth, author Walene James describes the 

mechanics involved in vaccines inducing autoimmune disorders: "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."

[388]

          

Cynthia Cournoyer, author of What About Immunizations?, believes that a key 

principle involved in understanding the many negative effects of vaccines is the fact 

that the immune system can only tolerate 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 3 percent to 7 percent of the total 

immune capacity of an individual. In the case of routine childhood vaccination, it is 

likely that as much as 30 percent to 70 percent of total immune capacity becomes 

committed.

          

"These findings could indicate that a child's immunological reserves are substantially 

reduced due to standard vaccine programs. 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 antiinflammatory drugs do."

[389], [390], [391]

          

Cournoyer 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."

[392]

Activists Speak Out on Vaccine Dangers

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 shares her concerns about a number of issues, as 

do some of her colleagues engaged in the fight against government-mandated 

vaccines.

Problems with Temporary Immunity and Benefits of Childhood Disease. 

Vaccines provide only temporary immunity, whereas when you get the natural disease 

you have permanent immunity most of the time. Viera Scheibner 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 U.S.-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...' "

[393], [394], [395]

          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....

[396]

The EZ Measles Medical Fiasco. In the mid-1980s researchers from the CDC and 

Johns Hopkins University started vaccinating babies as young as 4 months old with 

the experimental high-titer Edmonston-Zagreb (EZ) measles vaccine. Targets were 

more than 1,500 black and Hispanic babies in Los Angeles and thousands of babies in 

several Third World countries. The experiment was halted in 1991, after results of 

several studies showed that female babies receiving the high-potency vaccine had a 95 

percent increased mortality rate compared to those injected with the standard measles 

vaccine.

[397], [398]

Economic, Political, and Legal Issues

Cynthia Cournoyer has noted that vaccines are the only products in the U.S. that are 

legally mandated to be used by every person born.

[399]

Barbara Loe Fisher 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....

"What concerns us most is that there is an electronic monitoring system being put in 

place by state public health departments with federal funding-they're trying to get it in 

every child born and monitor his or her vaccination status....

          "...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 vaccines they produce, sell, and 

promote for mass use."

[400]

          

One interesting financial aspect of vaccines involves the federal ACT Compensation 

Program. An excise tax of $23.50 was tacked onto the price of vaccines in 1988 to 

fund this compensation program. What this means is that consumers are footing the 

bill for any injuries or deaths that may result from medical procedures that they are 

required by law to undergo.

[401], [402], [403]

          

Alan Phillips 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 nonconsenting 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."

[404], [405]

          

Vaccine critic Randall Neustaedter concurs: "Profit has always been the goal of 

vaccine manufacturers. 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...."

[406]

Right to Refuse Vaccination

A question frequently asked of advocates on the front lines of the freedom-fromvaccines movement concerns legal rights of refusal. According to Fisher, whose book 

The Consumer's Guide to Childhood Vaccines provides information on this topic, "It is common for hospital and clinic or emergency room staff to ask you about your 

child's vaccination status. 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."

[407]

          

One special precaution, Fisher notes, involves pregnant women. "When pregnant 

women are admitted to a hospital to have a baby, many times while in active labor, the 

hospital will require that the mother or father sign a paper agreeing to have the baby 

treated by medical personnel while in the hospital. Signing this paper may also 

constitute your consent to having your newborn vaccinated with hepatitis B vaccine 

shortly after birth. Many parents have reported that their newborns are being 

vaccinated without their knowledge and, when they ask why, they are told they signed 

a consent form prior to admission agreeing to medical treatment the hospital 

determined was necessary. 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."

[408]

          

In the unfortunate case of an adverse vaccine reaction resulting in medical bills 

totaling more than $1,000 or injuries lasting longer than six months, parents qualify 

for benefits under the National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act of 1986 (PL 99-

660).

[409]

 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.

[410]

What the Future May HoldFisher 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."

[411]

  

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."

Holistic Health and Freedom of Choice

Fisher adds, "The alternative health care movement in this country is going to play a 

vital role in the vaccine safety movement.

[412]

 Those who are looking into chiropractic, 

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. Dean Black, author of Immunizations: Compulsion or Choice, agrees. He sees 

vaccinations as only a shortcut for those 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."

[413]Curtis Cost, author of Vaccines Are Dangerous: A Warning to the Black Community,

adds, "We know through...studies that the incidences of various diseases have been 

declining steadily prior to the advent of various vaccines. We see declines up to 90 

percent, and these declines result from improvements in sanitation and nutrition....

"My point is that 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 breastfeed 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 breastfeeds. 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."

[414]

Finally, the point is that individuals need the freedom to choose. They should not be 

forced in one direction or another. Barbara Loe Fisher stresses this: "Our organization 

does not tell a parent what to do.

[415]

 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 reminds us that we are kept in the dark about our freedom to choose. 

"Most states currently allow for medical and religious exemptions. You are not told 

this when you go to a pediatrician or when you enter a university. You are simply told 

that you have to vaccinate. But that is not usually true. Probably 15 to 20 states have a 

philosophical or personal exemption option that you don't even have to tie to your 

religion.

"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."

[416]

Dr. Black 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 saybased 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."

[417]

It stands to reason, then, that our approach might be better directed to bolstering the 

effects of natural immunity, by strengthening the body's own disease fighting 

capability, rather 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.

To this argument, Trevor Gunn states, "for example, Vitamin A supplementation has 

been shown to reduce the mortality rate due to measles, in under 2 year olds, by seven 

times.  (From the British Medical Journal, 1987, p 294) "Many studies show 

increased eye problems and deaths in children with vitamin A deficiency."  In addition 

he cites the WHO's doctor Clements with regards to prevention of Cholera:  "the first 

line of defense should be providing safe clean water and proper waste disposal."

The culmination of a review of a larger study that we mentioned earlier, which 

compared over 15,000 data sets for Union Army Soldiers over two distinct time 

periods (1830-1845) and (1918-1927), showed that length of life was improved in the 

20

th

 century, and in addition age of onset of chronic illness was also delayed.  The 

reviewer Robert Fogel noted that there  were two distinct explanations: The first, combining several outcomes, mentions reduction in debilitating chronic illness by 

eliminating causes of childhood illness, and the second, "increases in birth weight and 

adult frame size, which are likely the result of better nutrition, have been important in 

reducing mortality among infants and adults." (from the How the Aging Process 

Changed During the 20

th

 Century, "Changes in the Process of Aging during the 20

th

Century:  Findings and Procedures of the Early Indicators project)  

Resources

Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention

National Immunization Program

Division of Epidemiology and Surveillance

Mail Stop E61

1600 Clifton Road, NE

Atlanta, GA 30333Tel: 404-639-8096

Web site: www.cdc.gov/nip/ACIP/default.htm

    This is a pro-immunization site. To access the NIP's

"Locating Information on Vaccine Safety"guide, go to 

www.cdc.gov/nip/vacsafe/research/resourceguide.htm.

Association of American Physicians and Surgeons

1601 N. Tucson Blvd., Suite 9

Tucson, AZ 85716-3450

Tel: 800-635-1196

Web site: www.aapsonline.org

Citizens for Healthcare Freedom

P.O. Box 62282

Durham, NC 27715

Web site: www.unc.edu/~aphillip/www/chf/index.htm

    To read "Dispelling Vaccination Myths," by CHF director 

Alan Phillips, go to www.unc.edu/~aphillip/www/chf/myths/dvm1.htm

Concerned Parents for Vaccine Safety

8216 192nd St., Ct E

Spanaway, WA 98387Web site: home.sprynet.com/~gyrene

Gary Null's Web Site

Web site: www.garynull.com

Global Vaccine Awareness League

25422 Trabuco Road, Suite 105-230

Lake Forest, CA 92630-2797

Web site: www.gval.com

"Homeopathic Disease Prevention"

     This article by homeopathic practitioner Isaac Golden is available

at Homeopathy Online, a Journal of Homeopathic Medicine

Web site: www.lyghtforce.com/HomeopathyOnline/text/golden.htm

Immunization Action Coalition

1573 Selby Avenue

St. Paul, MN 55104

Tel: 651-647-9009

Web site: www.immunize.org

   This is a pro-immunization site. For information on "State mandates on vaccination and vaccine-preventable disease," go to www.immunize.org/laws

Institute for Vaccine Safety

Bloomberg School of Public Health

Johns Hopkins University 

Web site: www.vaccinesafety.edu

National Network for Immunization Information

66 Canal Center Plaza, Suite 600

Alexandria, VA 22314

Tel.: 877-341-6644

Fax: 703-299-0204

Web site: www.immunizationinfo.com

    This is a pro-immunization site.

National Vaccine Information Center 

421-E Church St.

Vienna, VA 22180

Tel.: 1-800-909-SHOT

Fax: 703-938-5768  

Web site: www.909shot.comParents Requesting Open Vaccine Education (PROVE)

P.O. Box 91566

Austin, TX 78709-1566

Web site: www.vaccineinfo.net

The Phyllis Schlafly Report

P.O. Box 618

Alton, IL 62002

Tel.: 618-462-5415

Web site: www.eagleforum.org/topics/vaccine/vaccine.html

    This site contains a number of articles on vaccine topics.

Thinktwice Global Vaccine Institute

P.O. Box 9638

Santa Fe, NM 87504

Web site: www.thinktwice.com

    Also includes the Thijnktwice/New Atlantean Press bookstore,

with a catalog of books on vaccination topics

Vaccination Information Service

     To order the video "Vaccination: The Hidden Truth."Web site: www.vaccination.inoz.com/default.html

Vaccination Liberation

P.O. Box 1444

Coeur d'Alene, Idaho 83816

Tel.: 208-255-2307

Web site: www.vaclib.org

Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS)

P.O. Box 1100

Rockville, MD 20849-1100

Tel: 800-822-7967

Fax: 877-721-0366

Web site: www.vaers.org

   A more usable version of the VAERS data is available on a database

developed by Steven Rubin. Go to www.nccn.net/~wwithin/vaers.htm

Vaccine Information and Awareness Web site

Tel.: 858-484-3197

Web site: www.access1.net/via

    To access a list of pro-information groups, go to www.access1.net/via/PROCHOICE/prochoic.htm

    To access state links, including information on state exemptions,

go to www.access1.net/via/STATES/toc-states.htm

Vaccine resources by state

Web site: http://proliberty.com/observer/vaclib/VACLIST.DOC

"Vaccines: The Risks, the Benefits, the Choices"

Doctor's Reference Manual (2001-02)

Presented by Sherri J. Tenpenny, D.O.

New Medical Awareness Seminars, LLC

14761 Pearl Road #263

Strongsville, OH 44136

Tel: 440-572-1136

Web site: www.osteomed.com

Vaccine Policy Institute

251 W. Ridgeway Drive

Dayton, OH 45459

Tel: 937-435-4750

Web site: www.vaccinepolicy.orgVaccineWebsite.com

Web site: www.whale.to/vaccines.html

"Alternative Approach to Disease" (video)

By Gary Null

"Building the Immune System Naturally" (video)

By Gary Null

The Consumer's Guide to Childhood Vaccines

By Barbara Loe Fisher

National Vaccine Information Center

Immunization Theory vs. Reality: Expos on Vaccinations

By Neil Z. Miller

The Atlantean Press, 1996

Immunization: The Reality Behind the Myth

By Walene James

Greenwood Publishing Group, 2nd Edition, 1995Reverse the Aging Process Naturally

By Gary Null and Martin Feldman, M.D.

Villard Books, a division of Random House, 1993

"Seven Steps to Perfect Health" (video)

By Gary Null

A Shot in the Dark

By Harris L. Coulter and Barbara Loe Fisher

Avery Publishing Group, 1991

"Supercharge Your Immune System" (video)

By Gary Null

"Total Health" series, Steps 1 - 7 (videos)

By Gary Null

Vaccination and Immunization: Dangers, Delusions & Alternatives

By Leon Chaitow

Beekman Publishing, 1996Vaccines Are Dangerous: A Warning to the Black Community

By Curtis Cost

A & B Distributors & Publishers Group, 1992

What Every Parent Should Know About Childhood Immunization

By Jamie Murphy

Earth Healing Products, 1993

Correspondence:

Gary Null, PhD

P.O. Box 918

Planetarium Station

New York, New York 10024 USA

646-505-4660/ Fax 212-472-5139

e-mail: precisemd@aol.comReferences

[1]

  

[1]

Clin Infect Dis. 2006 Mar 1;42 Suppl 3:S141-4 A response to strategy #2: streamlining the regulatory process.Glezen WP. 

[2]

Expert Rev Vaccines. 2003 Feb;2(1):15-9 Designing pediatric vaccine formularies and pricing pediatric combination vaccines using 

operations research models and algorithms. Jacobson SH, Sewell EC, 

[3]

 Clin Infect Dis. 2000 Jun;30 Suppl 3:S247-9 Moving new vaccines for tuberculosis through the regulatory process.Brennan MJ. 

  

[4]

MMWR Recomm Rep. 2006 Jul 28;55(RR-10):1-42 Prevention and Control of Influenza: recommendations of the 

Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP).Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices; Smith NM,

  

[5]

 Vaccine. 2006 Apr 24;24(17):3530-7. Epub 2006 Feb 20 Stockpile levels for pediatric vaccines: how much is enough?Jacobson SH, 

Sewell EC, 

[6]

Health Aff (Millwood). 2005 May-Jun;24(3):635-42 Factors affecting U.S. manufacturers' 

decisions to produce vaccines.Coleman MS, Sangrujee N,

[7]

 MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep. 2005 Apr 1;54(12):307-8 Influenza vaccine prebooking and distribution strategies for the 2005-06 

influenza season. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). 

  

[8]

 MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep. 2003 Jan 31;52(4):Q1-4. Recommended childhood and adolescent immunization schedule. United 

States, 2003. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). 

  [9]

 Public Health Rep. 2005 Sep-Oct;120(5):543-8 Enrollment of racial/ethnic minorities in NIAID-funded networks of HIV vaccine trials 

in the United States, 1988 to 2002.Djomand G, Katzman J, 

[10]

 Clin Infect Dis. 2005 Oct 15;41(8):1150-6. Epub 2005 Sep 2 Prospects for a group A streptococcal vaccine: rationale, feasibility, and 

obstacles--report of a National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases workshop.Bisno AL, Rubin FA, 

[11]

: Curr Opin Obstet Gynecol. 2006 Feb;18 Suppl 1:s15-21. Harnessing the power of prevention: human papillomavirus 

vaccines.Mayeaux EJ Jr. 

  

[12]

Obstet Gynecol Surv. 2006 Jun;61(6 Suppl 1):S26-31. Vaccines for the prevention of human papillomavirus and associated 

gynecologic diseases: a review.Ault KA. 

  

[13]

Obstet Gynecol Surv. 2006 Jun;61(6 Suppl 1):S26-31. Vaccines for the prevention of human papillomavirus and associated 

gynecologic diseases: a review.Ault KA. 

  

[14]

http://www.mayoclinic.com/health/vaccines/HQ01629

[15]

http://www.nber.org/digest/mar02/w8556.html

[16]

http://www.nber.org/digest/mar02/w8556.html

[17]

http://www.nber.org/digest/mar02/w8556.html

[18]

http://www.nber.org/digest/mar02/w8556.html

[19]

http://www.nber.org/digest/mar02/w8556.html

[20]

http://www.nber.org/digest/mar02/w8556.html

[21]

http://www.whale.to/m/gunn.html, p.7. 

[22]

http://www.cdc.gov/nip/publications/fs/gen/WhatIfStop.htm

[23]

 http: /www.nber.org/aginghealth/fall03/w9941.html 

[24]

Circulation. 2003; 108:2957.) 2003 American Heart Association, Inc. Review: Current Perspective  Explaining How "High-Grade" 

Systemic Inflammation Accelerates Vascular Risk in Rheumatoid Arthritis  

Naveed Sattar, MD; David W. McCarey 

[25]

 Lavrovsky, Y, Chattergee, B, role of Redox regulated transcription factors in inflammation, aging, and age related diseases, 

Experimental gerontology 35 (2000) 521-532 [26] New England Journal of medicine  

Volume 352:1685-1695April 21, 2005

 number 16

Inflammation, 

Atherosclerosis, and Coronary Artery Disease  Gran K. Hansson, M.D., Ph.D. 

http://www.jacn.org/cgi/content/abstract/21/6/495

[27]

 Coronary artery disease and rheumatoid arthritis. Epidemiology and health-related services Current Opinion in 

Rheumatology. 14(2):115-120, March 2002. 

Goodson, Nicola MRCP http://www.co-rheumatology.com/pt/re/corheum/abstract.00002281-200203000-

00007.htm;jsessionid=FF5JM334D9JzKT6wQw2zS2HyRXQrVyF4G28v4P0vtmLGdLv2ln7S!1230047961!-949856144!8091!-

1

[28]

 Abuja, Peter M, Albertini, Riccardo, Methods for Monitoring oxidative stress, lipid peroxidation and oxidation resistance of 

lipoproteins, Clinica Chimica Acta 306 (2001) 1-17 

[29]

Biotechnology Journal Volume 1, Issue 4 , Pages 420 - 439Review: Essential fatty acids: biochemistry, physiology and pathology

  

[30]

 Pharmacological Reviews Vol. 52, Issue 4, 673-751, December 2000 

The Effects of Plant Flavonoids on Mammalian Cells:Implications for Inflammation, Heart Disease, and Cancer Elliott Middleton, Jr. , 

Chithan Kandaswami 

[31]

Experimental Biology and Medicine 231:1287-1299 (2006) 2006 Society for Experimental Biology and Medicine  

MINIREVIEW Flavonoids Attenuate Cardiovascular Disease, Inhibit Phosphodiesterase, 

and Modulate Lipid Homeostasis in Adipose Tissue and Liver Michael R. Peluso

1

http://www.ebmonline.org/cgi/content/abstract/231/8/1287

  

[32]

  2002 The American Society for Nutritional Sciences J. Nutr. 132:1825-1829, 2002 Biochemical and Molecular Actions of Nutrients 

Flavonoids of Cocoa Inhibit Recombinant Human 5-Lipoxygenase

1

Tankred Schewe, Hartmut Khn

*

 and Helmut Sies

23

http://jn.nutrition.org/cgi/content/abstract/132/7/1825

  

[33]

 PNAS | January 24, 2006 | vol. 103 | no. 4 | 1024-1029 (-)-Epicatechin mediates beneficial effects of flavanol-rich cocoa on vascular 

function in humans  Hagen Schroeter

 *  , 

, Christian Heiss

, http://www.pnas.org/cgi/content/abstract/103/4/1024

[34]

 Clinical and Vaccine Immunology, March 2006, p. 319-328, Vol. 13, No. 3 

doi:10.1128/CVI.13.3.319-328.2006Copyright  2006, American Society for Microbiology. All Rights Reserved. The Flavonoid 

Quercetin Inhibits Proinflammatory Cytokine (Tumor Necrosis Factor Alpha) Gene Expression in Normal Peripheral Blood Mononuclear 

Cells via Modulation of the NF-  System Madhavan P. Nair,

*

 Supriya Mahajan, http://cvi.asm.org/cgi/content/abstract/13/3/319

[35]

  2005 The American Society for Nutritional Sciences J. Nutr. 135:172-178, February 2005 Biochemical and Molecular Actions of 

Nutrients The Flavonoid Phloretin Suppresses Stimulated Expression of Endothelial Adhesion Molecules and Reduces Activation of 

Human Platelets Verena Stangl

*,1

, Mario Lorenz http://jn.nutrition.org/cgi/content/abstract/135/2/172

*

,[36]

 American Journal of Clinical Nutrition, Vol. 78, No. 3, 570S-578S, September 2003 

 2003 American Society for Clinical Nutrition Fruits and vegetables in the prevention of cellular oxidative damage

1,2,3,4,5

Ronald L Prior 

http://www.ajcn.org/cgi/content/abstract/78/3/570S

[37]

 (Arteriosclerosis, Thrombosis, and Vascular Biology. 2001;21:1084.) 2001 American Heart Association, Inc. Effect of Acute and 

Chronic Tea Consumption on Platelet Aggregation in Patients With Coronary Artery Disease Stephen J. Duffy; Joseph A. Vita 

[38]

 Journal of the American College of Nutrition, Vol. 21, No. 6, 495-505 (2002) 

Published by the American College of Nutrition Omega-3 Fatty Acids in Inflammation and Autoimmune Diseases Artemis P. 

Simopoulos, MD, FACN 

The Center for Genetics, Nutrition and Health, Washington, D.C

[39]

 American Journal of Clinical Nutrition, Vol. 76, No. 3, 560-568, September 2002 

 2002 American Society for Clinical Nutrition Flavonoid intake and risk of chronic diseases

1,2

Paul Knekt, Jorma 

Kumpulainenhttp://www.ajcn.org/cgi/content/abstract/76/3/560

[40]

Relationship Between Physical Activity and Inflammation Among Apparently Healthy Middle-aged and Older US Adults 

Jerome L. Abramson, PhD; Viola Vaccarino, MD, PhD  

Arch Intern Med. 2002;162:1286-1292. http://archinte.ama-assn.org/cgi/content/abstract/162/11/1286

[41]

 American Journal of Clinical Nutrition, Vol. 70, No. 3, 532S-538S, September 1999 

 1999 American Society for Clinical Nutrition Associations between diet and cancer, ischemic heart disease, and all-cause mortality in 

non-Hispanic white California Seventh-day Adventists

1,2,3

  

Gary E Fraser http://intl.ajcn.org/cgi/content/abstract/70/3/532S

  

[42]

 Medical careJanuary 1999, 37:1 >  Evidence Suggesting That a Chronic Disease Self-Management Program Can 

Improve Health Status While Reducing Hospitalization: A Randomized Trial. http://www.lwwmedicalcare.com/pt/re/medcare/abstract.00005650-199901000-

00003.htm;jsessionid=FF8ZLxQTfJhFFMrFJBys0Tc7Rb6GmSGLSLQ2sLlrbJ5rJ3YR1lpk!-210589086!-

949856145!8091!-1

[43]

Wei Young, Robert L. Hotovec, and Arthur G. Romero, "Tea and Atherosclerosis", Nature, December 9, 1967, Vol. 216, Num. 0, pp. 

1015-1016 http://www.healthsentinel.com/briefs.php?id=035&title=Coffee&event=briefs_print_list_item

[44]

 http: /www.nber.org/aginghealth/fall03/w9941.html p.2. 

[45]

 http: /www.nber.org/aginghealth/fall03/w9941.html p.2. 

[46]

 http: /www.nber.org/aginghealth/fall03/w9941.html p.2. 

[47]

http://www.vaclib.org/intro/present/index.htm#8, Vaccination, a parent's Dilemma 

[48]

 United States mortality rate from measles, scarlet fever, typhoid, whooping cough, and diphtheria, 

http://www.healthsentinel.com/graphs.php?id=14&event=graphs_print_list_item[49]

http://www.healthsentinel.com/graphs.php?id=14&event=graphs_print_list_item

[50]

 http: /www.nber.org/aginghealth/fall03/w9941.html p.2. 

[51]

Vaccine Safety Vaccines: A Safe Choice Vaccine Safety Information for Parents 

http://www.cdc.gov/nip/vacsafe/vacsafe-parents.htm

[52]

http://www.iahf.com/20020702.htmlUK babies given toxic vaccines, admits Glaxo

Antony Barnett and Tracy McVeigh Sunday June 30, 2002 The 

Observerhttp://www.observer.co.uk/uk_news/story/0,6903,746568,00.html

[53]

http://www.fda.gov/opacom/factsheets/justthefacts/19vaccine.html Vaccines Provide Effective Protection and FDA Makes Sure They 

are Safe 

[54]

http://www.eagleforum.org/educate/1998/nov98/vaccinations.html

Compulsory Vaccinations Put American Children at Risk

[55]

http://www.k12.dc.us/dcps/policies/policies_intro.html#immunization Immunization Requirements

[56]

http://www.cispimmunize.org/IZSchedule_2006.pdf-  -immunization chart 

  

[57]

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=4585992&sourceCode=RSS

Salk Polio Vaccine Conquered Terrifying Disease Source: Global Polio Eradication Initiative U.S. Centers for Disease Control and 

Prevention; the University of Michigan; PBS Online

[58]

 Polio Vaccine: It Tamed a Scourge, Transformed Medicine Related Health News By Amanda GardnerHealthDay Reporter 

TUESDAY, April 12 (HealthDay News) Nancy Green, M.D., medical director, March of Dimes, White Plains, N.Y.; David Rose, archivist, March 

of Dimes, White Plains, N.Y. 

[59]

http://www.unicef.org/media/media_18979.html Information note 2004 - Now More than Ever: End Polio 

Forever

[60]

http://www.fda.gov/Cber/vaers/articles.htmVaccine Adverse Event Report System (VAERS):

Documents

FEDERAL REGISTER: Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting; Revised Form VAERS-2; 

Withdrawal of Proposed Revised Form - 4/21/2006 - (PDF), (Text)

         Federal Register Notice; Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System; Revised Form VAERS-2; Availability - 

11/20/2001 - (PDF), (Text)  

         Draft Form (for comment) - (PDF), Instructions - (PDF)  Guidance for Industry: How to Complete the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System Form 

(VAERS-1) - 9/8/1998 (PDF), (Text)

Dear Colleague Letter: Use of Haemophilus influenzae Vaccines in Combination with DTaP 

in Infants - 8/12/1998 

VAERS Bibliography: CDC/FDA Publications

Consumer Articles  

1.      How the FDA works to Ensure Vaccine Safety FDA Consumer December 1995  

2. Adults Need Tetanus Shots, Too FDA Consumer July-August 1996  

3. First Vaccine for Chickenpox FDA Consumer September 1995  

4. Vaccine Safety Crucial but Impossible to Guarantee. Infectious Diseases in Children, 1996;9(1):33-35.  

5.      Physicians play a pivotal role in vaccine safety. AAP News, Feb., 1996.  

Professional Articles  

1.      Ball LK, Ball R, Pratt RD. Assessment of thimerosal use in childhood vaccines. Pediatrics 2001;107:1147-

1154.  

2.      Ball R, Ball LK, Wise R, Braun MM, Beeler JA, Salive M. Stevens Johnson syndrome and toxic epidermal 

necrolysis after vaccination: Reports to the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System. Pediatric Infectious 

Disease Journal 2001;20:219-223.  

3.      Ball R, Braun MM, Mootrey GT. Safety data on meningococcal polysaccharide vaccine from the Vaccine 

Adverse Event Reporting System. Clinical Infectious Diseases 2001;32:1273-1280.  

4.      Beeler J, Varricchio F, Wise RP. Thrombocytopenia after immunization with measles vaccines: Review of the 

Vaccine Adverse Events Reporting System (1990 to 1994). The Pediatric Infectious Disease Journal. 

1996;15:1,88-90.  

5.      Braun MM, Ellenberg SS. Descriptive epidemiology of adverse events following immunization: reports to the 

Vaccine Adverse Events Reporting System (VAERS), 1991-1994. Journal of Pediatrics 1997; 131:529-35.  

6.      Braun MM, Mootrey GT, Salive ME, Chen RT, Ellenberg SS, and the VAERS Working Group. Infant 

immunization with acellular pertussis vaccines in the US: Assessment of the first two years' data from the 

Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS). Pediatrics electronic pages 2000;106:e51 and Pediatrics 

2000;106:821.  

7.      Braun MM, Patriarca PA, Ellenberg SS. Syncope after immunization. Archives of Pediatrics and Adolescent 

Medicine. 151:255-9; 1997.  8.      Braun MM, Terracciano G, Salive ME, Blumberg DA, Vermeer-de Bondt PE, Heijbel H, Evans G, Patriarca 

PA, Ellenberg SS. Report of a US Public Health Service Workshop on Hypotonic-Hyporesponsive Episode 

(HHE) Following Pertussis Immunization. Pediatrics electronic pages 1998;102:e52 and Pediatrics 

1998;102:1201-2.  

9.      Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System-United States. MMWR 

Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report, 1990; 39(RR-41):730-33.  

10.  Chen RT, Glasser JW, Rhodes PH, Wise RP, et. al. Vaccine Safety Datalink Project: A new tool for improving 

vaccine safety monitoring in the United States. Pediatrics. 99(6):765-73;1997.  

11.  Chen RT, Rastogi SC, Mullen JR et. al. The Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS). Vaccine. 

1994;12:542-50.  

12.  Chen RT, Phillips L, Hadler S. Bottom Line: Vaccination benefits far outweigh risks [letter]. The Nations 

Health, Dec. 1995;2.  

13.  Clements, CJ, Ball, LK, Ball, R. Ball, Pratt, RD. Thiomersal in vaccines (letter). Lancet, 2000; 355:1279-1280.  

14.  Commentary. CDC Officials help physicians answer DTP-safety questions. American Academy of Pediatrics 

News, 1995; 11(3):9-11.  

15.  DuVernoy TS, Braun MM. Hypotonic Hyporesponsive Episodes Reported to the Vaccine Adverse Event 

Reporting System (VAERS), 1996-1998. Pediatrics electronic pages 2000;106:e52 and Pediatrics 2000;106:821-

2.  

16.  Ellenberg SS, Chen RT, The complicated task of monitoring vaccine safety. Public Health Reports, 112:10-20, 

1997.  

17.  Howson, et al. Adverse Effects of Pertussis and Rubella Vaccines. Washington, DC: National Academy Press, 

1991.  

18.  Niu MT, Davis, DM, and Ellenberg SS. Recombinant hepatitis B vaccination of neonates and infants: 

Emerging safety data from the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System. Pediatric Infectious Disease Journal, 

1996;15:771-76.  

19.  Niu MT, Rhodes P, Salive ME, Lively T, Davis DM, et. al. Comparative safety of two recombinant hepatitis B 

vaccines in children: data from the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS) and Vaccine Safety 

Datalink (VSD). Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, 1998; Vol 51, 6:503-510.  

20.  Niu MT, Salive ME, Krueger CL, Ellenberg SS. Two year review of hepatitis A vaccine safety: Data from the 

Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS). Clinical Infectious Disease 1998;26:1475-6.  

21.  Niu MT, Salive ME, Ellenberg SS. Post-marketing surveillance for adverse events after vaccination: The 

national Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS), MEDWATCH CME credit article (FDA/CBER 

publication), November, 1998.  

22.  Niu MT, Salive ME, Ellenberg SS. Reporting adverse events after vaccination: The national Vaccine Adverse 

Event Reporting System (VAERS) Federal Practitioner 1998; 15; 13-21,37.  23.  Niu MT, Salive ME, Ellenberg SS. Neonatal deaths after hepatitis B vaccine, VAERS, 1991-1998. Arch Pediatr 

Adoles Med 1999; 153:1279-82.  

24.  Rosenthal S, Chen RT. The reporting sensitivities of two passive surveillance systems for Vaccine Adverse 

Events. American Journal of Public Health, 1995; 85(12):1706-09.  

25.  Singleton JA, Loyd, JL, Mootrey, GT, Salive, ME, Chen, RT. An overview of the Vaccine Adverse Event 

Reporting System (VAERS) as a surveillance system. Vaccine 1999;17(22):2908-17.  

26.  Stratton, et al. Adverse Events Associated with Childhood Vaccines, Evidence Bearing on Causality. 

Washington, DC: National Academy Press, 1993.  

27.  Varricchio, F. The vaccine adverse event reporting system. Clinical Toxicology, 36(7), 765-68 (1998).  

28.  Wise RP, Kiminyo KP, Salive ME. Hair loss following routine immunizations. Journal of the American 

Medical Association. 1997; 278:1176-8.  

29.  Wise RP, Salive ME, Braun MM, Mootrey GT, Seward JF, Rider LG, Krause PR, Postlicensure safety 

surveillance for varicella vaccine, Journal of the American Medical Association, September 13, 2000, 

284(10):1271-9.  

         Supplementary references  

Zanardi LR, Haber P, Mootrey GT, Niu, MT, Wharton M. Intussusception among recipients of 

rotavirus vaccine--reports to the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System, 2001; Pediatrics , in press.  

[61]

 June Russell's Health FactsVaccinations http://www.jrussellshealth.com/immune.html{"Fitness On Line" - Nov. 1999 Natural 

Health magazine}{"Vaccination: Prevention or Poison?" Delicious magazine, Sept. 1994, by Kathleen Finn} {"Vaccinations - Deception 

and Tragedy" - Michael Dye} Health Freedom News - May 1984. "How Do The Vaccines Work?" Richard Moskowitz, 

MD}{"Supporting Children's Health" - Philip Incao, MD, Alternative Medicine Digest, Aug./Sept. 1997} According to an article in The 

Lancet (1985), "Measles Virus Infection Without Rash in Childhood is Related to Disease in Adult Life," Leon Chaitow in his book, 

"Vaccinations and Vaccinations: Dangers Delusions and Alternatives," 

  

[62]

 Vaccination Debate: Do Vaccines Cause Cot Deaths? Harris L. Coulter, 

PhD, http://www.pnc.com.au/~cafmr/coulter/vacc-deb.html

  

[63]

 Virchows Arch. 2006 Jan;448(1):100-4. Epub 2005 Oct 18. Sudden infant death syndrome (SIDS) shortly after hexavalent vaccination: 

another pathology in suspected SIDS? Ottaviani G, Lavezzi AM, 

[64]

 National Academy of sciences Press Relaease Date: March 12, 2003  http://www.cdc.gov/nip/publications/#Diseaseshadalready 'SIDS 

Not Linked to Number and Variety of Childhood Vaccines', says IOM

[65]

http://www.fda.gov/fdac/features/2001/401_vacc.htmlU.S. Food and Drug AdministrationFDA Consumer magazineJuly-August 2001 

Understanding Vaccine Safety: Immunization Remains Our Best Defense Against Deadly Disease 'Alleged Associations' [66]

http://www.fda.gov/fdac/features/095_vacc.html Developing New Pertussis Vaccines

[67]

 Am J Prev Med. 2002 Apr;22(3):170-6. Pediatric deaths reported after vaccination: the utility of information obtained from 

parents.Silvers LE, Varricchio FE, 

[68]

 Pharmacoepidemiol Drug Saf. 2001 Jun-Jul;10(4):279-85. The epidemiology of fatalities reported to the vaccine adverse event 

reporting system 1990-1997.Silvers LE, Ellenberg SS, 

[69]

J Paediatr Child Health. 2003 Sep-Oct;39(7):487-91 Immunization myths and realities: responding to arguments against 

immunization.MacIntyre CR, Leask J. Children's Hospital at Westmead, Westmead and University of Sydney, Sydney, New South 

Wales, Australia. RainaM@chw.edu.au

  

[70]

 Vaccine. 2006 Aug 4; Sudden infant death syndrome: No increased risk after immunisation. Vennemann MM, Butterfass-Bahloul T, 

[71]

http://www.answers.com/topic/cigarette cigarette 

[72]

http://www.upenn.edu/pnc/ptverkuil.html "A Leadership Case Study of Tobacco and its Regulation" Paul Verkuil Benjamin N. 

Cardozo School of Law 

[73]

http://www.brownandcrouppen.com/news.html Lawsuit Charges HRT Caused Breast Cancer and Debilitating Stroke 

[74]

http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/medicalnews.php?newsid=50004Hormone Replacement Therapy Study 

Good News For Some POSTED: 5:43 p.m. PDT August 26, 2003

[75]

 http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/ap/fn/4178876.html  Sept. 11, 2006, 5:48PM

Lawyers Say Wyeth Drugs Promoted Cancer By ANDREW DeMILLO Associated Press Writer  2006 The

Associated Press

[76]

 Hormone replacement therapy (HRT) http://www.nlm.nih.gov/medlineplus/ency/article/007111.htm

[77]

Hormone replacement therapy (HRT) http://www.nlm.nih.gov/medlineplus/ency/article/007111.htm

  

[78]

http://www.brownandcrouppen.com/news.htmlNIH Sends 11,000 Letters to Estrogen-Alone Study ParticipantsThe National Institutes 

of Health (NIH) has advised participants in the Women's Health Initiative (WHI) to stop taking their estrogen-alone study pills due to 

stroke risk and other findings in otherwise healthy women.

[79]

http://www.ahrp.org/infomail/04/10/12.php Pre 2006 Archives of the Alliance for Human Research Protection How Did the Vioxx 

Debacle Happen? USA Today / Lancet Tue, 12 Oct 2004 

[80]

http://www.flexicose.com/flexicose/COX-2-Death.html

Cox-II Inhibitors - Why They "Work" and Also Why They Can Potentially be Fatal[81]

First of four parts http://www.dailypress.com/news/dp-anthday1dec02,0,7450119.story?coll=dp-widget-news

An Incomplete Picture Despite promises that hospitalizations after anthrax vaccinations would be 

reported, the Pentagon withheld data on more than 20,000 cases.  BY BOB EVANS December 4, 

2005

[82]

http://www.vaccinationnews.com/Adverse_Reactions/VAERS/credible_estimates.htmJames Froeschle, Connaught Laboratories, 

Swiftwater, Pennsylvania 

[83]

http://medicine.plosjournals.org/perlserv/?request=advancedsearch&row_start=1&limit=10&order=score&search_fulltext=1&issn=1549-1676&jrn_issn=1549-

1676&anywhere_type=any&anywhere=Frequency+of+Adverse+Events+after+Vaccination+with+Different+Vacci

nia+&x=15&y=16 Frequency of Adverse Events after Vaccination with Different Vaccinia Strains Mirjam 

Kretzschmar

1,2*

, Jacco Wallinga

1

[84]

http://www.vaccinationnews.com/Adverse_Reactions/VAERS/credible_estimates.htmJamesDavid Kessler 

statement in JAMA - June 2, 1993,vol.269, No.21, p.2785

[85]

 Murphy, Jamie. What Every Parent Should Know About Childhood Immunization, Earth Healing Products, 

Boston, 1993. http://www.amazon.com/Every-Parent-Should-Childhood-Immunization/dp/0963037307/sr=1-

14/qid=1158257640/ref=sr_1_14/102-3250943-7888120?ie=UTF8&s=books

[86]

http://darwin.nap.edu/books/0309057914/html/29.html Research to Identify Risks for Adverse Events 

Following Vaccination: Biological Mechanisms and Possible Means of Prevention Cynthia J. Howe, Richard B. 

Johnston, and E. Russell Alexander, Editor

National Academies Press

[87]

http://www.dailycamera.com/bdc/broomfield_home_life/article/0,1713,BDC_11938_4928345,00.html Shots all around As school gets 

under way, so should children's immunization By Terri Chance, Enterprise Staff Writer August 19, 2006

[88]

http://wmc.who.int/pdf/Vaccine_Adverse_Events_in_the_New_Mill.pdf#search=%22age%20vaccination%20adverse%20events%22

Vaccine adverse events in the new millennium: is there reason for ...concern?  BJ Ward p.208 

[89]

http://www.immregistries.org/news/advocacy.phtml

ADVOCACY

AIRA is proud to be a member of the 317 Coalition (http://www.317coalition.org). Formed in April 2006, the 

sole focus of the coalition is advocating for increased 317 funds. 

Update on FY 2007 Labor HHS Appropriations Bill CDC Immunization Funding (Section 317) [90]

http://www.hhs.gov/news/speech/2003/030320.html TOMMY G. THOMPSON, SECRETARY 

OF HEALTH AND HUMAN  SERVICES Before the House Appropriations Subcommittee on 

Labor, HHS, Education March 20, 2003 p.2,

[91]

 Braun MM, et al. Descriptive epidemiology of adverse events after immunization: reports to the 

Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS), 1991-1994. J Pediatr 1997 Oct; 131(4):529-

35.

[92]

http://www.vaccinationnews.com/Adverse_Reactions/VAERS/credible_estimates.htmConnaught 

testimony to the Institute of Medicine

[93]

 The anthrax vaccine: New questions, weak data  

Posted on Fri, Dec. 09, 2005 http://www.charlotte.com/mld/charlotte/news/nation/13368280.htm  

The anthrax vaccine: New questions, weak data Over 20,000 troops hospitalized from anthrax 

vaccine Sun, Dec 11 2005 10:02 pm

[94]

http://whale.to/vaccines/studies.html Vaccine long term studies

[95]

http://www.vaccinesafety.edu/mmrandibd.htm The following Research Letter appeared in The 

Lancet Vol 351 - May 2, 1998. pg 1327-8. No evidence for measles, mumps, and rubella vaccineassociated inflammatory bowel disease or autism in a 14-year prospective study

[96]

http://www.cfah.org/hbns/getDocument.cfm?documentID=1154  Release Date:October 18, 

2005, 7:01 PM US Eastern time Newest Study Finds No Link Between MMR Vaccine and 

AutismBy Laura Kennedy, Contributing Writer  

Health Behavior News Service

[97]

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=1623536

1&dopt=AbstractCochrane Database Syst Rev. 2005 Oct 19;(4):CD004407.Vaccines for 

measles, mumps and rubella in children.Demicheli V, Jefferson T, Rivetti A, Price D.

[98]

http://www.vaccines.bizland.com/lkj.htmFact #1: Approximately 1/3 of Doctors Refuse Vaccinations, yet . . 

[99]

 JAMA. 1981 Feb 20;245(7):711-3. Rubella vaccine and susceptible hospital employees. Poor physician participation. Orenstein WA, 

Heseltine PN, 

[100]

Mendelsohn, Dr. Robert, "The Drive to Immunize Adults," Herald of Holistic Health Newsletter, 

Sept.-Oct. 1985. Yih WK, Lieu TA, [101]

 Orenstein WA, Heseltine PN, LeGagnoux SJ, Portnoy B. Rubella vaccine and susceptible hospital employees. 

Poor physician participation. JAMA 1981 Feb 20; 245(7):711-3.

[102]

http://occmed.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/reprint/54/4/231.pdf#search=%22Attitudes%20of%20general%20practitioners%20towards%20th

eir%20vaccination%20against%20hepatitis%20B.%22:  Management of hepatitis B immunizations and blood exposure incidents in 

primary care  Occupational medicine 2004; 54:  231-237  DOI: 10.1093/occmed/kgh 037 

  

[103]

 Kinnersley P. Attitudes of general practitioners towards their vaccination against hepatitis B. BMJ 1990 Jan 27; 

300(6719):238.

[104]

http://occmed.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/reprint/54/4/231.pdf#search=%22Attitudes%20of%20gen

eral%20practitioners%20towards%20their%20vaccination%20against%20hepatitis%20B.%22:  

Management of hepatitis B immunizations and blood exposure incidents in primary care  

Occupational medicine 2004; 54:  231-237  DOI: 10.1093/occmed/kgh 037

  

[105]

 Gary Null Interview with Jamie Murphy, December 18, 1997.

[106]

 James, Walene. Immunization: The Reality Behind the Myth, Bergin & Gervey, Massachusetts, 1988. 

[107]

 Gary Null Interview with Walene James, April 6, 1995.

[108]

 Gary Null Interview with Jamie Murphy, December 18, 1997.

[109]

 Phillips, Alan. Vaccination: dispelling the myths. Nexus, October-November 1997.

[110]

 J Infect Dis. 1994 Jan;169(1):77-82.Sustained transmission of mumps in a highly vaccinated population: assessment of primary 

vaccine failure and waning vaccine-induced immunity.Briss PA, Fehrs LJ,  

[111]

 Ibid.

[112]

 Clin Immunol Immunopathol. 1996 May;79(2):163-70 Changes within T cell receptor V beta subsets in infants following measles 

vaccination. Auwaerter PG, Hussey GD, 

[113]

 Auwaerter PG, Hussey GD, Goddard EA, Hughes J, et al. Changes within T cell receptor V beta subsets in 

infants following measles vaccination. Clin Immunol Immunopathol 1996 May; 79(2):163-70.

110

 J Infect Dis. 1994 Jan;169(1):77-82. 

Sustained transmission of mumps in a highly vaccinated population: assessment of primary vaccine 

failure and waning vaccine-induced immunity.Briss PA, Fehrs LJ, Parker RA114

Clin Immunol Immunopathol. 1996 May;79(2):163-70 Changes within T cell receptor V beta subsets in infants 

following measles vaccination.Auwaerter PG, Hussey GD, 

113

Auwaerter PG, Hussey GD, Goddard EA, Hughes J, et al. Changes within T cell receptor V beta subsets in 

infants following measles vaccination. Clin Immunol Immunopathol 1996 May; 79(2):163-70.

  

[114]

 Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report 

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention

1600 Clifton Rd, MailStop K-95, Atlanta, GA 30333, U.S.A

  Department of Health

and Human ServicesThis page last reviewed 5/2/01 Recommendations and Reports 

 July 12, 1996 / 45(RR11);1-25 Prevention of Varicella: Recommendations of the Advisory Committee on 

Immunization Practices (ACIP) 

Summary 

[115]

 Am J Perinatol. 2003 Aug;20(6):321-32. A population-based study of the effects of birth weight on early developmental delay or

disability in children.Thompson JR, Carter RL,  

  

[116]

 Natl Vital Stat Rep. 2003 Jun 25;51(11):1-20.  Links  

Births: preliminary data for 2002.Hamilton BE, Martin JA, Sutton PD; U.S. Department of Health and Human Services Centers for 

Disease Control and Prevention. 

[117]

 Scholl, T., et al. Dietary and serum folate: their influence on the outcome of pregnancy. American Journal of Clinical Nutrition, 

volume 63, April 1996, pages 520-525.  

  

[118]

http://www.marchofdimes.com/professionals/681_1153.asp

114

 Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report 

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention

1600 Clifton Rd, MailStop K-95, Atlanta, GA 30333, U.S.A  Department of Health

and Human ServicesThis page last reviewed 5/2/01 Recommendations and Reports 

 July 12, 1996 / 45(RR11);1-25 Prevention of Varicella: Recommendations of the Advisory Committee on 

Immunization Practices (ACIP) 

Summary 

[120]

 Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report 

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention

1600 Clifton Rd, MailStop K-95, Atlanta, GA 30333, U.S.A

  Department of Health

and Human ServicesThis page last reviewed 5/2/01 Recommendations and Reports 

 July 12, 1996 / 45(RR11);1-25 Prevention of Varicella: Recommendations of the Advisory Committee on 

Immunization Practices (ACIP) 

Summary 

[121]

 Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report 

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention

1600 Clifton Rd, MailStop K-95, Atlanta, GA 30333, U.S.A

  Department of Health

and Human ServicesThis page last reviewed 5/2/01 Recommendations and Reports 

 July 12, 1996 / 45(RR11);1-25 Prevention of Varicella: Recommendations of the Advisory Committee on 

Immunization Practices (ACIP) 

Summary 

[122]

 Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report 

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention

1600 Clifton Rd, MailStop K-95, Atlanta, GA 30333, U.S.A

  Department of Healthand Human ServicesThis page last reviewed 5/2/01 Recommendations and Reports 

 July 12, 1996 / 45(RR11);1-25 Prevention of Varicella: Recommendations of the Advisory Committee on 

Immunization Practices (ACIP) 

Summary 

[123]

 Gary Null interview with Dr. Dean Black, April 7, 1995.

[124]

 Cournoyer, op. cit., p. 150-1.

[125]

 Miller, Neil Z. Vaccines: Are They Really Safe and Effective? A Parent's Guide to Childhood Shots, New 

Atlantean Press, Santa Fe, NM, 1992, p. 46.

[126]

 Lovett, Lisa, et al. Immunity, Why Not Keep It? Technical Publications, Victoria, Australia.

[127]

 Yves De Latte. Vaccinations: The Untold Truth, AUM Publications, San Antonio, TX, 1990, p. 65.

[128]

 Miller NZ, op. cit.

[129]

 Hearings Before the Committee on Interstate and Foreign Commerce, House of Representatives, 87

th

 Congress, 

Second Session on H.R. 10541, May 1962, p. 94.

[130]

 Coulter, Harris L and Fisher, Barbara Loe. A Shot in the Dark, Avery Publishing Group, Garden City Park, NY, 1991. 

[131]

 Coulter, Harris L. Vaccination, Social Violence, and Criminality, North Atlantic Books, Berkeley, CA, 1990. 

[132]

 Gary Null Interview with Dr. Harris Coulter, April 6, 1995.

[133]

Australian Nurses Journal, June 1981.

[134]

 Gary Null Interview with Alan Phillips, December 17, 1997.

[135]

 Gary Null Interview with Steven Lanka, 

[136]

 Phillips, op. cit.

[137]

 Gary Null Interview with Walene James, April 6, 1995.

[138]

 Merck & Co., Inc. Prescribing information for Recombivax HB Hepatitis B Vaccine (Recombinant). Issued 

August 2002.

[139]

 SmithKline Beecham Pharmaceuticals. Prescribing information for Engerix-B Hepatitis B Vaccine 

(Recombinant). Date of issuance November 2001.

[140]

 Merck & Co., op. cit.[141]

 Aventis Pasteur Inc. Prescribing information for Diphtheria and Tetanus Toxoids and Acellular Pertussis 

Vaccine Absorbed, Tripedia. Product information as of September 2000.

[142]

 SmithKline Beecham Pharmaceuticals. Prescribing information for Infanrix Diphtheria and Tetanus Toxoids 

and Acellular Pertussis Vaccine Absorbed. Date of issuance December 2001.

[143]

 Aventis Pasteur Inc. Prescribing information for Poliovirus Vaccine Inactivated, IPOL. Product information as 

of December 1999.

[144]

 Merck & Co., Inc. Prescribing information for M-M-R II (Measles, Mumps, and Rubella Virus Vaccine Live). 

Issued August 2001.

[145]

 Merck & Co., Inc. Prescribing information for Varivax [Varicella Virus Vaccine Live (Oka/Merck)]. Issued 

November 2000.

[146]

 Phillips, op. cit.

[147]

 Murphy, op. cit., p. 5.

[148]

 Thimerosal in Vaccines: A Joint Statement of the American Academy of Pediatrics and the Public Health Service. MMWR

07/09/1999; 48(26):563. 

[149]

 Thimerosal and vaccines: an Institute of Medicine (IOM) report. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 

National Immunization Program, Atlanta, GA. From http://www.cdc.gov/nip/vacsafe/concerns/thimerosal/iomthim10-1-01.htm Last modified October 24, 2001.

[150]

 Thimerosal in vaccines: frequently asked questions. Food and Drug Administration. From 

www.fda.gov/cber/vaccine/thimfaq.htm. Last updated October 5, 2001.

[151]

 Ibid.

[152]

 Sakamoto M, et al.Widespread neuronal degeneration in rats following oral administration of methylmercury during the postnatal

developing phase: a model of fetal-type minamata disease. Brain Res 1998 Feb 16; 784(1-2):351-4. 

[153]

 Echeverria D, et al. Neurobehavioral effects from exposure to dental amalgam Hg(o): new distinctions between recent exposure and 

Hg body burden. FASEB J 1998 Aug; 12(11):971-80. 

[154]

 Myers GJ, et al. A review of methylmercury and child development. Neurotoxicology 1998 Apr; 19(2):313-28. 

[155]

 Myers GJ, et al. Prenatal methylmercury exposure and children: neurologic, developmental, and behavioral research. Environ Health 

Perspect 1998 Jun; 106 Suppl 3:841-7. 

[156]

 Thimerosal in vaccines: frequently asked questions, op cit.

[157]

 Immunization update 2002: influenza vaccine. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Atlanta, GA. 

Satellite broadcast, August 15, 2002. From http://www.cdc.gov/flu/professionals/bulletin/2002-

03/bulletin4_091302.htm[158]

 FDA approves preservative-free influenza vaccine for pediatric use. Press release. Aventis Pasteur. September 

12, 2002.

[159]

http://www.cdc.gov/nip/vaccine/vacc-timeline.htm

[160]

http://www.cdc.gov/nip/vaccine/vacc-timeline.htm

[161]

http://www.pdhealth.mil/deployments/gulfwar/enviro_anthrax_vac.asp

[162]

 Phillips, op. cit.

[163]

 Measles vaccine failures: lack of sustained measles specific immunoglobulin G responses in revaccinated 

adolescents and young adults. Pediatr Infect Dis J 1994 Jan; 13(1):34-8. 

[164]

 Measles outbreak in 31 schools: risk factors for vaccine failure and evaluation of a selective revaccination 

strategy. Can Med Assoc J 1994 Apr 1; 150(7):1093-8. 

[165]

 Haemophilus b disease after vaccination with haemophilus b polysaccharide or conjugate vaccine. Am J Dis 

Child 1991 Dec; 145(12):1379-82.

[166]

 Sustained transmission of mumps in a highly vaccinated population: assessment of primary vaccine failure and 

waning vaccine-induced immunity. J Infect Dis 1994 Jan 1; 169(1):77-82.

[167]

 Secondary measles vaccine failure in healthcare workers exposed to infected patients. Infect Control Hosp 

Epidemiol 1993 Feb; 14(2):81-6.

[168]

 Failure to reach the goal of measles elimination. apparent paradox of measles infections in immunized persons. 

Arch Intern Med 1994 Aug 22; 154(16):1815-20. 

[169]

 Auwaerter, op. cit. 

[170]

 Outbreak of paralytic poliomyelitis in oman; evidence for widespread transmission among fully vaccinated 

children. Lancet 1991 Sep 21; 338:715-20.

47

http://www.vaclib.org/intro/present/index.htm#8, Vaccination, a parent's Dilemma 

48

 United States mortality rate from measles, scarlet fever, typhoid, whooping cough, and diphtheria, 

http://www.healthsentinel.com/graphs.php?id=14&event=graphs_print_list_item

49

http://www.healthsentinel.com/graphs.php?id=14&event=graphs_print_list_item

50

http://www.nber.org/aginghealth/fall03/w9941.html

[171]

 Sato H, et al. Experience with diphtheria toxoid-tetanus toxoid-acellular pertussis vaccine in Japan. Clin Infect Dis 1999 Jun; 28 

Suppl 2:S124-30. 

[172]

 Williams, AL. News and perspectives: new vaccines for childhood immunization. Drug Benefit Trends 1997; 9(3):10-11,15-22. [173]

 Rosenthal S, Chen R, Hadler S. The safety of acellular pertussis vaccine vs whole-cell pertussis vaccine. A postmarketing assessment. 

Arch Pediatr Adolesc Med 1996 May; 150(5):457-60. 

[174]

 Halperin SA, et al. Persistence of pertussis in an immunized population: results of the Nova Scotia Enhanced Pertussis Surveillance 

Program. J Pediatr 1989 Nov; 115(5 Pt 1):686-93. 

[175]

 de Melker, HE., et al. Pertussis in the Netherlands: an outbreak despite high levels of immunization with whole-cell vaccine. 

Emerging Infectious Diseases 1997; 3(2):175-8. Centers for Disease Control. 

[176]

 Hutchins SS, et al. Current epidemiology of pertussis in the United States. Tokai J Exp Clin Med 1988; 13 Suppl:103-9. 

[177]

 Ranganathan S, et al. Pertussis is increasing in unimmunized infants: is a change in policy needed? Arch Dis Child 1999 Mar; 

80(3):297-9. 

[178]

 Williams GD, et al. Infant pertussis deaths in New South Wales 1996-1997. Med J Aust 1998 Mar 16; 168(6):281-3. 

[179]

 Cournoyer, op. cit., p. 42.

[180]

 Whooping Cough, the DPT Vaccine and Reducing Vaccine Reactions. National Vaccine Information Center, 

Vienna, VA.

[181]

 Miller DL, et al. Pertussis immunisation and serious acute neurological illness in children. Br Med J 1981 May 

16; 282(6276):1595-9.

[182]

 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.

[183]

 Menkes JH, et al. Workshop on neurologic complications of pertussis and pertussis vaccination. 

Neuropediatrics 1990 Nov; 21(4):171-6.

[184]

 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 Oct; 138(10):908-11.

[185]

 Stetler HC, et al. History of convulsions and use of pertussis vaccine. J Pediatr 1985 Aug; 107(2):175-9.

[186]

 Hirtz DG, et al. Seizures following childhood immunizations. J Pediatr 1983 Jan; 102(1):14-8.

[187]

 Odent MR, et al. Pertussis vaccination and asthma: is there a link? JAMA 1994 Aug 24-31; 272(8):592-3.

[188]

 Farooqi IS, Hopkin JM. Early childhood infection and atopic disorder. Thorax 1998 Nov; 53(11):927-32).

[189]

 McLaughlin SA, et al. Incidence of sudden infant death syndrome in Olmsted County, Minnesota: 1945 

through 1992. Mayo Clin Proc 1995 Sep; 70(9):837-43.

[190]

 Torch, WS. Diphtheria-pertussis-tetanus (DPT) immunization: a potential cause of the sudden infant death syndrome (SIDS). 

Neurology 1982; 32(4):A169 (abstract). [191]

 Torch WC. Diphtheria-pertussis-tetanus (DPT) immunization may be an unrecognized cause of sudden infant death (SIDS) and nearmiss syndrome (NMS): 12 case reports. Neurology 1986 b. (suppl 1); 36:149 (abstract). 

[192]

 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). 

[193]

 Baraff LJ, et al. Possible temporal association between diphtheria-tetanus toxoid-pertussis vaccination and 

sudden infant death syndrome. Pediatr Infect Dis 1983 Jan-Feb; 2(1):7-11.

[194]

 Walker AM, et al. Diphtheria-tetanus-pertussis immunization and sudden infant death syndrome. Am J Public 

Health 1987 Aug; 77(8):945-51.

[195]

 Bakshi R, et al. Guillain-Barre syndrome after combined tetanus-diphtheria toxoid vaccination. J Neurol Sci 1997 Apr 15; 

147(2):201-2. 

[196]

 Bolukbasi O, et al. Acute disseminated encephalomyelitis associated with tetanus vaccination. Eur Neurol

1999; 41(4):231-2.

[197]

 Read SJ, et al. Acute transverse myelitis after tetanus toxoid vaccination. Lancet 1992 May 2; 339(8801):1111-2. 

[198]

 Topaloglu H, et al. Optic neuritis and myelitis after booster tetanus toxoid vaccination. Lancet 1992 Jan 18; 339(8786):178-9. 

[199]

 Schlenska GK. Unusual neurological complications following tetanus toxoid administration. J Neurol 1977 Jul 20; 215(4):299-302. 

[200]

 Baust W, et al. Peripheral neuropathy after administration of tetanus toxoid. J Neurol 1979; 222(2):131-3. 

[201]

 Fardon DF. Unusual reactions to tetanus toxoid. JAMA 1967 Jan 9;199(2):125-6. 

[202]

 Rose I. Adverse reactions to tetanus toxoid. Lancet 1973 Feb 17; 1(7799):380. 

[203]

 Sutter RW. Adverse reactions to tetanus toxoid. JAMA 1994 May 25; 271(20):1629. 

[204]

 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.

[205]

 Ibid.

[206]

 Ibid.

[207]

www.cdc.gov/nip/vaccine/vacc-timeline.htm

[208]

 Polio, An American Story:  The Crusade that Mobilized the Nation Against the 20

th

 Century's Most Feared 

Disease p.27 

http://www.cdc.gov/ncidod/dbmd/diseaseinfo/typhoidfever_g.htm[209]

 Polio, An American Story:  The Crusade that Mobilized the Nation Against the 20

th

 Century's Most Feared 

Disease p.29 

[210]

http://www.wrongdiagnosis.com/contag/intro.htm

[211]

 Polio, An American Story:  The Crusade that Mobilized the Nation Against the 20

th

 Century's Most Feared 

Disease 

[212]

http://www.wrongdiagnosis.com/contag/intro.htm

[213]

http://www.cdc.gov/ncidod/dbmd/diseaseinfo/cholera_g.htm#How%20does%20a%20person%20get%20cholera

[214]

 Polio, An American Story:  The Crusade that Mobilized the Nation Against the 20

th

 Century's Most Feared 

Disease 

[215]

 Kinnunen E, et al. Nationwide oral poliovirus vaccination campaign and the incidence of Guillain-Barre 

Syndrome. Am J Epidemiol 1998 Jan 1; 147(1):69-73 .

[216]

 Uhari M, et al. Cluster of childhood Guillain-Barre cases after an oral poliovaccine campaign. Lancet 1989 Aug 

19; 2(8660):440-1.

[217]

 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 Jan-Feb; 38(1):55-8.

[218]

 Friedrich F. Rare adverse events associated with oral poliovirus vaccine in Brazil. Braz J Med Biol Res 1997 

Jun; 30(6):695-703.

[219]

 Ibid.

[220]

 Fisher SG, et al. Cancer risk associated with simian virus 40 contaminated polio vaccine. Anticancer Res 1999 

May-Jun; 19(3B):2173-80.

[221]

 Martini F, et al. Simian-virus-40 footprints in human lymphoproliferative disorders of HIV- and HIV+ patients. 

Int J Cancer 1998 Dec 9; 78(6):669-74.

[222]

 Ibid.

[223]

 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.

[224]

 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 Res 1996 Oct 15; 56(20):4820-5.

[225]

 Huang H, et al. Identification in human brain tumors of DNA sequences specific for SV40 large T antigen. 

Brain Pathol 1999 Jan; 9(1):33-42.

[226]

 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 Apr 9; 326(15):988-93.[227]

 Testa JR, et al. A multi-institutional study confirms the presence and expression of simian virus 40 in human 

malignant mesotheliomas. Cancer Res 1998 Oct 15; 58(20):4505-9.

[228]

 Galateau-Salle F, et al. SV40-like DNA sequences in pleural mesothelioma, bronchopulmonary carcinoma, and 

non-malignant pulmonary diseases. J Pathol 1998 Mar; 184(3):252-7.

[229]

 Lednicky JA, et al. SV40 DNA in human osteosarcomas shows sequence variation among T-antigen genes. Int 

J Cancer 1997 Sep 4; 72(5):791-800.

[230]

 Carbone M, et al. SV40-like sequences in human bone tumors. Oncogene 1996 Aug 1; 13(3):527-35.

[231]

 Rizzo P, et al. Evidence for and implications of SV40-like sequences in human mesotheliomas and 

osteosarcomas. Dev Biol Stand 1998; 94:33-40.

[232]

 Reactions of pediatricians to the recommendation for universal varicella vaccination. Newman RD, et al. Arch Pediatr Adolesc Med

1998 Aug; 152(8):792-6. 

[233]

 Prevention of varicella. Update recommendations of the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP). MMWR 1999 May 

28; 48(RR-6):1-5. 

[234]

Pediatric News 33(3):12, 1999. 

[235]

 Connan L, et al. Intra-uterine fetal death following maternal varicella infection. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol 1996 Sep; 68(1-

2):205-7. 

[236]

 Buchholz U, et al. Varicella outbreaks after vaccine licensure: should they make you chicken? Pediatrics 1999 Sep; 104(3 Pt 1):561-

3. 

[237]

 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 Oct; 14(10):874-9. 

[238]

 Johnson CE, et al. A long-term prospective study of varicella vaccine in healthy children. Pediatrics 1997 Nov; 100(5):761-6. 

[239]

 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 Dec; 39(6):663-8. 

[240]

 Bernstein HH, et al. Clinical survey of natural varicella compared with breakthrough varicella after immunization with live attenuated 

Oka/Merck varicella vaccine. Pediatrics 1993 Dec; 92(6):833-7. 

[241]

 Clements, op. cit.

[242]

 Johnson, op. cit.

[243]

 Takayama, op. cit.

[244]

 Halloran ME, et al. Theoretical epidemiologic and morbidity effects of routine varicella immunization of preschool children in the 

United States. Am J Epidemiol 1994 Jul 15; 140(2):81-104. [245]

 Gershon AA, et al. Varicella vaccine: the American experience. J Infect Dis 1992 Aug; 166 Suppl 1:S63-8.

[246]

 Plotkin SA, et al. Zoster in normal children after varicella vaccine. J Infect Dis 1989 May; 159(5):1000-1. 

[247]

N Engl J Med, September 11, 1989, p. 1333.

[248]

 Fisher, Barbara Loe. The Consumer's Guide to Childhood Vaccines, National Vaccine Information Center, 

Vienna, VA, 1997.

[249]

 Freed GL, Bordley WC, Clark SJ, Konrad TR. Family physician acceptance of universal hepatitis B 

immunization of infants. J Fam Pract 1993 Feb; 36(2):153-7.

[250]

 Ibid.

[251]

 Kinnersley P. Attitudes of general practitioners towards their vaccination against hepatitis B. BMJ 1990 Jan 27; 

300(6719):238.

[252]

 Burden AD, et al. Poor uptake of hepatitis B immunization amongst hospital-based health care staff. Postgrad 

Med J 1991 Mar; 67(785):256-8.

[253]

 Freed GL, et al. Family physician acceptance of universal hepatitis B immunization of infants. J Fam Pract

1993 Feb; 36(2):153-7.

[254]

 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 Sep; 15(9):771-6.

[255]

 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. From 

www.aapsonline.org/aaps/

[256]

 Incao, Philip, M.D. Letter to Representative Dale Van Vyven, Ohio House of Representatives. March 1, 1999. 

Provided to www.garynull.com by The Natural Immunity Information Network.

[257]

 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.

[258]

 Hadler SC, et al. Long-term immunogenicity and efficacy of hepatitis B vaccine in homosexual men. N Engl J 

Med 1986 Jul 24; 315(4):209-14.

[259]

 Pasko MT, et al. Persistence of anti-HBs among health care personnel immunized with hepatitis B vaccine. Am 

J Public Health 1990 May; 80(5):590-3.

[260]

 Encephalitis after hepatitis B vaccination: recurrent disseminated encephalitis or MS? Neurology 1999 Jul 22; 

53(2):396-401.[261]

 Herroelen L, et al. Central-nervous-system demyelination after immunisation with recombinant hepatitis B 

vaccine. Lancet 1991 Nov 9; 338(8776):1174-5.

[262]

 Viral Hepatitis Prevention Board. Hepatitis B vaccine and central nervous system demyelinating diseases. 

Pediatr Infect Dis J 1999 Jan; 18(1):23-4. Review.

[263]

 Nadler JP. Multiple sclerosis and hepatitis B vaccination. Clin Infect Dis 1993 Nov; 17(5):928-9.

[264]

 Hall A, et al. Multiple sclerosis and hepatitis B vaccine? Vaccine 1999 Jun 4; 17(20-21):2473-5.

[265]

 Birley HD, et al. Hepatitis B immunisation and reactive arthritis. BMJ 1994 Dec 3; 309(6967):1514.

[266]

 Pope JE, et al. The development of rheumatoid arthritis after recombinant hepatitis B vaccination. J Rheumatol

1998 Sep; 25(9):1687-93.

[267]

 Bracci M, et al. Polyarthritis associated with hepatitis B vaccination. Br J Rheumatol 1997 Feb; 36(2):300-1.

[268]

 Hachulla E, et al. Reactive arthritis after hepatitis B vaccination. J Rheumatol 1990 Sep; 17(9):1250-1.

[269]

 Vautier G, et al. Acute sero-positive rheumatoid arthritis occurring after hepatitis vaccination. Br J Rheumatol

1994 Oct; 33(10):991.

[270]

 Grotto I, et al. Major adverse reactions to yeast-derived hepatitis B vaccines-a review. Vaccine 1998 Feb; 

16(4):329-34.

[271]

 Vaccinations: how safe and how effective, Nexus, August-September, 1993, p. 64. 

[272]

 Scheibner, Viera. Vaccination: 100 Years of Orthodox Research Shows that Vaccines Represent a Medical 

Assault on the Immune System, Maryborough, Victoria, Australia, Australian Print Group, 1993, p. 86-9.

[273]

 Fiumara NJ, Etking PH. Mumps outbreak in Westwood, Massachusetts - 1981. Epidemiologic notes and 

reports. MMWR 1982; 33(29):421-30.

[274]

 Ibid.

[275]

 Cherry JD. The 'new' epidemiology of measles and Rubella. Hosp Practice 1980 Jul; 15(7):49-57.

[276]

 Gustafson TL, et al., Measles outbreak in a fully immunized secondary-school population. NEJM 1987; 

316(13):771-4.

[277]

 Miller, Neil Z. Immunization Theory vs. Reality, The Atlantean Press, Santa Fe, NM, 1996, p. 82.

[278]

 Scheibner, op. cit., p. 111.

[279]

 Cherry, op. cit.[280]

 Fulginiti VA, et al. Altered reactivity to measles virus. Atypical measles in children previously immunized with 

inactivated measles virus vaccines. JAMA 1967; 202(12):1075-80. 

[281]

 Scott TF, Bonanno DE. Reactions to live-measles-virus vaccine in children previously inoculated with killed 

virus vaccine. N Engl J Med 1967; 277(5):248-51.

[282]

 Rauh JL, et al. Rubella surveillance and vaccination at adolescence. American Journal Dis Child 1972; 124:27-

8. 

[283]

 Howson CP, Fineberg HV. Adverse events following pertussis and rubella vaccines. summary of a report of the 

institute of medicine. JAMA 1992; 267(3):392-6. 

[284]

 Markowitz LE, Preblud SR, Orenstein WA, Rovira EZ, Adams NC, Hawkins CE, Hinman AR. Patterns of 

transmission in measles outbreaks in the United States, 1985-1986. N Engl J Med 1989; 32:75-81.

[285]

JAMA 1990 May 9; 263:2467-71.

[286]

MMWR 1989; 38:329-30. 

[287]

 National Health Federation Bulletin, November 1969.

[288]

 Gary Null Interview with Jamie Murphy, December 18, 1997.

[289]

 Murphy, Jamie. What Every Parent Should Know About Childhood Immunization, Boston, Earth Healing 

Products, 1993, p. 114.

[290]

 Gary Null Interview with Jamie Murphy, April 7, 1995.

[291]

 Scheibner, op. cit., p. 38.

[292]

 Gary Null Interview with Meryl Dorey, December 17, 1997. 

[293]

 Sawada H, Yano S, Oka Y, Togashi T. Transmission of Urabe mumps vaccine between siblings. Lancet 1993 

Aug 7; 342(8867):371.

[294]

 Scheibner, op. cit., p. 92.

[295]

Sawada, op. cit.

[296]

Dorey M. The Australian Vaccination Network Newsletter, November 1997.

[297]

British Medical Journal, July 4, 1987.

[298]

http://www.cdc.gov/nip/vaccine/vacc-timeline.htm[299]

 Poland GA, et al. Failure to reach the goal of measles elimination. Apparent paradox of measles infections in 

immunized persons. Arch Intern Med 1994 Aug 22; 154(16):1815-20.

[300]

 Miller E, et al. Antibodies to measles, mumps and rubella in UK children 4 years after vaccination with 

different MMR vaccines. Vaccine 1995 Jun; 13(9):799-802.

[301]

 Whittle H, et al. Poor serologic responses five to seven years after immunization with high and standard titer 

measles vaccines. Pediatr Infect Dis J 1999 Jan; 18(1):53-7.

[302]

 Maldonado YA, et al. Early loss of passive measles antibody in infants of mothers with vaccine-induced 

immunity. Pediatrics 1995 Sep; 96(3 Pt 1):447-50.

[303]

 Wong RD, et al. Clinical and laboratory features of measles in hospitalized adults. Am J Med 1993 Oct; 

95(4):377-83.

[304]

 Auwaerter PG, Hussey GD, Goddard EA, Hughes J, et al. Changes within T cell receptor V beta subsets in 

infants following measles vaccination. Clin Immunol Immunopathol 1996 May; 79(2):163-70.

[305]

 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 May; 67(2):171.

[306]

 RESPONSE TO W.H.O. EVIDENCE FOR VACCINE SAFETY AND EFFECTIVENESS 

Trevor Gunn, BSc, RSHom 

[307]

 U.S. government statistic http://www.hhs.gov/news/press/pre1995pres/910000a.txt

[308]

 E. Holt, et al from the Journal of Pediatrics, Vol. 85, No 2 pp188-194, February 1990   

[309]

 (The lancet April 4, 1981 765). 

[310]

 , P. Aby, et Al, Pediat Infec DisJ 8: 197-200, 1989

[311]

 Clemens et al, American Journal of Epidemiology, Vol 128, No. 6 1330-39

[312]

MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep 1996 Sep 6; 45(RR-12):1-35.

[313]

 Cheek JE, et al. Mumps outbreak in a highly vaccinated school population. Evidence for large-scale 

vaccination failure. Arch Pediatr Adolesc Med 1995 Jul;149(7):774-8.

[314]

 Briss PA, 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 Jan; 169(1):77-82.

[315]

 Hersh BS, et al. Mumps outbreak in a highly vaccinated population. J Pediatr 1991 Aug; 119(2):187-93.

[316]

 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.[317]

 Matter L, et al. The incidence of rubella virus infections in Switzerland after the introduction of the MMR mass 

vaccination programme. Eur J Epidemiol 1995 Jun; 11(3):305-10.

[318]

 Hillary IB, et al. Persistence of rubella antibodies 15 years after subcutaneous administration of Wistar 27/3 

strain live attenuated rubella virus vaccine. JAMA 1981 Feb 20; 245(7):711-3.

[319]

 Scheibner, op. cit., p. 111.

[320]

Cherry, op. cit., 49-57. 

[321]

 Howson CP, Fineberg HV. Adverse events following pertussis and rubella vaccines. summary of a report of the Institute of Medicine. 

JAMA 1992; 267(3):392-6. 

[322]

 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 Nov; 100(5):767-71.

[323]

 Miller D, et al. Measles vaccination and neurological events. Lancet 1997 Mar 8; 349(9053):730-1.

[324]

 Sackey AH, et al. Hemiplegia after measles, mumps, and rubella vaccination. BMJ 1993 May 1; 

306(6886):1169.

[325]

 Kazarian EL, et al. Optic neuritis complicating measles, mumps, and rubella vaccination. Am J Ophthalmol 

1978 Oct; 86(4):544-7.

[326]

 Kline LB, et al. Optic neuritis and myelitis following rubella vaccination. Arch Neurol 1982 Jul; 39(7):443-4.

[327]

 Akobeng AK et al. Inflammatory bowel disease, autism, and the measles, mumps, and rubella vaccine.  J 

Pediatr Gastroenterol Nutr 1999 Mar; 28(3):351-2.

[328]

 Chiba Y, et al. Abnormalities of cellular immune response in arthritis induced by rubella vaccination. J 

Immunol 1976 Nov; 117(5 Pt 1):1684-7.

[329]

 Tingle AJ, et al. Postpartum rubella immunization: association with development of prolonged arthritis, 

neurological sequelae, and chronic rubella viremia. J Infect Dis 1985 Sep; 152(3):606-12.

[330]

 Roberts RJ, et al. Reasons for non-uptake of measles, mumps, and rubella catch up immunisation in a measles 

epidemic and side effects of the vaccine. BMJ 1995 Jun 24; 310(6995):1629-32.

[331]

http://165.112.6.70/exhibition/smallpox/sp_threat.html

[332]

http://165.112.6.70/exhibition/smallpox/sp_variolation.html

[333]

 Miller, Neil Z. Immunization Theory vs. Reality, Santa Fe, NM, The Atlantean Press, 1996. 

[334]

 E. Jenner, Inquiry into the Causes and Effects of the Variolae Vaccine (London: Sampson Low, 1798) Case XVII [335]

 E. Jenner, Inquiry into the Causes and Effects of the Variolae Vaccine, p. 45. 

[336]

 summary of his practice in Bohn's Handbuch der Vaccination.   Leipzig, 1875, p. 82. 

[337]

 C. Creighton, JENNER AND VACCINATION - A Strange Chapter of Medical History, Chapter 6 p. 137-138 

[338]

 E. Jenner, Inquiry into the Causes and Effects of the Variolae Vaccine, Case III 

[339]

 Salmade, La Pratique de I'Inoculation. Paris, An. vii. (1798) p. 51. 

[340]

 C. Creighton, JENNER AND VACCINATION - A Strange Chapter of Medical History, Chapter 2 p. 41. 

[341]

 J. Baron, Life of Jenner, i. p. 48. 

[342]

 C. Creighton, JENNER AND VACCINATION - A Strange Chapter of Medical History, Chapter 2 p. 23. 

[343]

 C. Creighton, JENNER AND VACCINATION - A Strange Chapter of Medical History, Chapter 2 p. 26.  

[344]

 C. Creighton, JENNER AND VACCINATION - A Strange Chapter of Medical History, Chapter 2 p. 31. 

[345]

 C. Creighton, JENNER AND VACCINATION - A Strange Chapter of Medical History, Chapter 5 p. 123 

[346]

Contributions to Physical and Medical Knowledge, 1799 , p. 387. 

[347]

 C. Creighton, JENNER AND VACCINATION - A Strange Chapter of Medical History, Chapter 1 p. 8. 

[348]

 C. Creighton, JENNER AND VACCINATION - A Strange Chapter of Medical History, Chapter 1 p. 11. 

[349]

 C. Creighton, JENNER AND VACCINATION - A Strange Chapter of Medical History, Chapter 6 p. 150 

[350]

 E. Jenner, Inquiry into the Causes and Effects of the Variolae Vaccine, general observations section of conclusion 

[351]

 J. Baron, Life of Jenner, ii. P304. 

[352]

 C. Creighton, JENNER AND VACCINATION - A Strange Chapter of Medical History, Chapter 6 p. 153- 154 

[353]

 House of Commons, 17th June, 1840.  

[354]

 C. Creighton, JENNER AND VACCINATION - A Strange Chapter of Medical History, Chapter 14 p. 339-340.  

[355]

Parliamentary Papers, vol. ci., 1852-53. 

[356]

 C. Ruata, A Summary of the Proofs That Vaccination Does Not Prevent Small-pox but Really Increases It (National Anti-Vaccination 

League S616: 1904) p. 8. 

[357]

 C. Ruata, A Summary of the Proofs That Vaccination Does Not Prevent Small-pox but Really Increases It (1904) p. 10. 

[358]

 C. Ruata, A Summary of the Proofs That Vaccination Does Not Prevent Small-pox but Really Increases It (1904) p. 10~11. 

[359]

 C. Creighton, JENNER AND VACCINATION - A Strange Chapter of Medical History, Chapter 14 p. 350 [360]

Encyclopedia Britannica, Ninth Edition, 1888. subject: Vaccination, section: Influence of vaccination upon smallpox.Chart. 

[361]

 C. Ruata, A Summary of the Proofs That Vaccination Does Not Prevent Small-pox but Really Increases It (1904) p. 16~17. 

[362]

http://www.informedchoice.info/cocktail.html

[363]

http://www.bt.cdc.gov/agent/smallpox/vaccination/live-virus.asp

[364]

http://165.112.6.70/exhibition/smallpox/sp_eradicate.html

[365]

http://www.cdc.gov/nip/vaccine/vacc-timeline.htm

[366]

 Ibid.  

[367]

 Intussusception Among Recipients of Rotavirus Vaccine-United States, 1998-1999. MMWR 1999 July 16; 48(27);577-81. 

[368]

 Rosenthal S, et al. The reporting sensitivities of two passive surveillance systems for vaccine adverse events. Am J Public Health

1995; 85:1706-9. 

[369]

http://www.rotavirusvaccine.org/documents/RotaShield_Fact_Sheet_CDC.pdf.

[370]

 Michael Devitt, CDC Calls for Suspension of Childhood Rotavirus Vaccine "No One Should Now Be Giving 

Rotavirus Vaccine to Anyone." Dynamic Chiropractic October 4, 1999, Volume 17, Issue 21 

http://www.chiroweb.com/archives/17/21/04.html

[371]

 Parry, British Medical Journal, December 1, 1928, p.116.

[372]

 Landrigan PJ, Witte JJ. Neurologic disorders following live measles-virus vaccination. JAMA 1973; 

223(13):1459-62. 

[373]

 Pollock TM, et al. Symptoms after Primary Immunisation with DPT and with DT Vaccine. Lancet 1984 July; 

21:146-9. 

[374]

 Hirtz DG, et al. Seizures Following Childhood Immunizations. Journal of Pediatrics 1983; 102(12):14-8. 

[375]

 Goldwater PN, et al. Sudden infant death syndrome: a possible clue to causation. Medical Journal Aust 1990; 

153:59-60. 

[376]

 Goldwater PN, et al. Sudden infant death syndrome: a possible clue to causation. Medical Journal Aust 1990; 

153:21-5.

[377]

 Denborough MA, et al. Malignant Hyperpyrexia and Sudden Infant Death. Lancet 1982 Nov 13: 1068-72.

[378]

 Chaitow, Leon. Vaccination and Immunization: Dangers, Delusions & Alternatives, Beekman Publishing, 

1996.

[379]

 Gary Null Report, November 15, 1994.[380]

 Coulter, Harris L and Fisher, Barbara Loe. A Shot in the Dark, Garden City Park, NY, Avery, 1991. 

[381]

 Merritt HH. Textbook of Neurology, Sixth Edition, Philadelphia, Lea and Febiger, 1979, p. 160.

[382]

 Phillips, Alan. Vaccination: dispelling the myths. Nexus, October-November 1997.

[383]

 National Technical Information Service, Springfield, VA. 

[384]

 Scheibner, Viera. Vaccination: 100 Years of Orthodox Research Shows that Vaccines Represent a Medical 

Assault on the Immune System, Maryborough, Victoria, Australia, Australian Print Group, 1993.

[385]

 Torch WC. Diphtheria-pertussis-tetanus (DPT) immunization: a potential cause of the sudden infant death 

syndrome (SIDS). Neurology 1982; 32(4). 

[386]

 Scheibner, op. cit., p. 62.

[387]

 Bafaff L, et al. Possible temporal association between diphtheria-tetanus toxoid-pertussis vaccination and 

sudden infant death syndrome. Pediatric Infectious Dis, 2, 1983, p. 7.

[388]

 James, Walene. Immunization: The Reality Behind the Myth, Massachusetts, Bergin & Gervey, 1988.

[389]

 Cournoyer, Cynthis. What About Immunizations?, 6

th

 Edition, Nelson's Books, 1995, p. 34.

[390]

Immunization, Special Edition, Santa Fe, NM, Mothering Publications, 1984.

[391]

 Moskowitz R. The Case Against Immunizations, Washington, DC, National Center for Homeopathy.

[392]

 Cournoyer, op. cit., p. 35.

[393]

 Scheibner, op. cit., p. 88-9.

[394]

 Black FL, et al. Inadequate Immunity to Measles Immunity in Era of Vaccine-Protected Mothers. Bull WHO

1984; 62(92):315-9.

[395]

 Lennon JL, Black FL. Maternally derived measles immunity in era of vaccine-protected mothers. Journal of 

Pediatrics 1986; 108(1):671-6.

[396]

 Scheibner, op. cit., p. 199.

[397]

 Aaby P, et al. Long-term survival after Edmonston-Zagreb measles vaccination in Guinea-Bissau: increased 

female mortality rate. J Pediatr 1993 Jun; 122(6):904-8.

[398]

 Garenne M, et al. Child mortality after high-titre measles vaccines: prospective study in Senegal. Lancet 1991 

Oct 12; 338(8772):903-7.

[399]

 Cournoyer, op. cit., p. 160.[400]

 "Interview with Barbara Loe Fisher." National Vaccine Information Center Newsletter Website.

[401]

 Cournoyer, op. cit., p. 156.

[402]

 The National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act of 1986 Public Law 99-690, The Compensation System and How 

it Works. The National Vaccination Information Center, Vienna, VA, 1990.

[403]

 Vaccine injury compensation program statistics. NVIC News, August 1994, p. 10.

[404]

 Phillips, op. cit.

[405]

 National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program, Health Resources and Services Administration, Rockville, 

MD.

[406]

 Neustaedter R. Do vaccines disable the immune system? Internet Document.

[407]

 Fisher, Barbara Loe. The Consumer's Guide to Childhood Vaccines, Vienna, VA, National Vaccine 

Information Center, 1997.

[408]

 Ibid, p. 48.

[409]

 Ibid, p. 64.

[410]

 National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program: monthly statistics report, September 30, 2002. U.S. 

Department of Health and Human Services, Health Resources and Services Administration. From 

www.hrsa.gov/osp/vicp/monthly.htm.

[411]

 Gary Null Interview with Barbara Loe Fisher, April 11, 1995.

[412]

 Ibid.

[413]

 Gary Null Interview with Dr. Dean Black, April 7, 1995. 

[414]

 Gary Null Interview with Curtis Cost, December 17, 1997.

[415]

 Gary Null Interview with Barbara Loe Fisher, April 11, 1995.

[416]

 Gary Null Interview with Alan Phillips, December 17, 1997.

[417]

 Gary Null Interview with Dr. Dean Black, April 7, 1995. 

Vaccination: Pain, Profit, and Politics - Part 1By Gary Null, Ph.D., and Martin Feldman, M.D. Today we have a major controversy brewing in the U.S. healthcare field.  The question is being asked if the vaccinations that we are giving our children are safe and effective.  What is the proof that vaccinations are safe?  We have undertaken an enormous job of reviewing the world literature to examine whether vaccinations are safe, and whether they are effective. We have taken an in depth look at the politics, the economic incentives, and the conflicts of interest involved in the politics of vaccinations. We have reviewed the scientific literature and we have examined the results on the people who have received vaccinations and the health effects of these (often mandated) medical procedures. We have examined here the myths versus the facts in the science of vaccines, and whether the procedures themselves represent good science or whether the manufacturers and physicians who provide them support conjecture or good scientific practice.  We have examined the lobbying on behalf of the vaccine makers, and we have examined the safety and efficacy of the dozens of vaccinations that children are receiving in the first months of life.  Our society rarely looks at the safety and efficacy of medical manufactures which have enormous power to  influence the decisions of the CDC, the FDA, and the Institutes of Allergy and Infectious Disease[1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10], but the media rarely hears of the trajedies and the side effects.  We do, however, hear that vaccines promise to prevent some new condition, (such as genital warts.[11] [12] [13]) However, we have innundated the developing baby's body with dozens of vaccines[14], but no industry advisor or anyone in the FDA has ever suggested that this is too much. We are overwhelming the child's system with adverse effects, and all this has happened in the last 40 years. Let us now examine the truth:Life Expectancy in the 20th Century When we take a look at the article by David R. Francis, entitled, "Why do Death Rates Decline"[15], to get a general idea about how vaccinations might play a role in general health throughout the 20th century, we see that mortality rates decline steadily but rapidly throughout the 20th century.  Using this logic, vaccine advocates might wonder why increased rates of vaccination in the past two decades wouldn't have made mortality rates decrease faster than in the first half of the century. However, we learn that:  "During the twentieth century, mortality rates declined quite rapidly in the United States and in all developed countries. Except for a 10-year period between 1955 and 1965 when the mortality rate was essentially flat, mortality rates have declined at the relatively constant rate of approximately 1 to 2 percent per year since 1900.[16]"   If vaccines were the cause of the decline of disease, then shouldn't the rates of mortality have declined more rapidly in the latter half of the 20th century, with the use of more and more required vaccinations? The second point that Francis makes is that in the second half of the 20th century, the most mortality decline occurred in people who were in mid- life.  Vaccine advocates might argue that mortality rates ought to have declined more quickly in very young and school aged children:  "In the latter four decades of the century, about two-thirds of life expectancy improvements resulted from mortality reductions for those over age 45.[17]"Thus, the most improvements in terms of mortality in the second half of the 20th century occurred in people beyond the age of childhood vaccinations. The third point that the author makes is self explanatory:  improved nutrition and public health measures in children were more important than medical intervention in 1900.  This was the height of the measles outbreak.  In addition, "Infectious diseases were the leading cause of death in 1900, accounting for 32 percent of deaths. Pneumonia and influenza were the biggest killers. Therefore, improved nutrition and public health measures, particularly important for the young, were vastly more important in this period than medical interventions.[18]"The fourth point Mr. Francis makes is that in the mid 20th century, penicillin, sulfa drugs, and antibiotics contributed to a mortality decline in children:  "Between 1940 and 1960, infectious diseases as a cause of death continued to decline. But more of this decline was attributable to medical factors, such as the use of penicillin, sulfa drugs (discovered in 1935), and other antibiotics. These help the elderly as well as the young, thereby reducing mortality across the age spectrum. By 1960, 70 percent of infants could be expected to survive to age 65.[19]"Vaccinations were not mentioned in this paragraph. The fifth important point of Mr. Francis is that smoking habits of Americans is an important factor in reducing mortality rates throughout the 20th century. The important issue to note here is that smokers generally begin their habit well after vaccination schedules have been completed, and that smoking causes a huge health risk despite vaccinations received:"Smoking cessation and better diets also are factors in [mortality decrease]: per capita consumption of cigarettes rose from essentially zero in 1900 to more than 4,000 per year per capita in 1960, or over two packs per smoker per day. Since then, per capita consumption has fallen by more than 50 percent. These trends affect death from heart disease and from smoking-sensitive cancers with a 10 to 20-year lag.[20]"Trevor Gunn, a biochemist in England,  claims that immunity from vaccination is shorter lived than natural immunity provided by the illness itself.  First, a child may contract an illness in adulthood for which it was vaccinated in childhood, and second, a mother may not be able to impart immunity provided by vaccination as easily as the immunity she developed over the course of her natural life. [21]According to a leaflet by the CDC, figures of average morbidity by various illnesses were reduced as a result of vaccination according to the flyer entitled,"What would happen if we stopped vaccinations?[22]"  The leaflet, however, does not include information on the other public health measures that coalesced to provide increased public health in the 20th century as well.A detailed review of morbidity and illness factors in Union Soldiers in the Civil war illustrates that the onset of what we think of now as 'old age' illnesses occurred in much younger men during the 19th century, but improved throughout the 20th century: "chronic illnesses affected young and middle aged men to a much greater degree in the past than today.  [In a study of two cohort groups of Union Soldiers] one quarter of men aged 20-24 and over half of men aged 35-39 were rejected as unfit to serve due to illnesses such as cardiovascular disease and hernias.  Similarly, elderly men were more likely to suffer from chronic conditions than in the past...Of men aged  60-64 during the 1890-1910 period, 90% suffered from a chronic condition, as compared to 75% of same aged men in 1994.[23]"For example, for two of the conditions studied that we know now to be related to inflammation[24] [25] [26] [27]and stress[28] (particularly as results from diet[29] [30] [31] [32] [33] [34] [35] [36] [37] [38]and lifestyle[39] [40] [41] [42] [43]), that is, heart disease and arthritis, we see that the average age for onset for the 1830-1845[44]cohort was approximately 56 years of age, whereas the average age of onset for the 1918-1927 cohort was approximately 66 years[45], or a difference of 10 years in the age of onset in the later group.  Similarly, for the arthritis sample, the average age of onset for the 1830-1845 cohort was approximately 54 years whereas the later cohort was approximately 65 years[46] .  So we see that as time goes on, at least two public health markers were improved greatly in the 20th century; the age of onset of chronic disease in the forms of heart disease and arthritis was increased considerably.  These health factors, too, were improved without the help of vaccinations.[47] [48] [49] [50](We will discuss this assertion later in this paper)For more than a hundred years, however, two basic assumptions have been put forth by public health officials. One is that vaccines are safe.[51] [52]The second is that vaccines are effective for the conditions for which they're given.[53] The public and our legislators have, by and large, accepted these assumptions as true, and as a result it is now compulsory in many states that children have as many as 20 [54] [55]separate inoculations before entering school, or 33 by the time they are finished with secondary education. Some of these are given as early as the first few weeks of life.[56]We've been told that the end of polio, for example, as a serious health threat is due to mass inoculation programs[57] [58], and again we have accepted the official dogma without question. But as we shall see, this is not exactly the truth.[59] What's more, a disturbing reality that generally has gone unrecognized is the ever-growing number of people suffering adverse reactions to vaccinations[60]. These individuals are predominantly infants and children, and the problems they've incurred as a result of vaccination go far beyond sore arms and transitory fever: Conditions such as autism, attention deficit disorder, minimal brain dysfunction, and other biochemical and neurological abnormalities have been linked to the effects of vaccines[61]. Most tragically, so has SIDS-sudden infant death syndrome.[62][63]Although the government agencies such as the CDC[64], the National Institutes of allergy and infectious disease [65] [66], among others[67] [68] [69] [70], have tried to debunk a possible link between the proximity of vaccinations and untimely deaths of children in the first few months of life, we cite the government's involvement in supporting the cigarette industry in the first half of the 20th century[71] [72], and the widespread use of pesticide. The government also touted the benefits of hormone replacement therapy until 2002[73] [74], for which women are now suffering breast cancer[75] [76], stroke[77], and dementia[78]; the government does not have a good track record on the issue of dangerous NSAIDS such as Vioxx[79], for the use of which over 100,000 deaths are attributed[80].  As a result, the fact that we do not accept the government data on this issue does not mean that we are slanted, but it means that we are careful to point out the differences between the data that is reported and what the government deems is true.  We examine the government's point of view on SIDS on page 18 of this paper.  Because of underreporting of these troubling statistical links[81] [82] [83],however, a full picture of the effects of vaccination has not emerged. The problem of underreporting is a deep-seated one[84]. Yet the official line is that a small minority must accept negative consequences for the greater good of the majority.This investigation is an attempt to uncover the truth. In three parts, we will discuss facts that challenge our assumptions about vaccine safety and effectiveness, look at the effects associated with specific vaccines, and summarize some of the legal, political and economic issues surrounding the use of vaccines. The series has required a review of thousands of articles. We are presenting information based upon hard science; hundreds of references are included here for those who want to read further. For people challenging mandatory vaccination policies, the reference section will be particularly helpful.Why We Should Question Our AssumptionsWe think of vaccinations as panaceas and look to science to develop new ones for every known affliction, from the common cold to AIDS. Jamie Murphy, author of What Every Parent Should Know About Childhood Immunization,[85]attributes society's general acceptance of vaccinations, in large part, to state laws that dictate children must receive vaccines before they can attend school.     However, we must take a close look at our assumptions and ask, are we seeing the full picture? The reasons we should challenge our beliefs include the following:Safety issues. Significant adverse effects have been reported with every type of vaccine [86] [87]. These reactions can occur soon after vaccination (short-term reactions) or several months to years later (long-term)[88]. Delayed reactions are more insidious and less obviously linked to vaccination, and thus necessitate largescale epidemiological studies to be proven.One would think that before injecting children worldwide with hundreds of millions of doses of vaccines, enough clinical trials would be performed to determine exactly what the effects of this large-scale human genetic experiment would be. Lack of funding is not the problem. Each year, more than $1 billion[89][90] is appropriated by Congress to federal health agencies to develop, purchase, and promote the mass use of vaccines in the U.S. but not to fund independent researchers to investigate vaccine-related health problems.In the meantime, as an example of the volume of adverse reactions reported to the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS), there were 38,787 such events between 1991 and 1994. Of these, 45 percent occurred on the day of vaccination, 20 percent on the following day, and 93 percent within two weeks of vaccination. Deaths were most prevalent in children 1 to 3 months old and were defined as sudden infant deaths. (The author of the paper makes it clear that, "sudden infant death syndrome has not been associated with vaccination."[91] Since, as has been amply documented, only one-tenth of vaccine-induced reactions are reported to the VAERS (by some estimates, this is figure is even greater)[92],[93], this number vastly underestimates the real incidence of vaccine-associated complications. Furthermore, no link has been established when the adverse event occurs long after the time of vaccination[94].  In fact, a 1998 study in the Lancet and a recent review claim that no link exists between the MMR vaccine and subsequent long-term health events such as autism or bowel obstruction.[95] [96] [97]Another area of concern is that many doctors refuse to vaccinate themselves and their families,  [98] [99] [100]even though physicians belong to a high-risk category and are urged to accept vaccinations because of their continued exposure to infectious disease. A 1981 article in the Journal of the American Medical Association reports that the lowest vaccination rate among medical personnel for the German measles vaccine occurred among obstetrician/gynecologists and the next lowest rate occurred among pediatricians.  [101] The authors conclude, "The fear of unforeseen vaccination reactions was the main reason for the low uptake rate of physicians to be vaccinated." In the British Medical Journal, a 1990 article tells us that of 598 doctors questioned about hepatitis B vaccine, 86 percent believe that all general practitioners should be vaccinated against this disease. Yet 309 of those practitioners had not been vaccinated themselves. [102] [103]  A 2004 article in the Journal of Occupational Medicine summarizes these findings, and others, including the fact that some doctors are unconcerned with regards to vaccination protection, while in that over 80% received Hep B inoculation, only 49% confirmed immune response to the virus, and only half did any preventive measures after needle stick injuries.[104]Vaccinations Are Based on Unsound Principles. According to Jamie Murphy, "Vaccines are portrayed as being indispensable and somehow better at disease protection than what our innate biological defenses and nutritional resources have accomplished for thousands of years.... Before the introduction of the measles and mumps vaccines, children got measles and they got mumps, and in the great majority of cases those diseases were benign."[105]Walene James, author of Immunization: The Reality Behind the Myth,[106]believes that the full inflammatory response is necessary to create real immunity.[107] James summarizes the work of Dr. Richard Moskowitz, past president of the National Institute of Homeopathy, as stating, "'Vaccines trick the body so that it will no longer initiate a generalized inflammatory response. They thereby accomplish what the entire immune system seems to have evolved to prevent. They place the virus directly into the blood and give it access to the major immune organs and tissues without any obvious way of getting rid of it. These attenuated viruses and virus elements persist in the blood for a long time, perhaps permanently. This, in turn, implies a systematic weakening of the ability to mount an effective response, not only to childhood diseases but to other acute infections as well.'"Murphy observes that vaccines, unlike childhood diseases, do not produce permanent immunity. "The medical profession does not know how long vaccine immunity lasts because it is artificial immunity. If you get measles naturally, in 99 percent of the cases, you have lifelong immunity. If you have German measles you will have lifelong immunity. The chances of getting measles twice, German measles twice, or even whooping cough twice [are remote].... However, if you get a measles vaccine or a DPT vaccine, [it does not give you 100% assurance]  that the vaccine will prevent you from getting the disease." [108]     In "Vaccination: Dispelling the Myths," Alan Phillips writes, "The clinical evidence for vaccination is their ability to stimulate antibody production in the recipient, a fact which is not disputed. What is not clear, however, is whether or not such antibody production constitutes immunity. For example, a-gamma globulinemic children are incapable of producing antibodies, yet they recover from infectious diseases almost as quickly as other children....Natural immunization is a complex phenomenon involving many organs and systems; it cannot be fully replicated by the artificial stimulation of antibody production....[Our] immunological reserves may thus actually be reduced, causing a generally lowered resistance."[109] [110]     Phillips adds: "Another component of immunization theory is 'herd immunity,' ...when enough people in a community are immunized, all are protected.... there are many documented instances showing just the opposite-fully vaccinated populations do contract diseases; with measles, this actually seems to be the direct result of high vaccination rates...."[111], [112] [113]Writing in Nexus, Phillips makes the point that immunization practice assumes that all children, regardless of age and size, are virtually the same. "An 8-pound 2-month-old receives the same dosage as a 40-pound five-year-old," Phillips points out. "Infants with immature, undeveloped immune systems may receive five or more times the dosage (relative to body weight) as older children." What's more, random testing has revealed that the number of "units" within doses has been found to range up to three times what the label indicates, with quality control tolerating a rather large margin of error.Questionable Science. Many scientific studies tell us that vaccines are safe and effective when this is not necessarily the case. 110 112 113Doctors and vaccine proponents often quote studies done solely on antibody production in the blood, not taking into account clinical experiences.  We must note, however, that clinical experience is important, and particularly with regards to the treatment of viral infections that have not or cannot be treated at the time with vaccine.  For example, we know that transmission at the time of birth of the chickenpox virus is dangerous to the livelihood of the infant, and that low birth weight contributes to susceptibility to death from the virus[114], thus indicating a possible need for doctors to be clinically aware of the mother's risk factors for low birth weight infants[115] [116].  For example doctors recommend the following for the outcome of a healthy birth weight including no alcohol consumption, drug use, and adequate nutrition[117] as well as regular prenatal checkups[118] .  In addition to being aware of the causes of low birth weight infants, the use of the antibody titer VZIG in a timely manner can sometimes prevent death[119].  As opposed to the chickenpox vaccine (which contains live, attenuated chickenpox virus), VZIG contains immune fractions from the blood of people that can help those who are dangerously immune compromised for a short period of time[120].  Other non-vaccine alternatives are being made available for this widespread virus; the use of acyclovir, which has been determined to be useful in lessening the severity of chickenpox infection in children, might be preferable to the VZIG treatment (we note that VZIG does contain the preservative thimerosol[121]), but the use of acyclovir during pregnancy has not yet been widely tested[122] in the clinical setting, and shows that much more research is needed in non vaccine alternatives.Dr. Dean Black, author of Immunizations: Compulsion or Choice, brings up an issue that needs more attention-what if we stopped compulsory vaccination? "By looking at what happens in countries where vaccinations are no longer required," he says, "we can get an idea of what would truly happen if we were to cease demanding compulsory immunization in America. In 1975, Germany stopped requiring pertussis [whooping cough] vaccinations, and the number of children vaccinated promptly began to drop. Today, it has dropped to well below 10 percent. What has happened in Germany from pertussis over that period of time? The mortality rate has continued to decrease."[123]The Natural Evolution of Disease. Immunization supposedly puts an end to disease. We attribute the decline in polio to the polio vaccine, the "disappearance" of smallpox to the smallpox vaccine, and so forth.[124], [125], [126], [127], [128], [129]But are vaccinations the magic bullets we believe them to be? Dr. Harris Coulter, an expert on the pertussis vaccine, co-author of A Shot in the Dark,[130]and author of Vaccination, Social Violence, and Criminality,[131]concludes otherwise.[132] Regarding infectious diseases of the past, he states, "The incidence of all of these infectious diseases was dropping very rapidly, starting in the 1930s. After World War II, the incidence continued to drop as living conditions improved. Clean water, central heating...these are the factors that really affected people's tendencies to come down with infectious diseases much more than vaccines. The vaccines might have added a little bit to that downward curve, but the curve was going down all the time anyway."Dr. Coulter's view is supported by the Australian Nurses Journal: "A careful study of the decline in disease will show that up to 90 percent of the so-called 'killer diseases' had all but disappeared when we introduced immunization on a large scale during the late thirties and early forties."[133] A similar statement is made by the Medical Journal of Australia: "The decline of tetanus as a disease began before the introduction of tetanus toxoid to the general population. The reasons for this decline are the same for the decline in all other infectious diseases: improved hygiene, improved sanitation, better nutrition, healthier living conditions, etc." Alan Phillips elaborates on this theme: "We just assume that vaccinations are responsible for disease decline, which is not the case. For if you check the statistics, you will find that the vast majority of disease decline proceeded vaccines. In the case of measles, for example, there was a 97 percent decline preceding vaccination; in the case of pertussis, 79 percent. When you look at the graph of the decline in death rate over the course of the century, you see that the rate of decline, post-immunization, was virtually the same as the decline preimmunization, suggesting that it's difficult to tell whether or not the vaccine had any effect on an already well-established decline in disease deaths."[134], [135]Phillips attacks the notion that vaccines are responsible for the dramatic reduction in infectious disease during this and past centuries. "According to the British Association for the Advancement of Science, childhood diseases decreased 90 percent between 1850 and 1940, paralleling improved sanitation and hygienic practices, well before mandatory vaccination programs. Infectious disease deaths in the U.S. and England declined steadily by an average of about 80 percent during this century (measles mortality declined over 97 percent) prior to vaccinations. In Great Britain, the polio epidemics peaked in 1950, and had declined 82 percent by the time the vaccine was introduced there in 1956. Thus, at best, vaccinations can be credited with only a small percentage of the overall decline in disease-related deaths this century....[136]Toxic Vaccine Ingredients and Manufacturing Processes. Walene James urges parents to think about the effects the ingredients of vaccines could have on their children's health: "There are three categories of ingredients. The first are cultured bacteria and viruses....The second ingredient in vaccinations is the medium in which they are cultivated. This can include...dog kidney tissue, monkey kidney tissue, chicken or duck egg protein, chick embryo, calf serum, pig or horse blood, and cowpox pus. These foreign proteins are injected directly....They are very toxic since they do not get filtered through the digestive process or pass through the liver.""These proteins are foreign to the body, and are in a state of decomposition. They are composed of animal cells, and therefore contain animal genetic material. It is possible for the genes in these cells to be picked up by the live, attenuated viruses used in vaccines. These viruses then implant a foreign alien genetic material from animal tissue cultures into the human genetic system...."The last category of vaccine ingredients, James says, includes stabilizers, neutralizers, carrying agents, and preservatives. "Many people feed their children healthy foods. They would never think of giving their children formaldehyde...or aluminum phosphate to eat....These are preservatives and carrying agents that are injected...without buffering by the digestive process, or censoring by the liver."[137]As examples of the ingredients used in vaccines, we list the contents of five common childhood vaccines below. These ingredients are current according to the latest information available to us, but they are subject to change at any time:     Hepatitis B vaccine: This genetically engineered, noninfectious viral vaccine is derived from hepatitis B surface antigen produced in yeast cells. The Recombivax HB vaccine (Merck & Co.) uses a fermentation medium consisting of a yeast extract, soy peptone, dextrose, amino acids and mineral salts. The protein is purified, then treated with formaldehyde and coprecipitated with alum (potassium aluminum sulfate) to form bulk vaccine adjuvanted with amorphous aluminum hydroxyphosphate sulfate. There is no detectable yeast DNA in the vaccine, but it may contain not more than 1% yeast protein.[138] For the Engerix-B vaccine (SmithKline Beecham), the antigen is absorbed on aluminum hydroxide, and the product contains no more than 5% yeast protein. The product also contains sodium chloride and phosphate buffers. The pediatric/adolescent and adult formulations of Engerix-B do not have preservatives but may contain a trace amount of thimerosal (a mercury derivative) from the manufacturing process.[139] Recombivax HB is supplied in pediatric/adolescent and adult formulations with and without a preservative.[140]     DPT vaccine: This vaccine includes diphtheria and tetanus toxoids and acellular pertussis vaccine absorbed. The components of the acellular pertussis vaccine are isolated from phase 1 Bordetella pertussis culture grown in a modified Stainer-Scholte medium. They are treated with formaldehyde. For the Tripedia vaccine (Aventis Pasteur), the Corynebacterium diphtheriae cultures are grown in a modified Mueller and Miller medium, while the Clostridium tetani cultures are grown in a peptone-based medium containing a bovine (meat) extract. Both are treated with formaldehyde, and the detoxified materials are purified by serial ammonium sulfate fractionation and diafiltration. The toxoids are absorbed using aluminum potassium sulfate (alum). The product contains sodium chloride, gelatin, and polysorbate 80. The one-dose vial does not have a preservative but contains a trace amount of thimerosal from the manufacturing process; the multidose vial contains thimerosal as a preservative.[141] For the Infanrix vaccine (SmithKline Beecham), the diphtheria toxin is produced in a Linggoud and Fenton medium containing a bovine extract, and the tetanus toxin is produced in a modified Latham medium. Both are treated with formaldehyde, and each is absorbed onto aluminum hydroxide. The product contains 2-phenoxyethanol as a preservative, sodium chloride, and polysorbate 80.[142]     Inactivated polio vaccine: The IPOL product (Aventis Pasteur) is a highly purified, inactivated vaccine that contains three types of poliovirus. The viruses are grown in cultures of VERO cells, a continuous line of monkey kidney cells. The cells are grown in Eagle MEM modified medium, supplemented with newborn calf serum that is tested for adventitious agents before use and originates from countries free of bovine spongiform encephalopathy. For viral growth, the culture medium is M-199, without calf serum. (The residual calf serum protein is less than 1 ppm in the final vaccine.) Neomycin, streptomycin and polymyxin B are used in the production process. The vaccine also contains 2-phenoxyethanol and formaldehyde (0.02% maximum) as preservatives.[143]MMR vaccine: The M-M-R II live virus vaccine (Merck & Co.) contains (1) Attenuvax, a more attenuated line of measles virus propagated in chick embryo cell culture; (2) Mumpsvax, a strain of mumps virus propagated in chick embryo cell culture; and (3) Meruvax II, the Wistar RA 27/3 strain of live attenuated rubella virus propagated in WI-38 human diploid lung fibroblasts. The product contains sorbitol, sodium phosphate, sucrose, sodium chloride, hydrolyzed gelatin, human albumin, fetal bovine serum, and neomycin. It does not contain a preservative.[144]Chickenpox vaccine: The Varivax vaccine (Merck & Co.) is prepared from the Oka/Merck strain of live, attenuated varicella virus. The virus originated from a child with natural varicella. It was introduced into human embryonic lung cell cultures, adapted to and propagated in embryonic guinea pig cell cultures and propagated in human diploid cell cultures (WI-38). The vaccine contains sucrose, hydrolyzed gelatin, sodium chloride, monosodium L-glutamate, sodium phosphate dibasic, potassium phosphate monobasic, potassium chloride, residual components of MRC-5 (human diploid) cells including DNA and protein, and trace amounts of sodium phosphate monobasic, EDTA, neomycin, and fetal bovine serum. There is no preservative.[145]Noting that vaccines include a host of undisputed toxins, such as aluminum phosphate and formaldehyde, Alan Phillips reminds us that many of the ill effects of vaccines did not exist at anywhere near today's levels 30 years ago. He cites autism, ADD, hyperactivity, dyslexia, and a host of allergies as examples.[146]In his book What Every Parent Should Know About Childhood Immunization, Jamie Murphy seconds the views of Phillips: "What could formaldehyde, aluminum, phenol...or any number of other deadly chemical substances used in vaccines possibly have to do with preventing disease in children? The fact that they are needed at all in the vaccine formula argues that the product is toxic, unstable and unreliable with or without their presence."[147]The Use of Thimerosal. In July 1999, the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) issued a statement urging the removal of the mercury-containing preservative thimerosal from vaccines.[148] The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) reported that as of April 2001, all seven of the vaccines recommended for use in all children contained either no thimerosal or trace amounts only. These vaccines include hepatitis B, Haemophilus influenzae B, and DTaP (which formerly contained thimerosal as a preservative) and MMR, polio, varicella and pneumococcal (which have never contained thimerosal).[149]The FDA explains that the vaccines are now being produced as either thimerosal-free or thimerosal-reduced products. The term thimerosal-reduced, it says, usually indicates that trace amounts of mercury-less than 0.5 micrograms per 0.5 mL vaccine dose-may remain from the use of thimerosal in the manufacturing process, but that thimerosal is not added as a preservative. The term preservativefree means the vaccine does not have a preservative but, again, that trace amounts may remain from the manufacturing process.[150]The reason for the AAP's strong recommendation in 1999 was a growing concern about the risk of exposing the developing brains of infants to mercury. As more vaccines were being mandated for children, the cumulative level of mercury exceeded that deemed safe by guidelines. With the new pediatric vaccines, the FDA says, "the most likely maximum amount of ethyl mercury that an infant may be exposed to from the routine vaccination schedule has been reduced from approximately 187.5 mcg to <3 mcg."[151]While this change is certainly welcomed, we should ask why such a dangerous, known neurotoxin was allowed to be used in vaccines in the first place. Mercury exposure has been associated with nerve cell degeneration,[152] adverse behavioral effects,[153] and impaired brain development.[154] It has also been linked to degenerative chronic conditions such as Alzheimer's disease. The developing fetal nervous system is the most sensitive to its toxic effects, and prenatal exposure to high doses of mercury has been shown to cause mental retardation and cerebral palsy.[155]Yet the CDC recommends the influenza vaccine, which for the most part still contained mercury until late 2002, to all pregnant women, despite the 2001 urging from the Institute of Medicine that "full consideration be given to removing thimerosal from any biological product to which infants, children, and pregnant women are exposed." The CDC's homepage, today, September 6, 2006, quotes, "Today, with the exception of some Influenza (flu) vaccines, none of the vaccines used in the U.S. to protect preschool children against 12 infectious diseases contain thimerosal as a preservative."This means that some of the country's most vulnerable, are still receiving mercury in its shots, as the flu vaccine is recommended for those most at risk, including the elderly, those with weakened immune systems, and very young children.In 2001 the FDA was in discussions with manufacturers of influenza virus vaccines regarding the development of thimerosal-free or -reduced products.[156]According to the CDC, one manufacturer of influenza vaccine, Evans Vaccines, had reduced-thimerosal influenza vaccines available by the 2002-2003 flu season. This Fluvirin product had less than 1 mcg of thimerosal per dose; other influenza vaccines at the time had 25 mcg.[157] For the pediatric market, another manufacturer, Aventis Pasteur, announced in September 2002 that the FDA had approved a license to market a preservative-free influenza vaccine for infants aged six to 35 months. A supply of the preservative-free Fluzone was available for the 2002-2003 flu season.[158]Despite the change over, this still begs the question as to how many children are still suffering the effects of mercury-toxic injections from as late as the 2000 and 2001 flu seasons.It should also be noted that while the mercury content of childhood vaccines has been eliminated or greatly reduced, vaccines may still contain formaldehyde (a highly carcinogenic material used to embalm corpses) and/or aluminum.New vaccines continue to be approved:  in 2003 the "first live attenuated influenza vaccine licenced for 5-49 year old persons"[159] was approved, and in 2004 "inactivated influenza vaccine was recommended for all children 6-23 months of age"[160]However, the CDC site does not state specifically which flu vaccinations contain the thimerosol: "certain Influenza (flu) vaccines and tetanusdiphtheria vaccines (Td) given to children age 7 and older contain thimerosal as a preservative."Unproven Vaccines, Unmonitored Medicine The widespread use of experimental vaccines during Desert Storm has often been cited as a possible cause of Gulf War syndrome. Dr. Garth Nicolson elaborates: "I'm not a big fan of experimental vaccines. There have been too many mistakes. Usually you find these things out years later. Often agents that we think innocuous turn out to be harmful." He explains that during the Gulf War, the established procedures of vaccination were ignored. Normally, only one inoculation should be given at a time, but the military insisted on giving multiple shots at once, which, according to Nicolson, is the worst thing you can do because it suppresses the immune system. [5]The troops immunized for the Gulf have been called guinea pigs, and for good reason. They received experimental vaccines, e.g., those for anthrax and botulinum that were not approved for use by the FDA and have since proven to cause potentially dangerous side effects. In 1991,  "Anthrax vaccine was administered to about 150,000 troops in the [Gulf War] theater, about 1/5 of those deployed."[161] Soldiers who were given these experimental vaccines, without informed consent, have reported suffering from a variety of neurological problems and aberrant bleeding from all parts of their bodies. Because of these vaccines' experimental nature, many questions have arisen as to why our government dispensed them. Not the least of these questions is, what about the Nuremberg Code? Developed by the Allies after World War II in response to inhumane Nazi experimentation, the Nuremberg code says that voluntary and informed consent is absolutely essential from all human subjects who participate in research, whether during peace or war. [11]Vaccine Failures. According to Phillips, "The medical literature has a surprising number of studies documenting vaccine failure. Measles, mumps, smallpox, and polio outbreaks have all occurred in vaccinated populations. In 1989, the CDC reported: Among school-aged children, [measles] outbreaks have occurred in schools with vaccination levels of greater than 98 percent. They have occurred in all parts of the country, including areas that had not reported measles for years. The CDC even reported a measles outbreak in a documented 100 percentvaccinated population. A study examining this phenomenon concluded, 'The apparent paradox is that as measles immunization rates rise to high levels in a population, measles becomes a disease of immunized persons.'...These studies suggest that the goal of complete immunization is actually counterproductive, a notion underscored by instances in which epidemics followed complete immunization of entire countries....In the U.S. in 1986, 90 percent of 1,300 pertussis cases in Kansas were 'adequately vaccinated.' Seventy-two percent of pertussis cases in the 1993 Chicago outbreak were fully up to date with their vaccinations."[162], [163], [164], [165], [166], [167], [168], [169], [170]Effects of Specific VaccinesWith this section, we begin an examination of the effects of specific vaccines. Seven vaccines will be covered in this and the next two installments of this series: diphtheria, pertussis and tetanus, polio, chickenpox, hepatitis B, measles, mumps and rubella, smallpox, and the now-withdrawn rotavirus vaccine.DIPHTHERIA, PERTUSSIS, AND TETANUS VACCINESDiphtheria VaccineIn the 15 years following the introduction of the diphtheria vaccine in 1894, the number of deaths in England and Wales rose 20 percent. Between 1895 and 1907, there were 63,249 cases of diphtheria in individuals treated with anti-toxin; 8,917 people died, a fatality rate of 14 percent. In the same time period, there were 11,716 cases not treated with anti-toxin; only 703 died, a fatality rate of 6 percent.From a book by Greg Beattie, entitled, "Vaccination A Parent's Dilemma," we examine official charts taken from the Commonwealth of Australia, on the decline in death rates from Whooping Cough, Diptheria, measles, and Scarlet Fever.  We see that in each case, the bulk of the death rates from each illness declined in large measure even before the vaccine for the illness had been given.  Lest we think, however, that these may be figures unique to Australia, the author states that, "Graphical evidence on the decline in death rates from infectious disease for USA, England, New Zealand and many other countries shows the exact same scenario[s]"  Whooping cough death rates, for example, when the vaccinations were given, between 1940 and 1960, had already declined to almost a tenth of their original rate at their height in 1880.  During the decade between 1940 and 1950, when the Diptheria vaccine was originally given, death rates had declined to almost a quarter of their rate in 1880, and the measles deaths, at their height in the 1900's, had already declined to its modern low rates by the mid 1960's, when the first vaccine was given.  The CDC's paper on reduction of illnesses in the 20th century mentions that one of illnesses that was reduced to zero by the year 2004, was diptheria, from an average of 21, 053 deaths per year in the 20th century.We know from Greg Beattie's work that the earliest vaccinations for childhood illnesses were given in the late 1930's for diptheria.  When we  examine the figures from the Union soldiers'study, mentioned earlier; we note that only the last of the children for the later cohort (1918-1927) would have been children when the Diptheria vaccinations were given.   Although heart damage can occur in untreated Diptheria cases, most Diptheria onset occurs in adolescents and adults.  Most of the later cohort would already have been adolescents at the time of the Diptheria vaccine, so it is unlikely that the onset of the Diptheria vaccination alone had an effect on the outcome of delayed onset of heart disease already noted in this group of people. 47 48 49 50Similarly, it may be true that childhood illnesses could have a role in the formation of joint inflammation later in life, but again, only the last children of the later cohort in the union soldiers' study would have received the Diptheria vaccine in later childhood, so this would have a negligible effect on the outcome of all joint pain in this cohort group.  Acellular Pertussis VaccineUntil 1996 the whole-cell vaccine was the only whooping cough vaccine available in the U.S. for children in their first year of life. This vaccine included all the components of the bacterium Bordetella pertussis, including the toxic ones, and was associated with high rates of adverse reactions. In Japan, a lack of trust among the public of the whole-cell vaccine led to the development of a new, purified acellular vaccine that has been used exclusively in the country since 1981.[171]Even though a safer vaccine was widely used in Europe and Japan, it wasn't until 15 years later that the purified acellular pertussis vaccine was approved by the U.S. FDA for use in combination with the diphtheria and tetanus toxoids for all doses in the vaccination series.[172] A 1996 study showed that the rate of adverse reactions reported to VAERS in 1991 to 1993 dropped from 9.8 per 100,000 vaccine doses to 2.9 per 100,000 after substitution of the acellular pertussis vaccine for the whole-cell vaccine for the fourth and fifth dose of DPT vaccination.[173]Vaccine Failure. Ninety-one percent of pertussis cases in Nova Scotia, Canada, had received at least three doses of vaccine. Researchers concluded that "pertussis remains a significant health problem in Nova Scotia despite nearly universal vaccination."[174] In this case, the pertussis vaccination proved ineffective.Pertussis vaccination also has been shown to increase the susceptibility of certain individuals to the infection, as a 1997 report by the CDC clearly describes. In the Netherlands, 96 percent of children have received at least three shots of pertussis vaccine by the age of 12 months. Yet pertussis has been endemic in the country for the past two decades.[175]Increasing Cases of Pertussis in Infants and Adults. After the United States mandated pertussis vaccination in 1978, the incidence of the disease in the following eight years trebled. While cases of pertussis were increasingly seen among every age group, the highest incidence was registered in infants less than 1 year old, and the highest relative increase was seen in adolescents and adults. It is important to note that infants suffered from the most complications, with rates of hospitalization, pneumonia, convulsions, and encephalopathy being the highest in children 0 to 6 months old.[176]According to one article, the incidence of pertussis increased each year in England and Wales after an accelerated immunization schedule was introduced.[177]Since the immunity provided by the vaccine, unlike that derived from natural infection, is only temporary, more adults are now contracting the disease and are transmitting it to infants, where the infection manifests with particular severity and can often lead to death.Epidemics of pertussis striking infants have also been reported in Australia, despite extensive vaccination coverage.[178]DPT Safety. The U.S. Department of Health and Human Services estimates that every year approximately half a million DPT shots are followed by reactions severe enough to contraindicate the administration of more pertussis vaccine. One in seven children should be turned away for further pertussis vaccine. In practice, though, this does not happen. [179], [180] And, as pointed out by Alan Phillips, "The FDA's VAERS (Vaccine Adverse Effects Reporting System) receives about 11,000 reports of serious adverse reactions to vaccination annually, some 1 percent (112+) of which are deaths from vaccine reactions. The majority of these deaths are attributed to the pertussis (whooping cough) vaccine, the 'P' in DPT. This figure alone is alarming, yet it is only the tip of the iceberg. The FDA estimates that only about 10 percent of adverse reactions are reported...."DPT Vaccination and Neurological Damage. The scientific literature contains documentation of the damaging effects of DPT vaccination on the nervous system. Neurological complications include convulsions, hypotonichyporesponsive episodes (a collapse-shock-like status), paralysis, and encephalopathy.FURTHER READINGS: Articles in the literature associate DPT vaccinations with neurological problems[181], [182]and convulsions.[183], [184], [185], [186]DPT Vaccination and Asthma. In a 1994 study published in the Journal of the American Medical Association, Dr. Michel Odent found that children immunized against whooping cough were five times more likely to suffer from asthma than those who did not receive the vaccine.[187]Dr. Odent's is not a solitary voice. Another study, performed by Farooqi et al. on almost 2,000 children born between 1974 and 1984, showed that vaccination against whooping cough is associated with a 76 percent increased risk of developing asthma and other allergic diseases later in life.[188]     DPT Vaccination and SIDS. Sudden infant death syndrome (SIDS) is the unexpected death of a child occurring without any apparent explanation, and for which autopsy cannot reveal a determining cause. Every year, 5,000 to 6,000 children die from SIDS. The incidence peaks in infants aged 2-4 months, which correlates with the introduction of a majority of vaccine injections. It is worth noting that approximately 85 percent of SIDS cases occur during the first six months of life, and that the first three DPT shots were given to children at 2, 4, and 6 months of age when these studies were conducted.A study conducted by researchers at the Mayo Clinic looked at the incidence of SIDS in Olmsted County, Minnesota, over several decades and found that it increased steadily from a rate of 0.55 per 1,000 live births in 1953 to 128 in 1992. That's a great increase in this 40-year study period. However, when the authors compared mortality from SIDS to overall infant mortality, they came up with an even more distressing finding. The increase of SIDS as a percentage of total infant deaths increased from 2.5 in 1953 to 17.9 in 1992.[189] So from 1950 to 1990, a combination of lifestyle changes, improved sanitary conditions, and progress in medical technology resulted in a reduction of practically all causes of infant death except one-sudden infant death.In 1982, at the 34th Annual Meeting of the American Academy of Pediatrics, Dr. W. Torch presented an abstract entitled "Diphtheria-PertussisTetanus (DPT) Immunization: A Potential Cause of the Sudden Infant Death Syndrome (SIDS)." Triggered by a report of 12 such deaths occurring within 3-1/2 to 19 hours of DPT vaccination, Torch's investigation looked at 70 SIDS cases. He found that two-thirds of the victims had been vaccinated from a half day to three weeks prior to death.[190]Torch reaffirmed a link between DPT and SIDS in 1986, when he presented 11 new cases of SIDS and one of near-miss syndrome (NMS) occurring within 24 hours of DPT injection. All cases presented with SIDS pathology, yet none were diagnosed as "postvaccinal" death.[191] Analysis of these and other more than 150 cases of DPT postvaccinal deaths reported in the literature-about half of which were sudden or anaphylactic-led Torch to conclude that "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."[192] Other researchers also have uncovered a relationship between DTP immunization and SIDS.[193], [194]Tetanus Vaccination and Neurological Damage. The literature includes articles on neurological reactions to the tetanus vaccination[195], [196], [197], [198], [199], [200] and other adverse reactions.[201], [202], [203]In Part 2: The effects of vaccines for polio, chickenpox, hepatitis B, and measles, mumps and rubella.Vaccination: Pain, Profit, and Politics - Part 2By Gary Null, Ph.D., and Martin Feldman, M.D.In Part 1 of this series, we discussed the reasons why we should challenge our assumptions that vaccines are safe and effective. These reasons include the adverse effects associated with vaccines, the unsound principles on which they are based, questions about whether immunization really eliminates disease, the toxic ingredients used in vaccines, and vaccine failures. In Part 1 we also began to look at the effects of specific vaccines with a discussion of the diphtheria, pertussis and tetanus vaccine; we continue that process in Part 2 with a look at the polio, chickenpox, hepatitis B, and measles, mumps and rubella vaccines.Polio VaccineThree 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.Today, the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) recommends exclusive use of the IPV for routine childhood polio vaccination in the U.S. (the enhanced-potency version is the only IPV in use in the U.S.). The ACIP changed its polio vaccine recommendation to the all-IPV schedule, effective January 2000, to eliminate the risk for vaccine-associated paralytic poliomyelitis (VAPP), the condition caused by the previously recommended oral polio vaccine.[204]Until 1996, all children in the U.S., except those with a compromised immune system and their close contacts, were immunized with the live attenuated OPV vaccine. However, the vaccine actually caused polio in a small percentage of people. 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. In fact, the only indigenous cases of polio reported in the U.S. since 1979 have been associated with the use of OPV. Between 1980 and 1998, 144 cases of VAPP were reported.[205]Despite these occurrences, the ACIP recommended the use of OPV in the U.S. because it believed the benefits of the oral vaccine outweighed the risk for VAPP. In 1996, the ACIP recommended a sequential schedule of IPV and OPV to "decrease the risk for VAPP but maintain the benefits of OPV." It then recommended the allIPV schedule as of January 2000, citing several reasons: the substantially reduced likelihood of poliovirus being imported into the U.S. due to rapid progress made in the global polio eradication initiative; the acceptance of the sequential schedule; and the lack of declines in childhood immunization coverage.[206]The CDC states that, "in 1955 the inactivated polio vaccination was licenced."[207]  In 1954, the largest vaccination trial to date was undertaken across the country.  Up to 600,000 children throughout the country were vaccinated due to efforts by parents, community activists, and teachers, both in the efforts of pursuing science and bettering public health.  Children and their parents were told that they were 'pioneers' in an effort to eradicate a debilitating scourge.  In homage to the passionate public effort, researchers stated that 95% of children received the three shots required by the trial.    Whereas the design of the study was vigorous, there were complaints as to the follow through. The setup of the study was as follows: Each child received three vaccinations on a rigorous schedule, and the two arms of the study had differing control groups which would even out the counterbalancing effects of income, nutrition, and class; however, it was often reported that the entire dose was not given per child, or that in the control group which was to have received a placebo injection, liquid from the experimental group remained in the syringe, thereby giving the placebo child a weak inoculation.  Despite the fact that the government review of the outcome of polio vaccination was to have been considered positive, critics said that there was not a huge difference between the observed and placebo control groups and the actual groups that received the vaccinations.In three of the trial groups, numbers of children in the study tested were between 200,000 and 225,000.  In order to compare effectiveness, we will average the outcomes based on numbers tested at 200,000:Therefore, for in areas where a placebo shot was given, along with the vaccination, an average of 32.87 children came down with polio out of 200,000 who received the shots, whereas an average of 114.30 children out of 200,000 came down with the illness who did not receive the vaccination.  In the next cohort group, an average of 34.24 children out of 200,000 came down with polio after receiving the vaccination whereas an average of 91.01 children out of 200,000 came down with polio in the control group who was just observed rather than actually receiving the shots.  Although the numbers for the two arms of the study may be similar, it appears that the lower number in the observational control may be slightly more accurate for a couple of reasons:  First, there were complaints that the actual givers of the vaccines contaminated the control groups with the active vaccine, and second, the control group of observed children was much larger than the control group who received a placebo [725, 123 as compared to 201, 229 in the placebo group];  it is well known that a larger cohort group is desired for better scientific accuracy.The one positive aspect of the placebo arm of the study as noted by author David Oshinsky was that the children were more likely to be of the same age, class, and upbringing, since those who were vaccinated tended to have parents who were better educated and more willing to commit their children to a scientific study for the 'betterment of scientific inquiry'.  It is just such attitudes that we wish to examine closely in this paper, for these are the vulnerabilities that the mainstream medical community uses when coercing the public to use vaccinations.[208]After the auspicious start as seen by the CDC's National Immunization program, we will examine the timeline for the various vaccinations given in the US:Polio was seen originally as a mystery because the sanitation measures that had brought typhoid and cholera into abeyance did not seem to have an effect on polio.  In fact children brought up in middle class homes were more likely to develop the paralyzing illness than those in poorer neighborhoods.  For example: "[Franklin Roosevelt] had avoided the common illnesses until his arrival at boarding school as a teen.  From that point forward, his medical history resembled an encyclopedia of contagious diseases.  The list included typhoid fever, swollen sinuses, infected tonsils, stomach problems, endless sore throats."[209]  We know that later he was said to have contracted polio but some have attributed his illness to Guillain Barre syndrome as well, which we see below, has an association with Polio.Originally, The Polio outbreaks were one of the first times it was suggested that a less-antiseptic environment may have had a protective effect upon the child.  It was later found that polio was a viral infection, and was passed through the mouth,[210]but was an infection of the digestive tract that spread through the nerves to the brain and spinal cord.  One of the early researchers on polio noticed that boys tended to get polio more often than girls, and during periods where they had stressed their bodies, such as playing outside on a hot day.  Franklin Roosevelt was said to have contracted polio after playing rigorously in the water with his children.  Whether rich or poor, however, author David Oshinsky points not to large issues of public sanitation, but to issues of personal hygiene: "the words 'American' and 'cleanliness' rarely graced the same sentence before the twentieth century.  In 1900 toothbrushes were still rare in the United States, deodorants and shampoos almost unheard of.  Few people bathed more than once a week or rinsed their hair more than once a month.  Fewer still washed their hands before eating or after using the toilet.  Spitting was almost universal.  Travelers shared beds and chamber pots with complete strangers.  Most houses, lacking screens, attracted swarms of insects in warm weather.  Water supplies were unfiltered, and food was poorly refrigerated, if at all."[211]It is clear to anyone with a modicum of common sense that these would be ideal conditions to spread a virus of the digestive tract.  In an article entitled Introduction to Contagion[212], we discover that it is important to note the way a disease is transmitted when examining the ways in which the epidemics have happened throughout the ages:For example: whether virus or bacteria, there are illnesses that are spread through droplets that are ingested, which are present in the air due to respiratory expulsion.  There are also water borne illnesses, that can be picked up by a cut in the skin or when a person ingests quantities of water from an infected source.  Other diseases can be transmitted through food, and still others through physical touching, such as through the hands, through the saliva, or through sexual contact.In an epidemic of cholera, for example, the CDC states that,"the source of the contamination is usually the feces of an infected person. The disease can spread rapidly in areas with inadequate treatment of sewage and drinking water."[213]David Oshinsky writes of non-polio outbreaks:  "mortality rates had dropped dramatically since the 1870's, the result of better sanitation, a healthier diet, and stunning breakthroughs in research...Other epidemic diseases like cholera and typhoid fever had been tamed by better sanitation, attacking the filth that spread their deadly germs.  In most places this involved the regulation of sewage, the purification of water, and the pasteurization of milk.  It included public health campaigns to educate people about quarantining the sick and keeping their dwellings clean."[214]Guillain-Barre Syndrome and Polio Vaccine. 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 Guillain-Barre syndrome that followed by a few weeks the implementation of a nationwide oral poliovirus vaccine campaign.[215], [216] And in Brazil, 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 oral polio vaccine months or years before the onset of symptoms.[217]Furthermore, vaccine viruses also have been isolated from patients with paralysis diagnosed as transverse myelitis (TM), and in patients with facial paralysis (FP).[218] Most individuals with TM and FP had received the oral polio vaccine months or years prior to the onset of disease, indicating that the virus may remain latent and revert to virulence later in time. It is noteworthy too that in Brazil, cases of wild-type poliomyelitis have not been reported since 1989, while vaccineassociated paralysis is still occurring.[219]The Cancer Connection to the Polio Vaccine. In 1960 it was discovered that both the Salk and Sabin vaccines, which had been administered to millions of people, were contaminated with SV40 (simian virus 40), derived from the monkey kidney cells used to grow the vaccine viruses. The SV40 survived inactivation with formaldehyde, the method used to kill the poliovirus, and was therefore injected with the vaccine into 98 million people in the U.S.[220] and hundreds of millions worldwide. These individuals 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 to induce malignancy. Unfortunately, a growing number of studies are showing that the virus retains these same properties in humans as well as in animals. Integration and replication of SV40 has been documented in 13 percent of non-Hodgkin's lymphomas,[221] 16 percent of Hodgkin's lymphomas,[222] 11 percent to 90 percent of different types of brain tumors,[223],[224],[225],[226] 83 percent of mesotheliomas (malignant tumors of the lining of the lungs),[227] 28 percent of bronchopulmonary carcinomas,[228] 50 percent of osteosarcomas,[229] and more than 33 percent of other types of bone tumors.[230],  [231]Chickenpox VaccineIn 1995 the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) and the ACIP recommended universal chickenpox (varicella) vaccination of children aged 12 to 18 months. They also recommended that the vaccine be given to children aged 18 months to 12 years who have not been vaccinated or who lack a reliable history of the disease.The fact is that in the vast majority of cases, chickenpox is a benign, selflimiting disease in children. Natural immunity, derived from contracting the disease, is permanent. Vaccine-induced immunity, on the other hand, is only temporary, lasting an estimated six to 10 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 on healthy children. Barbara Loe Fisher, cofounder and president of the NVIC, elaborates: "Our organization is questioning the recommendation...that all healthy children be vaccinated with the chickenpox vaccine...."...In children, chickenpox is, by and large, a very mild disease. The case/fatality ratio in healthy children is 1 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. "The other thing about the chickenpox vaccine is that the vaccine virus could lie dormant in vaccinated individuals, and then reactivate later in life in the form of herpes zoster, which is also known as shingles, or perhaps [in the form of] other immune system disorders...." Fisher is not the only one to question the appropriateness of the official recommendations concerning this vaccination. According to the results of one survey, 58 percent of pediatricians interviewed did not recommend varicella vaccination of all infants.[232]Discounting the numerous concerns of doctors, researchers, and parents, in February 1999 the CDC expanded its guidelines for varicella vaccination and required that all children entering child care centers and elementary and middle schools receive varicella vaccination unless they have evidence of immunity.[233]In the meantime, 6,580 adverse events-including 14 deaths-were reported to the Vaccine Adverse Events Reporting System in association with varicella vaccination between March 17, 1995 and July 25, 1998.[234] The actual number could be at least 10 times higher, if we take into consideration the proven fact that only 10 percent of adverse events are commonly reported.Another concern regards pregnant women. Normally, 90 percent 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 10 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.[235] Thus, we need lifelong immunity from natural infection.In addition, children born from women whose vaccine-induced immunity has faded are unprotected during their first year of life, when their immune system is still developing, and may suffer fatal complications should they be exposed to the infection.Is the Chickenpox Vaccine Effective? If the effectiveness of the vaccine is measured by its ability to prevent the disease from occurring, the answer is simply no. As we read in an article published in Pediatrics, "In 1998, three years after vaccine licensure, child care centers in Los Angeles County continued to report varicella outbreaks." These outbreaks occurred in child care centers with high vaccine coverage as well as in those with low coverage, meaning that the infection spread regardless of child vaccination status.[236]An interesting article clearly shows how questionable the data are claiming reductions of diseases following immunization campaigns. This is what often happens: Reporting of a specific disease is encouraged until the start of a vaccination program. Thus, the disease appears to be present at certain rates. Then, after the vaccine enters the market, reporting is no longer required and therefore not done, and the rates of the disease seem to drop. But in reality the drop results from changes in reporting requirements and practices, not from an actual decline in the number of cases.Vaccination against chickenpox will not prevent a child from contracting the disease. Rates of infection in vaccinated individuals-so-called "breakthrough varicella"-range from 18 percent to 34 percent in the 10 years following immunization.[237], [238], [239] Furthermore, even if vaccination reduces the number of skin lesions, the duration of the infection, and the occurrence of fever in individuals who develop breakthrough disease, it does not reduce the rate of constitutional complaints and that of complications.[240]One study found that 18.6 percent of children who responded to varicella vaccination developed breakthrough disease after exposure to the infection in the five to 10 years following immunization.[241] Another study showed that 20-30 percent of vaccinees developed varicella in the 10 years following immunization.[242]In a third study, 34 percent of individuals vaccinated against chickenpox developed breakthrough disease in the seven to 10 years following immunization.[243]FURTHER READINGS: Articles discuss the potential downside to the mass use of the chickenpox vaccine and reactions associated with it.[244], [245],  [246]Hepatitis B VaccineThe hepatitis B vaccine, commercially available in the United States since 1982, was supposed to be given to every American child within 12 hours of birth. In spite of this measure, "the incidence of acute hepatitis B in this country has risen from 55 per 100,000 in 1981 to 63 per 100,000 in 1987," according to the New England Journal of Medicine.[247]          Additionally, strong side effects have been reported following the use of this vaccine. In 1990, the Journal of Pediatric Child Health had this to say on the subject: "There have...been reported six serious illnesses in a series of 200,000 hepatitis vaccinations, including aseptic meningitis, grand mal seizure, and possible transverse myelitis, as well as 56 minor illnesses considered likely due to the vaccine. These minor illnesses include neurological tremors, Bell's palsy, hives, herpes zoster, psoriasis, musculoskeletal generalized myalgia, joint inflammation...influenza-like syndrome, injection site reaction, diarrhea, vomiting, and headache." The authors conclude with these recommendations: "Until further evidence can be gathered on possible side-effects or complications from the hepatitis B vaccine, it may be worth considering only giving the vaccine to people at high risk, rather than to all the population." According to Barbara Loe Fisher, "Today, hepatitis B recombinant vaccine used in the U.S. is derived from hepatitis B surface antigens produced in yeast cells. A portion of the hepatitis B virus gene is cloned into the yeast (a common baker's yeast) and the vaccine is produced from cultures of this recombinant yeast strain. The vaccine is treated with formaldehyde and contains...hepatitis B virus surface antigen...yeast protein [and] aluminum hydroxide...."[248]The unfortunate reality is that vaccination against hepatitis B has played an uncertain role in preventing the spread of the infection in high-risk individuals. In fact, the incidence of hepatitis B infection has risen 37 percent since the introduction of the vaccine.[249] Despite the evidence of vaccine failure, though, in 1991 the CDC recommended universal hepatitis B immunization of infants.[250]Though substantial decrease in deaths were shown for various illnesses throughout the 20th century, many illnesses still show a significant number of deaths, which calls to question what is really causing the decreases in deaths from particular illnesses:  For example, Hepatitis A was reduced from 117,333 average deaths in the 20th century to 24, 291 in 2004.  Similarly, Hepatitis B went from 66, 232 per year during the entire 20th century to 17358 in 2004.  What is misleading about the chart is that we do not know how many people throughout the 20th century had been vaccinated against hepatitis before they died, or that the apparent greater than 70% decrease in deaths for both Hep A and Hep B were due to vaccination or other health factors.  It is also known that Hep B infection when untreated can cause liver cancer, so we may not know the final outcomes for some Hep B related mortality for those who were infected in the year 2004, for some time yet.Health care workers have not rushed to get this injection. A 1990 article in the British Medical Journal reports that 86 percent of 598 doctors questioned about hepatitis B vaccine believed all general practitioners should receive it, but 309 of these doctors had not been vaccinated themselves.[251] In another study, only 25 percent of nurses and 49 percent of doctors had been immunized, despite the fact that 87 percent of the medical staff and 57 percent of the nurses reported a history of needle stick injury.[252] And the reaction among family physicians is even less enthusiastic: Only 17 percent of 300 family physicians agreed that a recommendation of hepatitis B vaccination was warranted for all newborns in their practice.[253]Is the Hepatitis B Vaccine Safe? As we learn from a study published in thePediatric Infectious Diseases Journal, between 1991 and 1994, 12,520 adverse reactions to hepatitis B vaccination were reported to the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System, with 14 percent of these reactions involving newborns and infants.[254]The fact is that the number of reports of complications following hepatitis B vaccination is growing steadily. The Association of American Physicians and Surgeons (AAPS) reports, "About one-third of the reactions were serious enough to result in an emergency room visit or hospitalization, and there were 440 deaths, including about 180 attributed to sudden infant death syndrome or SIDS."[255]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."[256]Dr. Jane M. Orient, executive director of the Association of American Physicians and Surgeons, puts the facts plainly. According to a recent federal government study, she says, "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."[257]Is the Hepatitis B Vaccine Effective? Vaccine supporters claim that the development of an antibody response to the virus contained in the vaccine equals protection against the disease. So we are now vaccinating millions of children against hepatitis B to prevent them from contracting the disease later in life. But for this to happen, the level of antibodies that are supposed to be protective has to remain high for very long periods. The evidence proves that this is not happening.A study published in the New England Journal of Medicine evaluated the persistence of anti-hepatitis-B antibodies in 773 homosexual men immunized against the virus. Of these, 635 produced antibodies. After five years, however, such antibodies no longer existed in 15 percent of the respondents, and their levels declined sharply-below levels deemed to be protective-in another 27 percent. In fact, hepatitis B developed in 55 men, and two individuals became carriers of the hepatitis B virus.[258] Another study shows that after three years, 36 percent of individuals who initially responded to the hepatitis B immunization lost anti-heptatitis-B antibodies.[259]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?          Adverse Reactions to Hepatitis B Vaccine. The National Vaccine Information Center, in its report on hepatitis B vaccination, cites 38 reports in the international medical literature presenting evidence that hepatitis B vaccination is causing chronic autoimmune and neurological disease in children and adults. Yet this is not information given in the vaccine manufacturer's literature.Tourbah et al. reported in a 1999 article published in the journal Neurology that eight patients developed encephalitis and central nervous system demyelinating disease within 10 weeks of receiving hepatitis B vaccination.[260]          FURTHER READINGS: Articles in the medical literature associate the hepatitis B vaccine with complications affecting the nervous system[261], [262], [263], [264]and the joints[265], [266], [267], [268], [269] as well as other adverse effects.[270]Measles/Mumps/Rubella (MMR)VaccineAs with hepatitis B, physicians are notoriously reluctant to follow their own advice when it comes to measles vaccination. One study reported that obstetrician gynecologists had the lowest vaccination rate among doctors for the German measles vaccine. Pediatricians didn't fare much better. The authors attributed such findings to "fear of unforeseen vaccine reactions."[271]The fact that the MMR vaccine is particularly ineffective, with a high percentage of those inoculated getting the disease, is undoubtedly a factor here.[272], [273], [274], [275], [276], [277], [278], [279], [280], [281], [282], [283]According to The New England Journal of Medicine, 60 percent of all measles cases among American schoolchildren between 1985 and 1986 occurred in those who were vaccinated.[284]  Scientist Trevor Gunn also points out that for several reasons, there is underreporting of illness caused by vaccination.  These include:  financial backlash from vaccination producers, and the restricted length of time for which adverse symptoms must occur-In England "72 hours for whooping cough and 8-20 hours for the MMRP" vaccines.The Journal of the American Medical Association published a study indicating that among 235 cases of student measles reported in Dane County, Wisconsin, in 1986, more than 96 percent had received a measles vaccine.[285]A study reported in Morbidity and Mortality Weekly found that 58 percent of 1,600 cases of measles in Quebec, Canada, in 1989 occurred in those who had already been vaccinated.[286]And the World Health Organization has conceded that those administered the measles vaccine have a 14 times greater likelihood of contracting the disease than those who remain unvaccinated.[287]Jamie Murphy, author of What Every Parent Should Know About Childhood Immunization, believes that the vaccine may in fact be causing the illness. "In one Chicago study," he says, "90 percent of people vaccinated for measles got measles. Another group did not get vaccinated and had a very low percentage of measles." Murphy believes that this information should serve as a red flag, causing people to realize that vaccines are not working.[288]Murphy's observation raises a question that no one has answered: Why are people who are vaccinated for these conditions getting them? He thinks the answer is that the vaccine does not provide true immunization."The vaccine can never duplicate the kind of immunity that we get from nature. Back in the 1950s, when I got the measles and 80 percent of children got either measles or mumps...it strengthened your immune system....Also, when a natural epidemic of measles occurs, as it does every three to four years in the United States, those children who have been vaccinated, because they did not get a true immunity from the vaccine, become susceptible to measles."The CDC states that there has been a resurgence of measles in the United states in the past few years, but attributes the problem to the rise in un-vaccinated children.Murphy argues that rather than preventing measles, the vaccine may simply be suppressing it, only to have it manifest as other forms of disease with age.[289] 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...."[290]          Results of two separate studies by the Institute of Medicine, one in 1991 and another in 1994, showed there to be strong evidence that the MMR vaccine can cause acute arthritis, anaphylaxis, thrombocytopenia, and even death.[291]Even the package insert accompanying the MMR vaccine says that the vaccine may lead to arthritis or arthralgia, either long-term or temporary.[292] Meryl Dorey, editor of the Australian publication Vaccination? The Choice is Yours and president of the Australian Vaccination Network, points out that the MMR vaccine is also associated with Guillain-Barre paralysis, multiple sclerosis, and aseptic meningitis, a swelling of the lining of the brain, which can be fatal. "According to Japanese studies," she notes, "one in 1,044 children who get this vaccine can get aseptic meningitis. It's one of the reasons why Japan withdrew the use of the MMR vaccine in 1994."[293]Viera Scheibner, a retired research scientist, reports that "In April 1993, the Ministry of Health and Welfare in Japan decided to discontinue the use of measles, mumps, and rubella vaccine (Sawada et al., 1993). This decision was prompted by published reports of vaccinated children and their (unvaccinated) contacts contracting mumps from the MMR vaccine, and reports of one in 1,044 vaccinees developing encephalitis."[294], [295]Dorey highlights the problem of shed vaccine virus, noting that it is incorrect to say that the MMR vaccine viruses are not infectious. "According to a study published in the British Medical Journal, July 4, 1987, immunocompromised children should be kept away from MMR vaccinated children for two weeks after vaccination due to the...[possible shedding] of the virus."These events of infection occur because the vaccines contain live virus which can grow in the body and are excreted by the body."[296], [297]  The CDC tells us that in 1967 the "mumps vaccination was licenced." [298]  However, 22 years later, in 1989, the Urabe strain of the Mumps virus was removed from Canadian vaccines because of a meningitis outbreak. Trevor Gunn cites that during this time in the UK:"cross linking laboratory and hospital reports to vaccination records records, the [perceived low risk from meningitis from this particular vaccine] rose to between 1 in 4000 and 1 in 21,000."These figures led to the removal of this strain in the UK by 1992.  (From the 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)Measles VaccineA study published in 1994 in the Archives of Internal Medicine evaluated all U.S. and Canadian articles reporting measles outbreaks in schools and found that, on average, 77 percent of all measles cases in these outbreaks were occurring among vaccinated individuals. The authors concluded that "the apparent paradox is that as measles immunization rates rise to high levels in a population, measles becomes a disease of immunized persons."[299]One of the reasons for the resurgence of measles infection is that the antibody response to the vaccine virus is only temporary. One study shows that four years after MMR vaccination, measles antibodies fall below the putative protective levels in 28 percent of children and are no longer present in another 3 percent of vaccinees.[300] Experimenting with high-potency vaccines produced even poorer results.[301]These are just samples of the numerous studies showing that the supposed protection offered by the vaccine is short-lasting. By contrast, natural immunity-that derived from contracting the disease-is permanent and is transferred from mothers to the babies in utero through the placenta. At birth, babies born from 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 on 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 published in the journal Pediatrics. Researchers found that 71 percent of 9-monthold infants and 95 percent of 12-month-olds had no detectable neutralizing measles antibodies in their blood. All infants with detectable measles antibodies at 9 or 12 months had mothers born before 1963, before the vaccine era.[302]Measles infection is still a severe disease in adults. A study published in theAmerican Journal of Medicine in 1993 shows that, of 68 patients over 14 years old who developed measles, 33 required hospitalization. Of these, nine were admitted to the intensive care unit, six required mechanical ventilation, and two died. The authors concluded: "Measles in adults may result in severe, life-threatening complications that utilize substantial medical resources. Physicians need to appreciate the clinical presentations and manifestations of severe measles in adults and to provide measles vaccine to nonimmune adults during community-wide outbreaks."[303] Again, immunization has failed to protect children from infection and has created a vulnerable population of infants and adults who are at risk of developing severe complications. What is the remedy proposed? Again-more vaccination!Another problem found with measles vaccination, documented in several studies, is that it produces immune suppression that contributes to an increased susceptibility to other infections.[304] One study shows that immunization with live measles virus vaccine produces transient immune depression in vaccine recipients.[305]Trevor Gunn, BSc, wrote an article to the World Health Organization on the inadequacies he feels regarding the safety claims made by vaccine administrators particularly with regards to measles vaccinations around the world:[306]Mr. Gunn felt he was misunderstood in his letter, by the WHO representative who responded to him, CJ Clements, saying that Mr. Gunn claimed that vaccines provided no safety, when, in fact, Mr. Gunn was only demonstrating the shortcomings in the studies that the WHO used to 'prove' effectiveness of vaccines when he requested that the World Health Organization prove the effectiveness of vaccines before continuing to give them.First of all, he pointed out that studies on effectiveness use sero-conversion, or antibody presence in the blood stream to indicate effectiveness of vaccines.  Mr. Gunn points out that the amount of antibody presence the blood does not correlate with the body's ability to fight illness.  Mr Gunn states,  "in the UK the government health authority quotes figures of the measles vaccine as being 90% effective."[307]Mr. Gunn points out that this does not mean that the vaccine is 90% effective in preventing illness, but it means that it produces antibodies in the patients 90% of the time.  Mr. Gunn calls for more accurate studies that measure the level of disease protection afforded to populations, after they've been inoculated, using cohort groups matched for age, population and disease exposure similarities, etc.  A 1991 Press Release by the CDC entitled:  Immunization Initiative, praises the benefits of immunization and gives a basis for the quoted figure of 90% effectiveness of vaccinations mentioned in the above Trevor Gunn article:The CDC's evidence for "saving countless lives and preventing untold illness and suffering" is as follows: First, they cite a figure that before the use of the measles vaccine in 1963 , between half and one million people had measles per year, from which 500-1000 people succumbed mortally.  We remember here, however, David Francis' point that "improved nutrition and public health measures in children were more important than medical intervention in 1900", at the height of the measles outbreak in America, and although the author claims that measles is making a comeback in recent years, he does not give the figures on how he infers that the number spiked in the late 1980s as compared to the vaccine's effectiveness in first the two decades since its use.He does state, however, "a number of urban epidemics of measles [happened] during 1989 and 1990."  It is important that we examine the numbers of measles cases that were reduced, however, after the introduction of the measles vaccine.  From the Greg Beattie book, "Vaccination A Parent's Dilemma", from 1960-1970, the death rate from measles remains essentially flat.  The CDC report, however, stated that, "in the last 2 years, 45,000 cases of measles and over 100 deaths occurred."  The author cites that, "Almost one-half of all cases have occurred in unvaccinated preschool children."  We do not, however, learn in this article, how many deaths occurred in the un-vaccinated group.The author seems to be using this figure to bolster his argument that measles cases rose as a result of lack of vaccinations.  However, if half of all cases of measles occurred in children who were un-vaccinated, then according to his reasoning measles should not have occurred in a significant number of children who were in fact vaccinated.  Public health officials tend to use the counter intuitive claim that the un-vaccinated children provide a contagious health risk to those who are in fact vaccinated.  This seems to belie the whole premise that the vaccination is supposed to protect the child who has been inoculated.  There seems to be some magical thinking with some public health officials regarding the so called, herd immunity-that it only works if all or most children are vaccinated.We note here especially, the two year period following the 1963 introduction of the measles vaccine, that David  Francis stated that the childhood decline in mortality rate was still, "essentially flat," as noted in our paragraph above.  The CDC is proud of the figure that measles deaths were reduced from 4 million per year throughout the 20th century to 37 in 2004.[1]  Trevor Gunn notes, however, that other public health factors play a significant role in outcomes of disease in third world countries.In another report from the WHO on a previously mentioned project in Bangladesh, Gunn points out that in one area, the study showed 36% effectiveness, and another area showed 46% effectiveness.  This was due, the WHO said, to a local epidemic of diarrea which affected the outcome of mortality.  In addition to Mr Gunn's assertions, the WHO's defense also points out the weakness of a one -point solution to a region where childhood mortality is caused by a host of factors, including the main one, (which is lack of nutrition and clean drinking water.)  Another study, E. Holt, et al from the Journal of Pediatrics, Vol. 85, No 2 pp188-194, February 1990[308] studied measles outbreaks in a particular area in Tahiti.  Although the study was nine months in length as opposed to the 10 months in the previous study, it showed greater effectiveness in death reduction than the previous Bangladeshi study.  Dr. Gunn suggests that the paper may be manifesting the common trait among many vaccine cohort studies that he quotes from the Lancet, "gains in survival of a vaccinated group tend to diminish over time to approach a survival rate of unvaccinated individuals"[309]. (The Lancet April 4, 1981 765).Mr. Gunn points out the difficulties with several of the third world studies with regards to vaccine effectiveness in measles and other illnesses:  In the study, P. Aby, et Al, Pediat Infec DisJ 8: 197-200, 1989[310], Gunn tries to answer whether the measles vaccination would lead to greater or fewer deaths, due to the benefits provided by measles in the form of natural immunity in developing countries.  While this is a good question ideally, points out Mr. Gunn, the experiment was poorly carried out:  Although the study claims that the vaccine prevented 30% of measles death, the methods of the paper reveal that the control group was not a nonvaccinated group, but included children who did not sero-convert, and so were assumed to have no immune response to the vaccine.  In this case, then, we would not know whether deaths in the control group were due directly to the vaccine, due to lack of effectiveness of the vaccine, or due to lack of natural immunity provided by the measles itself.In another group of people in this study, 15 out of 123 did not have antibody conversion after vaccination, so their results were excluded as well.  Three of this group actually died.  In this case, then, we do not know the cause of death of those who died, and we still do not find out if those remaining 12 who did not register measles antibodies in their blood, were prevented from getting measles at all.In referring to a paper by Clemens et al, American Journal of Epidemiology, Vol 128, No. 6 1330-39[311], Mr. Gunn complains that the cohort group of the study was cherry picked for people who did not have a history of measles.  Mr. Gunn pointed out that this group may have been less likely to die either from measles in general, or may in general be heartier than the people who were selected against in the study.Gunn points out that : "In the UK, over 95% of the mortality had occurred before the introduction of the measles vaccine."  In addition, therefore, in a developed country, it is difficult to assess the particular role in health prevention vaccination plays, because specific tests have not been developed to test vaccination related disease prevention.  He also states that it must be important to assess the risks of any new medical product administered to the children of an entire population.  He points out the hypocrisy of such organizations as the American Academy of Pediatrics, whose officials claim that, "the benefits of immunization far outweigh the risks," without in reality examining the actual safety of these vaccines.Gunn points out that there is evidence which links inoculation with illness: The Lancet, Vol. 345, April 29, 1995, shows that there is a link between Crohn's Disease and the Measles vaccination: the manufacturer's label includes the possible adverse effects:  "fever, rash, coryza, pharyngitis, bronchitis, convulsions, encephalitis, thrombocytic purpura, and even death." Although some researchers point to good news, "specifically it has been shown that children contracting measles were less likely to suffer from allergic conditions such as asthma, eczema, and hayfever," (Lancet June 29, 1996)  Gunn also points out that infection may cause deleterious effects without the usual measles rash, causing, "sebaceous skin diseases, degenerative diseases of bone and cartilage, and certain tumours."  He states that the Lancet study, January 5, 1985 suggests that interference with the body's own symptomology by repressing measles rash symptoms could in fact, interfere with the body's ability to fight the illness altogether.  Gunn's rationale for bolstering this idea is the study he mentions from the (American Journal of Medicine, Volume 68, pps 344-355, 1980) that people are more likely to die from an infection if they are unable to produce a fever in response to it.  Mumps VaccineAseptic meningitis has been epidemiologically associated with receipt of the mumps vaccine.[312] In 1989, it was finally determined that it was the strain of virus used in the vaccine that caused mumps meningitis. The virus isolated from patients who developed meningitis 21 days after injection was identical to that used in the vaccine. Aypical mumps contracted after receipt of the vaccine is another problem. In 1980, reports surfaced of atypical mumps in previously vaccinated children, with symptoms including fever, appetite loss, nausea, and a generalized rash. The atypical mumps occurred when wild natural mumps virus circulated among unvaccinated children-a normal event associated with immune system development in humans. All the children contracting atypical mumps had been injected with viral vaccine five to seven years earlier.Concerning the mumps vaccine's effectiveness, the scenario with mumps is very similar to that with measles. There are several studies reporting outbreaks of mumps occurring in populations with virtually complete vaccine coverage. Cheek et al., for example, writing in the Archives of Pediatric and Adolescent Medicine, report a measles outbreak in a highly vaccinated (more than 95 percent) high school population. Fifty-three of 54 students who got the disease were vaccinated.[313]Another study reported an outbreak of mumps in a Tennessee school with 98 percent vaccine coverage, where 67 of 68 students who got mumps had been previously vaccinated. Thus, mumps cases in this instance were attributed mostly to vaccine failure.[314]While 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.[315]Perhaps the boldest statement on the efficacy of the mumps vaccine in preventing the disease comes from the authors of a study conducted in Switzerland. They conducted an epidemiological analysis of mumps cases there and 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."[316]Rubella VaccineUnfortunately, rubella vaccination is similar to measles and mumps immunization in terms of lack of efficacy in preventing the targeted disease. A study published in the European Journal of Epidemiology shows that after the Swiss began a rubella mass vaccination campaign in 1985, the incidence of rubella remained unchanged during the period from 1987 to 1992. The authors concluded: "MMR mass vaccination has not interrupted the circulation of rubella virus in Switzerland."[317]Also, a study published in the Journal of the American Medical Association in 1981 shows that 15 years after receiving rubella vaccination, one in 11 children lost protection from the vaccine and became susceptible to re-infection.[318] This is particularly 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 vaccination is creating serious problems down the line.Viera Scheibner has looked in depth into the research on rubella, and informs us: "As Cherry (1980) wrote, despite distribution of over 83 million doses of rubella vaccine since 1969, there were periodic upswings in incidence. There was also a shift in the age groups susceptible to rubella. 'Essentially, we have controlled the disease in persons 14 years of age or younger but have given it a free hand in those 15 or older.' "[319], [320]Scheibner adds: "In August 1991, the Institute of Medicine released a report on adverse effects of pertussis and rubella vaccines. The evidence indicated a causal relationship between RA 27/3 rubella vaccine and acute arthritis in 13 percent to 15 percent of adult women. Also some individuals were shown to go on to develop chronic arthritis."[321]FURTHER READINGS: Articles associate the MMR vaccine with adverse reactions affecting the nervous system,[322], [323], [324], [325], [326]the GI tract,[327] and joints.[328], [329], [330]In Part 3: The smallpox and rotavirus vaccines, provocation diseases associated with vaccines, economic, political and legal issues, and the right to refuse vaccination.Vaccination: Pain, Profit, and Politics - Part 3By Gary Null, Ph.D., and Martin Feldman, M.D.In Parts 1 and 2 of this series, we examined factors countering our beliefs that vaccines are safe and effective. We also discussed the effects of specific vaccines, including those for diphtheria, pertussis and tetanus, polio, chickenpox, hepatitis B, and measles, mumps and rubella. In this final installment, we look at the smallpox vaccine, the withdrawn rotavirus vaccine, and the provocation diseases associated with vaccines. Finally, we discuss the economic, political and legal issues of vaccination, the right to refuse vaccination, and the need to achieve freedom of choice.The Smallpox VaccineSmallpox was the impetus for the invention of the vaccine in the New World.  It "was introduced into the Americas in the 16th Century and Australia in the 18th Century.  It had been present in Africa, Asia and Europe since at least 400 BCE."[331] It was said to have traveled along trade routes and to have erupted every ten years.  Variolation, the process of sharing a small bit of infected matter with an uninfected person started in Africa and was present in Europe in the 18th century.  From the US National library of Medicine, "In contrast to Asians and Africans who inoculated by blowing dried smallpox scabs up the nose, Europeans and their American cousins tended to inoculate through a puncture in the skin."[332]  Some, however, died as a result of the procedure, and epidemics were also started this way.  It is also widely known that measles infections in families were 'gotten through with' by making sure that if one child got telltale signs of swollen glands and fever, the other children in the home or the neighborhood were invited to share a bedroom, in order to spread the infection and get it over all at once.  Even in the late      20th century, well into the 1970's, chickenpox was shared in much the same way, allowing children in a family or a neighborhood to get through the infection, with the assumption that it could cause greater complications as an adult, and that infection would not likely occur twice.  It was Jenner who first popularized the vaccine program with his smallpox vaccine. A close look at history reveals that the procedure never worked, however. Neil Miller, a medical research journalist, natural health advocate and author of Immunization Theory Vs. Reality: Expos on Vaccinations,[333] summarizes the story, as follows: "In 1796, Jenner came on the scene saying that when dairy maids caught cowpox they could no longer catch smallpox. His medical colleagues disputed his claims, as the research of the times indicated numerous cases of dairy maids and other individuals catching cowpox and coming down with smallpox. Yet Jenner persisted, and he published a treatise on this idea in 1798. He called his treatise Inquiry, and became famous for it."Edward Jenner, a country doctor and a Fellow of the Royal Society formulated the idea of vaccines fashioned after the old country tale that those who got cowpox were protected from smallpox. In order to test this theory, on May 14, 1796, he removed some fluid from Sarah Nelmes' hand which had cow pox lesions, and injected it into the arm of James Phipps, who was a healthy eight year old boy. Later, Jenner injected the boy with smallpox.[334] When James did not come down with smallpox, Jenner concluded "that the cow-pox protectsthe human constitution from the infection of smallpox"[335]   He subsequently self-published An Inquiry into the Causes and Effects of the Variola Vaccine in June 1798 detailing the James Phipps experiment along with other observations. Jenner's cowpox vaccine consisted of dry or liquid pus taken from the ulcers of cows or humans with cowpox or from the pustules of horses with horse-grease, an infection of the heel. Inoculation involved cutting a small hole into the skin and inserting the virus from the pus into the arms of the patients with a lancet.  Then Jenner's method of transferring a small amount of infected smallpox material from one person to another, as we learned earlier, is called variolation, and there were many variations of this procedure.  Critics noted that variolous inoculation, however, could cause bad cases of smallpox, so intricate methods were developed to administer it:  Typically, a lancet was used to insert variolous material into a small cut of the skin. The variolous matter was taken from someone going through the earliest stage of a mild smallpox vesicle growth in which there was barely any fluid. This material was then inserted into one patient. Subsequently when mild symptoms occurred, new material was taken from that patient and then used on other patients. The process of collecting variolous matter was continued from arm to arm.[336] A smallpox epidemic in France revealed that the inoculation failed badly to protect the patients of Dr. Gatti in France. As a result, Paris outlawed these inoculation practices. [337]Jenner, however, espoused a milder technique of variolation: "I have the strongest reason for supposing that if either the punctures or incisions be made so deep as to go through it and wound the adipose membrane, that the risk of bringing on a violent disease is greatly increased. I have known an inoculator whose practice was to cut deep enough (to use his own expression) to see a bit of fat," and there to lodge the matter. The great number of bad cases, independent of inflammations and abscesses on the arms, and the fatality, which attended this practice, was almost inconceivable; and I cannot account for it on any other principle than that of the matter being placed in this situation instead of the skin. It was the doctor's practice to make as slight an incision as possible upon the skin, and there to lodge a thread saturated with the variolous matter... it has been proved that variolous matter, when much diluted with water and applied to the skin in the usual manner, will produce the disease." Creighton, a 19th century historian put it this way, "The matter for inoculation was not taken from a natural or accidental eruption of smallpox; it was taken from the local pustule alone of an artificial inoculation, and it was taken from the very earliest period of the local pustule at which any fluid could be got at all, or "just before the commencement of the eruptive fever."[338]Critics of variolation cite that over scrupulous variolators could actually fail to give any inoculation at all: By that means, as [Salmade], a French variolator of the time reports, " the smallpox becomes at length weakened to the point of nullity, so that the last inoculations are without effect."[339]  Thus, weakened variolation might not cause any illness, but it also might not engender any immunity, either.[340]Jenner's early efforts to coerce his colleagues to his way of thinking were "ineffectual; his brethren were acquainted with the rumor, but they looked upon it as one of those vague notions from which no accurate or valuable information could be gathered, especially as most of them had met with cases in which those who were supposed to have had cowpox had subsequently been affected with smallpox."[341]Creighton added, "Certainly for those who knew by inspection what the pox of the cows' teats was, and most of all for those who had suffered the painful and often obdurate ulcers on their own hands, there would be no suggestion of real likeness to smallpox, or of the one disease being in any way related to the other. It was the jingle of the names that brought the two together in the first instance."[342] The "diseases themselves were totally unlike. It was just because Jenner had no profound sense of these empirical realities that he went blundering into visionary nonsense in the first instance, and at length into systematic mystification and chicane[ry]."[343]  "In the monograph by Nicholas Massa, of Venice, he says they [smallpox pustules] occurred over the whole body-on the limbs, on the face and head, and amongst the roots of the hair. In his particular description we find such terms as elevated, tumid, moist; red, livid, whitish; small, dry, itching ; broad, flat, soft. They came out comparatively early in the disease (second or third week even), and their outbreak was often the signal for the notorious pains in the head and limbs to abate."[344]  Cowpox, on the other hand, was the ulcerous pox of the cows' teats, which can infest the skin, namely the hands, of those who milk the cows. Those infected will also feel a flu-like illness often accompanied with swollen and painful glands in the armpits. Horse-grease, another illness which Jenner conflated into his smallpox theory affected the hocks of horses causing inflammation and swelling.  Contact with the diseased heels created an infection with burning white blisters which later become painful corroding ulcers.[345]  Clayton, a veterinarian in Jenner's county spoke of the separate nature of horse grease from cowpox:  He wrote that he was "extensively employed, particularly in curing the [horse-]grease" and also elaborated that "the grease is most prevalent in the winter, at which time he has never known the cowpox to occur... [also] he could not recollect ever to have had horses with the grease and cows with the cowpox under care at the same farm... [Furthermore] he is very certain he has frequently had cows with the cowpox, where no horses whatever have been kept."[346] However, Jenner did not see it that way. In the opening of the first chapter of his Inquiry, he wrote that horse-grease "is an inflammation and swelling in the heel, from which issues matter possessing properties of a very peculiar kind, which seems capable of generating a disease in the human body,...which bears so strong a resemblance to the smallpox that I think it highly probable it may be the source of the disease.Jenner's Inquiry paved the way for universal acceptance of vaccination as a gold standard of modern medicine's ability to protect us from disease. Jenner's previous "medical papers" however, were spurious. Previous to his papers on cow-pox, one was on the subject of preparing a tartar emetic, and an another was on the observation of calcified coronary arteries of the heart in a case of someone who suffered from angina pectoris. His "philosophical papers " are represented solely as observations on the cuckoo, in the Philosophical Transactions for 1788." [347] It was this paper on the cuckoo, which was essentially a piece of fantasy,  that propelled Jenner into the Royal Society which was chaired at that time by Sir Joseph Banks, a friend of Jenner's, a year later.[348]Jenner's Inquiry paper involved about 2 years of research and one single experiment involving cowpox and smallpox inoculations on the one patient, James Phipps. His status as a fellow of the Royal Society and his strength as a salesman were the reasons for his success in twisting myth into science. Dr. Baron, Jenner's own biographer, wrote that Jenner frequently mentioned cowpox innoculation immunity to smallpox in the meeting at the Society which involved Fewster of Thornbury, the chief authority on cow-pox. Dr. Charles Creighton M.A. M.D, professor of Microscopic Anatomy at Cambridge, wrote the section on 'Vaccination' in the ninth edition of the Encyclopedia Britannica, published in 1888. A year later, he also wrote JENNER AND VACCINATION - A Strange Chapter of Medical History, a detailed history of Edward Jenner's professional life.  Creighton stressed that one danger in using variolous inoculation as a measuring stick for smallpox infection was that the cowpox vaccine "caused a swelling and obstruction of the absorbent glands in the armpit and neck, and to that extent made them incapable for the time, and in some cases for long after, of taking up and passing into the lymphatic circulation another virus inoculated under the skin at the same place... Apart from the swollen and clogged state of the absorbent glands after cowpox [inoculation], the mere presence of a sore of any kind on the arm served to divert and obviate the full action of a new infection"[349]Many of the children used as test subjects were from poor households, orphanages and foundling hospitals. These children often have chronic swelling of the lymphatic glands. Even Jenner noticed the tendency to resist variolous inoculation.  He said in his Inquiry, "There are many who, from some peculiarity in the habit, resist the common effects of variolous matter inserted into the skin."[350]He did not mention who these people are, nor did he feel the need to stop using the variolous test as barometer for smallpox immunity since he discovered some people are immune to the variolous test. James Phipps, living proof of Jenner's smallpox immunity, very likely fell into this category. After writing the Inquiry, Jenner noted that James "has been very unwell lately, I am afraid that he got tubercles in the lungs. He was recently inoculated for the smallpox... for the twentieth time, all without effect."[351] Being a test subject with numerous cowpox and variolous inoculations and having tubercles in the lungs are signs that James Phipps likely had swollen lymphatic glands too. Creighton elaborates in that "an eruption after cowpox has the same significance as an eruption after the pox proper; it is a secondary effect, or a sign that the constitution has been touched by the infection. A person still under the influence of the secondaries of cowpox would not be a likely subject for smallpox engrafted on the top of it... [Furthermore,] the mere presence on the skin of spots or pimples or vesicles or blebs would hinder the full evolution of smallpox by inoculation... The presence of any common eruption, even itch, was well known to prevent the cowpox itself from taking. Jenner began, about the year 1804, to explain the failure of cowpox by an ambitious doctrine of "herpes"... it had this grain of truth in it, that an infection inserted under the skin would not have a fair chance of being absorbed if the skin were already engaged with an eruption even of the most ordinary kind. In so far as that was a plea for the failure of cowpox, it was a plea for the failure of inoculated smallpox." [352]Ironically, the variolous inoculation was later used as one of the many excuses for cowpox vaccine failure and subsequently played a part in creating the first English mandatory vaccination program in 1853. The idea is that variolous inoculations were, in addition to causing the smallpox revival, encouraged people to ignore the 'true protector', cowpox vaccine. In 1840, England, spurred on by the Medical Society, passed a law to protect the public from variolous inoculation under penalty of imprisonment. The strict penalty was made by Mr. Wakley, editor of The Lancet.  He blamed variolous inoculation for 17,000 smallpox deaths in one year, and he also added that smallpox would disappear if variolations were prevented and vaccination adopted.[353]There was, however a general revival of variolous inoculations over cowpox vaccination. Despite the fact that the public had 40 years of Jenner's vaccination, smallpox was still a continuous plague. Creighton wrote, "In the disastrous epidemic among children at Norwich in 1819, ...due to overcrowding of the town by a great influx of families from the country while trade was brisk, the failures of vaccination were so obvious to those directly concerned that the common people insisted on having their children inoculated in the old way to save them from the contagion."[354]In 1853, the Compulsory Vaccination Act was instituted, mandating vaccination for children. Built on the precedent of the law that made variolation illegal in Great Britain in 1840, the new idea, propagated by the Vaccination Committee, was that preventing smallpox required the cowpox vaccine.[355]Yet despite the vaccinations, from 1857 to 1859, the smallpox epidemic killed 14,244 people. From 1863 to 1865, a second outbreak claimed 20,059 lives. A more stringent compulsory vaccination law was passed in 1867, and those who evaded inoculation were prosecuted. An intensive four-year effort to vaccinate all people between the ages of 2 and 50 resulted in 97.5 percent of the population being vaccinated. The following year, though, England experienced its worst-ever smallpox epidemic; 44,840 lives were lost. Overall, from 1871 to 1880, during this period of compulsory vaccination, the death rate from smallpox leapt from 28 to 46 per 100,000.The early years of the 19th century in Europe saw a noticeable reduction of the epidemic outbreaks of the all disease including smallpox. This fact gave ammunition to the vaccine establishment. In 1904, Dr. Charles Ruata, M.D. pointed out the specifics in the rise and fall of diseases in England in the period before and after the turn of the 19th century. Using data from the Reports of the Royal Commission, who have a pro-vaccination view, and from the annual reports of the Registrar-General, he made twelve charts, "each showing the comparative rise or fall of small-pox mortality and other diseases in various places and under different conditions; and all these without exception demonstrate either that vaccination has no effect whatever, or that it tends to increase rather than decrease small-pox mortality."[356] His smallpox diagram of London shows that the disease "decreased during the ten years before vaccination at very nearly the same rate as it did in the ten years after vaccination...General mortality also decreased after 1800 more rapidly than before 1800. Yet the Royal Commissioners declare that there was nothing but vaccination to produce the decrease of small-pox, and that there was no improvement in sanitation in the beginning of the nineteenth century, as compared with the latter part of the eighteenth century, to account for the difference."[357]Ruata cited five primary reasons for the decline of most diseases in London after the 1700's. First, diseases, especially during epidemics, are much higher in cities. Many city dwellers moved to newly built "West-end squares and suburbs." Secondly, sanitation on the streets was improved, while the roads were better maintained. That lead to the third reason; better roads allowed more fresh meat, vegetables and milk to be brought into the city, which gave the inhabitants better nutrition. The fourth reason was an improved water supply. Finally, the dead were not rotting in the city anymore as cemeteries were built outside London while many city graveyards were permanently closed. He added that these results strikingly decreased, "the death-rate in a number of the most fatal diseases (as recorded in a Table by Dr. Farr, reprinted in the Third Report of the Royal Commission) to fully one-half in 1801-10 as compared with 1771-80; an amount of improvement which has never occurred in any similar period during the whole of the 270 years for which we have official statistics."[358]          One of the greatest smallpox epidemics in Europe happened between 1870 and 1872. By this time, cowpox vaccination was established with many countries adopting mandatory vaccination in at least some form. In German Prussia the official death count was 124, 948. No records were kept for the vaccinated or unvaccinated although there was some evidence that the vaccinated were at least comparable to the unvaccinated.[359] In England and Wales, the official registration report showed 42,210 deaths from 1871 to 1872. This is a staggering figure considering the fact that England established a mandatory children's vaccination program in 1853 under the strict penalty of imprisonment for violators.[360]  Leicester, a manufacturing town in England with 200,000 inhabitants, offers us a great insight into the nature of cowpox vaccination. Having suffered greatly in previous epidemics, Leicester was one of the most completely vaccinated towns in all of England up to 1872. According to Ruata, in 1871, the "small-pox deaths during that year...[were] more than 3,500 per million of the population, or about one thousand per million more than the mortality in London during the same epidemic. Here an almost completely vaccinated community suffered more than unvaccinated and terribly unsanitary London, on the average of the last forty years of the eighteenth century." After their horrible experiences, Leicesterians refused vaccination even under the threat of imprisonment. By 1890, their ratio of vaccinated versus unvaccinated was reversed to only 5 percent vaccinated. Doctors scolded them: "that once small-pox was introduced it would run through the town like wildfire and decimate the population. Yet it has been introduced again and again, but it has never spread; and from that day to this [1904], no town in the kingdom of approximately equal population has had such a very low small-pox mortality as this almost completely unvaccinated and--as the doctors say--unprotected population!"[361]Modern smallpox vaccinations include the following ingredients: " live vaccinia virus, with 'some microbial contaminants,' according to the Working Group on Civilian Biodefense, polymyxcin B sulfate, streptomycin sulfate, chlortetracycline hydrochloride, and neomycin sulfate, glycerin, and phenol -a compound obtained by distillation of coal tar, and vesicle fluid from calf skins."[362]The CDC website admits that the smallpox vaccine is not made from smallpox virus: "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."[363] Juniors at Stanford University, Jennifer Aguayo and Jessica Caldern, write, "Vaccinia virus is a big mystery in virology. It is not known whether vaccinia virus is the product of genetic recombination, or if it is a species derived from cowpox virus or variola virus by prolonged serial passage, or if it is the living representative of a now extinct virus."  The university of Florida College of medicine information page writes something similar: "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)."Historians cite improvements in America in the 20th century to the smallpox vaccine which included the pedal injection system for mass injections, a special 'bifurcated needle' in 1961 that penetrated the skin twice in one injection, and the all out mass eradication effort, called E2  which was considered to have wiped out smallpox on a grand scale in Sierra Leone.[364]  The CDC notes that smallpox was reduced from an average of 29,005 deaths per year during the 20th century to 0 cases on 2004.  In 1971 the CDC states that "small pox vaccination was ended in the United States." [365]Despite this fact, in 2001 as a result of terrorist threats, "the United States established a plan to reintroduce Smallpox vaccine if necessary."[366]Edward Jenner is indeed a man who changed the world. The current history displays a Renaissance man of great integrity, but with the bogus variolous tests and cries of spurious cowpox, Jenner managed to create a myth of smallpox immunity from his cowpox vaccines. That myth became a Teflon medical dogma. In spite of the overwhelming evidence of cowpox vaccination failures during the many smallpox epidemics, vaccination was still propped up as a gold standard of medicine by an industry that would not let it die. The result of the vaccine establishment's tenacity is the resurgence of the boast that vaccination eliminated smallpox today. A vaccine is created only for one purpose and one alone; that is to provide immunity to the vaccinated from the attack of the single disease that it was made to defend against. If cowpox vaccine works, there should not even be one death from smallpox in the vaccinated. Jenner stated in his Inquiry, unequivocally, "that the person who has been thus affected [by vaccination] is forever after secure from the infection of the smallpox." The number of smallpox deaths in the vaccinated in the past 200 years is also unequivocal; truthfulness aside. Proper hygiene, sanitation and better living conditions are the true conquerors of smallpox.Rotavirus Vaccine  Rotavirus is a common virus that usually causes mild and selflimiting diarrhea in children. In 1998 Wyeth Laboratories, Inc., of American Home Products, released RotaShield, a new vaccine against the infection. Since four major types of rotavirus cause disease in humans, the vaccine was tetravalent, consisting of genes from four viral strains. The Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP), American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) and American Academy of Family Physicians (AAFP) recommended universal use of RotaShield for healthy infants at 2, 4, and 6 months of age. (Although the AAFP had been in favor of voluntary vaccination or vaccination of high-risk infants only, the ACIP had wanted the universal recommendation.) A year later, though, the vaccine was removed from the market after 99 cases of bowel intussusception-a bowel obstruction in which one segment of the intestine telescopes inwardly into another-and two deaths were reported to the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System.Bowel intussusception is a severe condition that often requires surgical intervention and can lead to death in the absence of prompt treatment. For example, of the first 15 reported infants who developed bowel intussusception, eight had to have surgical reduction, including one infant who had 7 inches of intestine removed. (1) These 15 cases, it should be noted, constituted but a small fraction of the actual number of intussusception cases caused by RRV-TV, as the new vaccine was called. According to the Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report of July 16, 1999, "because reporting to VAERS of adverse events following vaccination is incomplete, the actual number of intussusception cases among RRV-TV recipients may be substantially greater than that reported."[367], [368] And so it was. As soon as the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) began warning doctors about the possibility of this complication, cases of bowel intussusception started being reported around the country. This is yet another important example of how vaccine complications, unless specifically looked for, go unnoticed by the medical community and thus by society at large.After it was approved, an estimated 1 million U.S. infants were vaccinated with RotaShield. What is even worse about the history of the rotavirus vaccine is not only the fact that it caused the hospitalization and deaths of several children, but the fact that prelicensure trials had already demonstrated that it caused bowel intussusception at rates 30 times higher than those expected. This is what emerged from analysis of prelicensure trial data by the Association of American Physicians and Surgeons (AAPS).[369]Is the Approval Process Tainted? So here is the question: If the fact that the vaccine could cause a potentially lethal complication was already known, why did the FDA approve it? Why had nobody warned doctors to watch for this complication? Indeed, these and more questions prompted the AAPS to request a Congressional investigation of the vaccine approval process. As Dr. Jane Orient, executive director of the AAPS, writes 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."[370]Lessons of HistoryAs we've seen again and again, there has been a direct relationship between vaccinations and an increased incidence of the diseases they supposedly prevent. This contradiction has prompted several researchers to conclude that vaccines are neither safe nor effective.          In a 1926 British Medical Journal article, a Dr. Parry asks why vaccine statistics reveal a higher death rate among the vaccinated: "How is it that smallpox is five times as likely to be fatal in the vaccinated as in the unvaccinated? How is it that in some of our best vaccinated towns, for example, Bombay and Calcutta, smallpox is rife, while in some of our worst vaccinated towns, such as Leicester, it is almost unknown? How is it that something like 80 percent of the cases admitted into the smallpox hospitals have been vaccinated, while only 20 percent have not been vaccinated? How is it that in Germany, the best vaccinated country in the world, there are more deaths in proportion to the population than in England? For example, 28 deaths in England in 1919 per 100,000, and 707 in Germany? What is the explanation?"[371]Tuberculosis. Trevor Gunn makes the point that "Improvements in living standards have almost as much an effect on reducing mortality as that predicted vaccination." Mr. Gunn responded to the allegations by the World Health Organization that double blind studies were unethical because they limit the control group from receiving the benefits of life saving immunity. First of all, he pointed out that double blind placebo controlled trials of tuberculosis vaccine were initiated after some children died after receiving inoculations from a contaminated batch of vaccines.  The results of the double blind study showed no increase in immunity from receiving the vaccination, and possible increase in actual tuberculosis cases for the cohort that did in fact receive the inocculations. Despite this fact, Gunn says the vaccine has continued to be used.  Gunn also points out other flaws in the tuberculosis studies, which he feels ought to be taken into account in all studies on vaccination effectiveness:1)That there were not standards for diagnosis, so that before and after comparisons of illness were not accurate.2)Studies did not take into account the importance of public health factors when examining illness related causes.          In addition, those who take issue with universal immunization programs point out that the programs don't discriminate between children who may benefit from a certain vaccine and those who might be hurt by it. Babies are given blanket immunization regardless of their previous or current state of health and regardless of their varying susceptibilities to side effects. Ideally, there should be a much more selective vaccination system, with parents given complete information so they can make up their own minds as to whether the risks associated with a particular procedure outweigh its potential benefits. Just as different races are known to suffer disproportionately from various allergies and food sensitivities, studies also indicate that they may experience different reactions to vaccines.Provocation DiseaseOne 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.[372], [373], [374], [375], [376], [377] The mechanisms that cause this to happen are unclear, although many scientists believe that latent viruses-those already existing within a person-may be stimulated by vaccinations, and that this may be enough to activate a particular illness. Vaccination, therefore, may not be the sole cause but rather the final trigger for an illness.In his book Vaccination and Immunization: Dangers, Delusions & Alternatives,[378]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 vaccination may produce this sort of provocation.[379] He goes on to warn 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. Some of the relationships between vaccines and the specific conditions they provoke are discussed below.Allergies. According to Dr. Harris Coulter, co-author of A Shot in the Dark[380] and author of Vaccinations, Social Violence, and Criminality, among other experts,[381]says that 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."Sudden Infant Death Syndrome (SIDS). Sadly, many studies have shown vaccination to be a cause of sudden infant death syndrome. Reports Alan Phillips, founding director of Citizens for Healthcare Freedom, Durham, N.C.: "One study found the peak incidence of SIDS occurred at the ages of 2 and 4 months in the U.S., precisely when the first two routine immunizations are given, while another found a clear pattern of correlation extending three weeks after immunization. Another study found that 3,000 children die within four days of vaccination each year in the U.S. (amazingly, the authors reported no SIDS/vaccine relationship), while yet another researcher's studies led to the conclusion that half of SIDS cases-that would be 2,500 to 5,000 infant deaths in the U.S. each year-are caused by vaccines."[382], [383], [384], [385]          According to Viera Scheibner, a retired research scientist, "Baraff et al. (1983) investigated 145 SIDS victims who died in Los Angeles County between January 1979 and August 1980: Fifty-three of these babies had received a DPT immunization, 27 within 28 days of death. Six deaths occurred within 24 hours and 17 occurred within 1 week of DPT immunization. These sudden infant deaths were 'significantly more than expected were there no association between DPT immunization and SIDS.' "[386], [387]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.In Immunization: The Reality Behind the Myth, author Walene James describes the mechanics involved in vaccines inducing autoimmune disorders: "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."[388]          Cynthia Cournoyer, author of What About Immunizations?, believes that a key principle involved in understanding the many negative effects of vaccines is the fact that the immune system can only tolerate 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 3 percent to 7 percent of the total immune capacity of an individual. In the case of routine childhood vaccination, it is likely that as much as 30 percent to 70 percent of total immune capacity becomes committed.          "These findings could indicate that a child's immunological reserves are substantially reduced due to standard vaccine programs. 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 antiinflammatory drugs do."[389], [390], [391]          Cournoyer 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."[392]Activists Speak Out on Vaccine DangersBarbara 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 shares her concerns about a number of issues, as do some of her colleagues engaged in the fight against government-mandated vaccines.Problems with Temporary Immunity and Benefits of Childhood Disease. Vaccines provide only temporary immunity, whereas when you get the natural disease you have permanent immunity most of the time. Viera Scheibner 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 U.S.-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...' "[393], [394], [395]          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....[396]The EZ Measles Medical Fiasco. In the mid-1980s researchers from the CDC and Johns Hopkins University started vaccinating babies as young as 4 months old with the experimental high-titer Edmonston-Zagreb (EZ) measles vaccine. Targets were more than 1,500 black and Hispanic babies in Los Angeles and thousands of babies in several Third World countries. The experiment was halted in 1991, after results of several studies showed that female babies receiving the high-potency vaccine had a 95 percent increased mortality rate compared to those injected with the standard measles vaccine.[397], [398]Economic, Political, and Legal IssuesCynthia Cournoyer has noted that vaccines are the only products in the U.S. that are legally mandated to be used by every person born.[399]Barbara Loe Fisher 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...."What concerns us most is that there is an electronic monitoring system being put in place by state public health departments with federal funding-they're trying to get it in every child born and monitor his or her vaccination status....          "...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 vaccines they produce, sell, and promote for mass use."[400]          One interesting financial aspect of vaccines involves the federal ACT Compensation Program. An excise tax of $23.50 was tacked onto the price of vaccines in 1988 to fund this compensation program. What this means is that consumers are footing the bill for any injuries or deaths that may result from medical procedures that they are required by law to undergo.[401], [402], [403]          Alan Phillips 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 nonconsenting 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."[404], [405]          Vaccine critic Randall Neustaedter concurs: "Profit has always been the goal of vaccine manufacturers. 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...."[406]Right to Refuse VaccinationA question frequently asked of advocates on the front lines of the freedom-fromvaccines movement concerns legal rights of refusal. According to Fisher, whose book The Consumer's Guide to Childhood Vaccines provides information on this topic, "It is common for hospital and clinic or emergency room staff to ask you about your child's vaccination status. 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."[407]          One special precaution, Fisher notes, involves pregnant women. "When pregnant women are admitted to a hospital to have a baby, many times while in active labor, the hospital will require that the mother or father sign a paper agreeing to have the baby treated by medical personnel while in the hospital. Signing this paper may also constitute your consent to having your newborn vaccinated with hepatitis B vaccine shortly after birth. Many parents have reported that their newborns are being vaccinated without their knowledge and, when they ask why, they are told they signed a consent form prior to admission agreeing to medical treatment the hospital determined was necessary. 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."[408]          In the unfortunate case of an adverse vaccine reaction resulting in medical bills totaling more than $1,000 or injuries lasting longer than six months, parents qualify for benefits under the National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act of 1986 (PL 99-660).[409] 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.[410]What the Future May HoldFisher 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."[411]  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."Holistic Health and Freedom of ChoiceFisher adds, "The alternative health care movement in this country is going to play a vital role in the vaccine safety movement.[412] Those who are looking into chiropractic, 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. Dean Black, author of Immunizations: Compulsion or Choice, agrees. He sees vaccinations as only a shortcut for those 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."[413]Curtis Cost, author of Vaccines Are Dangerous: A Warning to the Black Community,adds, "We know through...studies that the incidences of various diseases have been declining steadily prior to the advent of various vaccines. We see declines up to 90 percent, and these declines result from improvements in sanitation and nutrition...."My point is that 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 breastfeed 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 breastfeeds. 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."[414]Finally, the point is that individuals need the freedom to choose. They should not be forced in one direction or another. Barbara Loe Fisher stresses this: "Our organization does not tell a parent what to do.[415] 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 reminds us that we are kept in the dark about our freedom to choose. "Most states currently allow for medical and religious exemptions. You are not told this when you go to a pediatrician or when you enter a university. You are simply told that you have to vaccinate. But that is not usually true. Probably 15 to 20 states have a philosophical or personal exemption option that you don't even have to tie to your religion."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."[416]Dr. Black 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 saybased 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."[417]It stands to reason, then, that our approach might be better directed to bolstering the effects of natural immunity, by strengthening the body's own disease fighting capability, rather 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.To this argument, Trevor Gunn states, "for example, Vitamin A supplementation has been shown to reduce the mortality rate due to measles, in under 2 year olds, by seven times.  (From the British Medical Journal, 1987, p 294) "Many studies show increased eye problems and deaths in children with vitamin A deficiency."  In addition he cites the WHO's doctor Clements with regards to prevention of Cholera:  "the first line of defense should be providing safe clean water and proper waste disposal."The culmination of a review of a larger study that we mentioned earlier, which compared over 15,000 data sets for Union Army Soldiers over two distinct time periods (1830-1845) and (1918-1927), showed that length of life was improved in the 20th century, and in addition age of onset of chronic illness was also delayed.  The reviewer Robert Fogel noted that there  were two distinct explanations: The first, combining several outcomes, mentions reduction in debilitating chronic illness by eliminating causes of childhood illness, and the second, "increases in birth weight and adult frame size, which are likely the result of better nutrition, have been important in reducing mortality among infants and adults." (from the How the Aging Process Changed During the 20th Century, "Changes in the Process of Aging during the 20thCentury:  Findings and Procedures of the Early Indicators project)  ResourcesAdvisory Committee on Immunization PracticesCenters for Disease Control and PreventionNational Immunization ProgramDivision of Epidemiology and SurveillanceMail Stop E611600 Clifton Road, NEAtlanta, GA 30333Tel: 404-639-8096Web site: www.cdc.gov/nip/ACIP/default.htm    This is a pro-immunization site. To access the NIP's"Locating Information on Vaccine Safety"guide, go to www.cdc.gov/nip/vacsafe/research/resourceguide.htm.Association of American Physicians and Surgeons1601 N. Tucson Blvd., Suite 9Tucson, AZ 85716-3450Tel: 800-635-1196Web site: www.aapsonline.orgCitizens for Healthcare FreedomP.O. Box 62282Durham, NC 27715Web site: www.unc.edu/~aphillip/www/chf/index.htm    To read "Dispelling Vaccination Myths," by CHF director Alan Phillips, go to www.unc.edu/~aphillip/www/chf/myths/dvm1.htmConcerned Parents for Vaccine Safety8216 192nd St., Ct ESpanaway, WA 98387Web site: home.sprynet.com/~gyreneGary Null's Web SiteWeb site: www.garynull.comGlobal Vaccine Awareness League25422 Trabuco Road, Suite 105-230Lake Forest, CA 92630-2797Web site: www.gval.com"Homeopathic Disease Prevention"     This article by homeopathic practitioner Isaac Golden is availableat Homeopathy Online, a Journal of Homeopathic MedicineWeb site: www.lyghtforce.com/HomeopathyOnline/text/golden.htmImmunization Action Coalition1573 Selby AvenueSt. Paul, MN 55104Tel: 651-647-9009Web site: www.immunize.org   This is a pro-immunization site. For information on "State mandates on vaccination and vaccine-preventable disease," go to www.immunize.org/lawsInstitute for Vaccine SafetyBloomberg School of Public HealthJohns Hopkins University Web site: www.vaccinesafety.eduNational Network for Immunization Information66 Canal Center Plaza, Suite 600Alexandria, VA 22314Tel.: 877-341-6644Fax: 703-299-0204Web site: www.immunizationinfo.com    This is a pro-immunization site.National Vaccine Information Center 421-E Church St.Vienna, VA 22180Tel.: 1-800-909-SHOTFax: 703-938-5768  Web site: www.909shot.comParents Requesting Open Vaccine Education (PROVE)P.O. Box 91566Austin, TX 78709-1566Web site: www.vaccineinfo.netThe Phyllis Schlafly ReportP.O. Box 618Alton, IL 62002Tel.: 618-462-5415Web site: www.eagleforum.org/topics/vaccine/vaccine.html    This site contains a number of articles on vaccine topics.Thinktwice Global Vaccine InstituteP.O. Box 9638Santa Fe, NM 87504Web site: www.thinktwice.com    Also includes the Thijnktwice/New Atlantean Press bookstore,with a catalog of books on vaccination topicsVaccination Information Service     To order the video "Vaccination: The Hidden Truth."Web site: www.vaccination.inoz.com/default.htmlVaccination LiberationP.O. Box 1444Coeur d'Alene, Idaho 83816Tel.: 208-255-2307Web site: www.vaclib.orgVaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS)P.O. Box 1100Rockville, MD 20849-1100Tel: 800-822-7967Fax: 877-721-0366Web site: www.vaers.org   A more usable version of the VAERS data is available on a databasedeveloped by Steven Rubin. Go to www.nccn.net/~wwithin/vaers.htmVaccine Information and Awareness Web siteTel.: 858-484-3197Web site: www.access1.net/via    To access a list of pro-information groups, go to www.access1.net/via/PROCHOICE/prochoic.htm    To access state links, including information on state exemptions,go to www.access1.net/via/STATES/toc-states.htmVaccine resources by stateWeb site: http://proliberty.com/observer/vaclib/VACLIST.DOC"Vaccines: The Risks, the Benefits, the Choices"Doctor's Reference Manual (2001-02)Presented by Sherri J. Tenpenny, D.O.New Medical Awareness Seminars, LLC14761 Pearl Road #263Strongsville, OH 44136Tel: 440-572-1136Web site: www.osteomed.comVaccine Policy Institute251 W. Ridgeway DriveDayton, OH 45459Tel: 937-435-4750Web site: www.vaccinepolicy.orgVaccineWebsite.comWeb site: www.whale.to/vaccines.html"Alternative Approach to Disease" (video)By Gary Null"Building the Immune System Naturally" (video)By Gary NullThe Consumer's Guide to Childhood VaccinesBy Barbara Loe FisherNational Vaccine Information CenterImmunization Theory vs. Reality: Expos on VaccinationsBy Neil Z. MillerThe Atlantean Press, 1996Immunization: The Reality Behind the MythBy Walene JamesGreenwood Publishing Group, 2nd Edition, 1995Reverse the Aging Process NaturallyBy Gary Null and Martin Feldman, M.D.Villard Books, a division of Random House, 1993"Seven Steps to Perfect Health" (video)By Gary NullA Shot in the DarkBy Harris L. Coulter and Barbara Loe FisherAvery Publishing Group, 1991"Supercharge Your Immune System" (video)By Gary Null"Total Health" series, Steps 1 - 7 (videos)By Gary NullVaccination and Immunization: Dangers, Delusions & AlternativesBy Leon ChaitowBeekman Publishing, 1996Vaccines Are Dangerous: A Warning to the Black CommunityBy Curtis CostA & B Distributors & Publishers Group, 1992What Every Parent Should Know About Childhood ImmunizationBy Jamie MurphyEarth Healing Products, 1993Correspondence:Gary Null, PhDP.O. Box 918Planetarium StationNew York, New York 10024 USA646-505-4660/ Fax 212-472-5139e-mail: precisemd@aol.comReferences[1]  [1]Clin Infect Dis. 2006 Mar 1;42 Suppl 3:S141-4 A response to strategy #2: streamlining the regulatory process.Glezen WP. [2]Expert Rev Vaccines. 2003 Feb;2(1):15-9 Designing pediatric vaccine formularies and pricing pediatric combination vaccines using operations research models and algorithms. Jacobson SH, Sewell EC, [3] Clin Infect Dis. 2000 Jun;30 Suppl 3:S247-9 Moving new vaccines for tuberculosis through the regulatory process.Brennan MJ.   [4]MMWR Recomm Rep. 2006 Jul 28;55(RR-10):1-42 Prevention and Control of Influenza: recommendations of the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP).Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices; Smith NM,  [5] Vaccine. 2006 Apr 24;24(17):3530-7. Epub 2006 Feb 20 Stockpile levels for pediatric vaccines: how much is enough?Jacobson SH, Sewell EC, [6]Health Aff (Millwood). 2005 May-Jun;24(3):635-42 Factors affecting U.S. manufacturers' decisions to produce vaccines.Coleman MS, Sangrujee N,[7] MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep. 2005 Apr 1;54(12):307-8 Influenza vaccine prebooking and distribution strategies for the 2005-06 influenza season. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC).   [8] MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep. 2003 Jan 31;52(4):Q1-4. Recommended childhood and adolescent immunization schedule. United States, 2003. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC).   [9] Public Health Rep. 2005 Sep-Oct;120(5):543-8 Enrollment of racial/ethnic minorities in NIAID-funded networks of HIV vaccine trials in the United States, 1988 to 2002.Djomand G, Katzman J, [10] Clin Infect Dis. 2005 Oct 15;41(8):1150-6. Epub 2005 Sep 2 Prospects for a group A streptococcal vaccine: rationale, feasibility, and obstacles--report of a National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases workshop.Bisno AL, Rubin FA, [11]: Curr Opin Obstet Gynecol. 2006 Feb;18 Suppl 1:s15-21. Harnessing the power of prevention: human papillomavirus vaccines.Mayeaux EJ Jr.   [12]Obstet Gynecol Surv. 2006 Jun;61(6 Suppl 1):S26-31. Vaccines for the prevention of human papillomavirus and associated gynecologic diseases: a review.Ault KA.   [13]Obstet Gynecol Surv. 2006 Jun;61(6 Suppl 1):S26-31. Vaccines for the prevention of human papillomavirus and associated gynecologic diseases: a review.Ault KA.   [14]http://www.mayoclinic.com/health/vaccines/HQ01629[15]http://www.nber.org/digest/mar02/w8556.html[16]http://www.nber.org/digest/mar02/w8556.html[17]http://www.nber.org/digest/mar02/w8556.html[18]http://www.nber.org/digest/mar02/w8556.html[19]http://www.nber.org/digest/mar02/w8556.html[20]http://www.nber.org/digest/mar02/w8556.html[21]http://www.whale.to/m/gunn.html, p.7. [22]http://www.cdc.gov/nip/publications/fs/gen/WhatIfStop.htm[23] http: /www.nber.org/aginghealth/fall03/w9941.html [24]Circulation. 2003; 108:2957.) 2003 American Heart Association, Inc. Review: Current Perspective  Explaining How "High-Grade" Systemic Inflammation Accelerates Vascular Risk in Rheumatoid Arthritis  Naveed Sattar, MD; David W. McCarey [25] Lavrovsky, Y, Chattergee, B, role of Redox regulated transcription factors in inflammation, aging, and age related diseases, Experimental gerontology 35 (2000) 521-532 [26] New England Journal of medicine  Volume 352:1685-1695April 21, 2005 number 16Inflammation, Atherosclerosis, and Coronary Artery Disease  Gran K. Hansson, M.D., Ph.D. http://www.jacn.org/cgi/content/abstract/21/6/495[27] Coronary artery disease and rheumatoid arthritis. Epidemiology and health-related services Current Opinion in Rheumatology. 14(2):115-120, March 2002. Goodson, Nicola MRCP http://www.co-rheumatology.com/pt/re/corheum/abstract.00002281-200203000-00007.htm;jsessionid=FF5JM334D9JzKT6wQw2zS2HyRXQrVyF4G28v4P0vtmLGdLv2ln7S!1230047961!-949856144!8091!-1[28] Abuja, Peter M, Albertini, Riccardo, Methods for Monitoring oxidative stress, lipid peroxidation and oxidation resistance of lipoproteins, Clinica Chimica Acta 306 (2001) 1-17 [29]Biotechnology Journal Volume 1, Issue 4 , Pages 420 - 439Review: Essential fatty acids: biochemistry, physiology and pathology  [30] Pharmacological Reviews Vol. 52, Issue 4, 673-751, December 2000 The Effects of Plant Flavonoids on Mammalian Cells:Implications for Inflammation, Heart Disease, and Cancer Elliott Middleton, Jr. , Chithan Kandaswami [31]Experimental Biology and Medicine 231:1287-1299 (2006) 2006 Society for Experimental Biology and Medicine  MINIREVIEW Flavonoids Attenuate Cardiovascular Disease, Inhibit Phosphodiesterase, and Modulate Lipid Homeostasis in Adipose Tissue and Liver Michael R. Peluso1http://www.ebmonline.org/cgi/content/abstract/231/8/1287  [32]  2002 The American Society for Nutritional Sciences J. Nutr. 132:1825-1829, 2002 Biochemical and Molecular Actions of Nutrients Flavonoids of Cocoa Inhibit Recombinant Human 5-Lipoxygenase1Tankred Schewe, Hartmut Khn* and Helmut Sies23http://jn.nutrition.org/cgi/content/abstract/132/7/1825  [33] PNAS | January 24, 2006 | vol. 103 | no. 4 | 1024-1029 (-)-Epicatechin mediates beneficial effects of flavanol-rich cocoa on vascular function in humans  Hagen Schroeter *  , , Christian Heiss, http://www.pnas.org/cgi/content/abstract/103/4/1024[34] Clinical and Vaccine Immunology, March 2006, p. 319-328, Vol. 13, No. 3 doi:10.1128/CVI.13.3.319-328.2006Copyright  2006, American Society for Microbiology. All Rights Reserved. The Flavonoid Quercetin Inhibits Proinflammatory Cytokine (Tumor Necrosis Factor Alpha) Gene Expression in Normal Peripheral Blood Mononuclear Cells via Modulation of the NF-  System Madhavan P. Nair,* Supriya Mahajan, http://cvi.asm.org/cgi/content/abstract/13/3/319[35]  2005 The American Society for Nutritional Sciences J. Nutr. 135:172-178, February 2005 Biochemical and Molecular Actions of Nutrients The Flavonoid Phloretin Suppresses Stimulated Expression of Endothelial Adhesion Molecules and Reduces Activation of Human Platelets Verena Stangl*,1, Mario Lorenz http://jn.nutrition.org/cgi/content/abstract/135/2/172*,[36] American Journal of Clinical Nutrition, Vol. 78, No. 3, 570S-578S, September 2003  2003 American Society for Clinical Nutrition Fruits and vegetables in the prevention of cellular oxidative damage1,2,3,4,5Ronald L Prior http://www.ajcn.org/cgi/content/abstract/78/3/570S[37] (Arteriosclerosis, Thrombosis, and Vascular Biology. 2001;21:1084.) 2001 American Heart Association, Inc. Effect of Acute and Chronic Tea Consumption on Platelet Aggregation in Patients With Coronary Artery Disease Stephen J. Duffy; Joseph A. Vita [38] Journal of the American College of Nutrition, Vol. 21, No. 6, 495-505 (2002) Published by the American College of Nutrition Omega-3 Fatty Acids in Inflammation and Autoimmune Diseases Artemis P. Simopoulos, MD, FACN The Center for Genetics, Nutrition and Health, Washington, D.C[39] American Journal of Clinical Nutrition, Vol. 76, No. 3, 560-568, September 2002  2002 American Society for Clinical Nutrition Flavonoid intake and risk of chronic diseases1,2Paul Knekt, Jorma Kumpulainenhttp://www.ajcn.org/cgi/content/abstract/76/3/560[40]Relationship Between Physical Activity and Inflammation Among Apparently Healthy Middle-aged and Older US Adults Jerome L. Abramson, PhD; Viola Vaccarino, MD, PhD  Arch Intern Med. 2002;162:1286-1292. http://archinte.ama-assn.org/cgi/content/abstract/162/11/1286[41] American Journal of Clinical Nutrition, Vol. 70, No. 3, 532S-538S, September 1999  1999 American Society for Clinical Nutrition Associations between diet and cancer, ischemic heart disease, and all-cause mortality in non-Hispanic white California Seventh-day Adventists1,2,3  Gary E Fraser http://intl.ajcn.org/cgi/content/abstract/70/3/532S  [42] Medical careJanuary 1999, 37:1 >  Evidence Suggesting That a Chronic Disease Self-Management Program Can Improve Health Status While Reducing Hospitalization: A Randomized Trial. http://www.lwwmedicalcare.com/pt/re/medcare/abstract.00005650-199901000-00003.htm;jsessionid=FF8ZLxQTfJhFFMrFJBys0Tc7Rb6GmSGLSLQ2sLlrbJ5rJ3YR1lpk!-210589086!-949856145!8091!-1[43]Wei Young, Robert L. Hotovec, and Arthur G. Romero, "Tea and Atherosclerosis", Nature, December 9, 1967, Vol. 216, Num. 0, pp. 1015-1016 http://www.healthsentinel.com/briefs.php?id=035&title=Coffee&event=briefs_print_list_item[44] http: /www.nber.org/aginghealth/fall03/w9941.html p.2. [45] http: /www.nber.org/aginghealth/fall03/w9941.html p.2. [46] http: /www.nber.org/aginghealth/fall03/w9941.html p.2. [47]http://www.vaclib.org/intro/present/index.htm#8, Vaccination, a parent's Dilemma [48] United States mortality rate from measles, scarlet fever, typhoid, whooping cough, and diphtheria, http://www.healthsentinel.com/graphs.php?id=14&event=graphs_print_list_item[49]http://www.healthsentinel.com/graphs.php?id=14&event=graphs_print_list_item[50] http: /www.nber.org/aginghealth/fall03/w9941.html p.2. [51]Vaccine Safety Vaccines: A Safe Choice Vaccine Safety Information for Parents http://www.cdc.gov/nip/vacsafe/vacsafe-parents.htm[52]http://www.iahf.com/20020702.htmlUK babies given toxic vaccines, admits GlaxoAntony Barnett and Tracy McVeigh Sunday June 30, 2002 The Observerhttp://www.observer.co.uk/uk_news/story/0,6903,746568,00.html[53]http://www.fda.gov/opacom/factsheets/justthefacts/19vaccine.html Vaccines Provide Effective Protection and FDA Makes Sure They are Safe [54]http://www.eagleforum.org/educate/1998/nov98/vaccinations.htmlCompulsory Vaccinations Put American Children at Risk[55]http://www.k12.dc.us/dcps/policies/policies_intro.html#immunization Immunization Requirements[56]http://www.cispimmunize.org/IZSchedule_2006.pdf-  -immunization chart   [57]http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=4585992&sourceCode=RSSSalk Polio Vaccine Conquered Terrifying Disease Source: Global Polio Eradication Initiative U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention; the University of Michigan; PBS Online[58] Polio Vaccine: It Tamed a Scourge, Transformed Medicine Related Health News By Amanda GardnerHealthDay Reporter TUESDAY, April 12 (HealthDay News) Nancy Green, M.D., medical director, March of Dimes, White Plains, N.Y.; David Rose, archivist, March of Dimes, White Plains, N.Y. [59]http://www.unicef.org/media/media_18979.html Information note 2004 - Now More than Ever: End Polio Forever[60]http://www.fda.gov/Cber/vaers/articles.htmVaccine Adverse Event Report System (VAERS):DocumentsFEDERAL REGISTER: Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting; Revised Form VAERS-2; Withdrawal of Proposed Revised Form - 4/21/2006 - (PDF), (Text)         Federal Register Notice; Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System; Revised Form VAERS-2; Availability - 11/20/2001 - (PDF), (Text)           Draft Form (for comment) - (PDF), Instructions - (PDF)  Guidance for Industry: How to Complete the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System Form (VAERS-1) - 9/8/1998 (PDF), (Text)Dear Colleague Letter: Use of Haemophilus influenzae Vaccines in Combination with DTaP in Infants - 8/12/1998 VAERS Bibliography: CDC/FDA PublicationsConsumer Articles  1.      How the FDA works to Ensure Vaccine Safety FDA Consumer December 1995  2. Adults Need Tetanus Shots, Too FDA Consumer July-August 1996  3. First Vaccine for Chickenpox FDA Consumer September 1995  4. Vaccine Safety Crucial but Impossible to Guarantee. Infectious Diseases in Children, 1996;9(1):33-35.  5.      Physicians play a pivotal role in vaccine safety. AAP News, Feb., 1996.  Professional Articles  1.      Ball LK, Ball R, Pratt RD. Assessment of thimerosal use in childhood vaccines. Pediatrics 2001;107:1147-1154.  2.      Ball R, Ball LK, Wise R, Braun MM, Beeler JA, Salive M. Stevens Johnson syndrome and toxic epidermal necrolysis after vaccination: Reports to the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System. Pediatric Infectious Disease Journal 2001;20:219-223.  3.      Ball R, Braun MM, Mootrey GT. Safety data on meningococcal polysaccharide vaccine from the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System. Clinical Infectious Diseases 2001;32:1273-1280.  4.      Beeler J, Varricchio F, Wise RP. Thrombocytopenia after immunization with measles vaccines: Review of the Vaccine Adverse Events Reporting System (1990 to 1994). The Pediatric Infectious Disease Journal. 1996;15:1,88-90.  5.      Braun MM, Ellenberg SS. Descriptive epidemiology of adverse events following immunization: reports to the Vaccine Adverse Events Reporting System (VAERS), 1991-1994. Journal of Pediatrics 1997; 131:529-35.  6.      Braun MM, Mootrey GT, Salive ME, Chen RT, Ellenberg SS, and the VAERS Working Group. Infant immunization with acellular pertussis vaccines in the US: Assessment of the first two years' data from the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS). Pediatrics electronic pages 2000;106:e51 and Pediatrics 2000;106:821.  7.      Braun MM, Patriarca PA, Ellenberg SS. Syncope after immunization. Archives of Pediatrics and Adolescent Medicine. 151:255-9; 1997.  8.      Braun MM, Terracciano G, Salive ME, Blumberg DA, Vermeer-de Bondt PE, Heijbel H, Evans G, Patriarca PA, Ellenberg SS. Report of a US Public Health Service Workshop on Hypotonic-Hyporesponsive Episode (HHE) Following Pertussis Immunization. Pediatrics electronic pages 1998;102:e52 and Pediatrics 1998;102:1201-2.  9.      Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System-United States. MMWR Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report, 1990; 39(RR-41):730-33.  10.  Chen RT, Glasser JW, Rhodes PH, Wise RP, et. al. Vaccine Safety Datalink Project: A new tool for improving vaccine safety monitoring in the United States. Pediatrics. 99(6):765-73;1997.  11.  Chen RT, Rastogi SC, Mullen JR et. al. The Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS). Vaccine. 1994;12:542-50.  12.  Chen RT, Phillips L, Hadler S. Bottom Line: Vaccination benefits far outweigh risks [letter]. The Nations Health, Dec. 1995;2.  13.  Clements, CJ, Ball, LK, Ball, R. Ball, Pratt, RD. Thiomersal in vaccines (letter). Lancet, 2000; 355:1279-1280.  14.  Commentary. CDC Officials help physicians answer DTP-safety questions. American Academy of Pediatrics News, 1995; 11(3):9-11.  15.  DuVernoy TS, Braun MM. Hypotonic Hyporesponsive Episodes Reported to the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS), 1996-1998. Pediatrics electronic pages 2000;106:e52 and Pediatrics 2000;106:821-2.  16.  Ellenberg SS, Chen RT, The complicated task of monitoring vaccine safety. Public Health Reports, 112:10-20, 1997.  17.  Howson, et al. Adverse Effects of Pertussis and Rubella Vaccines. Washington, DC: National Academy Press, 1991.  18.  Niu MT, Davis, DM, and Ellenberg SS. Recombinant hepatitis B vaccination of neonates and infants: Emerging safety data from the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System. Pediatric Infectious Disease Journal, 1996;15:771-76.  19.  Niu MT, Rhodes P, Salive ME, Lively T, Davis DM, et. al. Comparative safety of two recombinant hepatitis B vaccines in children: data from the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS) and Vaccine Safety Datalink (VSD). Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, 1998; Vol 51, 6:503-510.  20.  Niu MT, Salive ME, Krueger CL, Ellenberg SS. Two year review of hepatitis A vaccine safety: Data from the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS). Clinical Infectious Disease 1998;26:1475-6.  21.  Niu MT, Salive ME, Ellenberg SS. Post-marketing surveillance for adverse events after vaccination: The national Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS), MEDWATCH CME credit article (FDA/CBER publication), November, 1998.  22.  Niu MT, Salive ME, Ellenberg SS. Reporting adverse events after vaccination: The national Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS) Federal Practitioner 1998; 15; 13-21,37.  23.  Niu MT, Salive ME, Ellenberg SS. Neonatal deaths after hepatitis B vaccine, VAERS, 1991-1998. Arch Pediatr Adoles Med 1999; 153:1279-82.  24.  Rosenthal S, Chen RT. The reporting sensitivities of two passive surveillance systems for Vaccine Adverse Events. American Journal of Public Health, 1995; 85(12):1706-09.  25.  Singleton JA, Loyd, JL, Mootrey, GT, Salive, ME, Chen, RT. An overview of the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS) as a surveillance system. Vaccine 1999;17(22):2908-17.  26.  Stratton, et al. Adverse Events Associated with Childhood Vaccines, Evidence Bearing on Causality. Washington, DC: National Academy Press, 1993.  27.  Varricchio, F. The vaccine adverse event reporting system. Clinical Toxicology, 36(7), 765-68 (1998).  28.  Wise RP, Kiminyo KP, Salive ME. Hair loss following routine immunizations. Journal of the American Medical Association. 1997; 278:1176-8.  29.  Wise RP, Salive ME, Braun MM, Mootrey GT, Seward JF, Rider LG, Krause PR, Postlicensure safety surveillance for varicella vaccine, Journal of the American Medical Association, September 13, 2000, 284(10):1271-9.           Supplementary references  Zanardi LR, Haber P, Mootrey GT, Niu, MT, Wharton M. Intussusception among recipients of rotavirus vaccine--reports to the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System, 2001; Pediatrics , in press.  [61] June Russell's Health FactsVaccinations http://www.jrussellshealth.com/immune.html{"Fitness On Line" - Nov. 1999 Natural Health magazine}{"Vaccination: Prevention or Poison?" Delicious magazine, Sept. 1994, by Kathleen Finn} {"Vaccinations - Deception and Tragedy" - Michael Dye} Health Freedom News - May 1984. "How Do The Vaccines Work?" Richard Moskowitz, MD}{"Supporting Children's Health" - Philip Incao, MD, Alternative Medicine Digest, Aug./Sept. 1997} According to an article in The Lancet (1985), "Measles Virus Infection Without Rash in Childhood is Related to Disease in Adult Life," Leon Chaitow in his book, "Vaccinations and Vaccinations: Dangers Delusions and Alternatives,"   [62] Vaccination Debate: Do Vaccines Cause Cot Deaths? Harris L. Coulter, PhD, http://www.pnc.com.au/~cafmr/coulter/vacc-deb.html  [63] Virchows Arch. 2006 Jan;448(1):100-4. Epub 2005 Oct 18. Sudden infant death syndrome (SIDS) shortly after hexavalent vaccination: another pathology in suspected SIDS? Ottaviani G, Lavezzi AM, [64] National Academy of sciences Press Relaease Date: March 12, 2003  http://www.cdc.gov/nip/publications/#Diseaseshadalready 'SIDS Not Linked to Number and Variety of Childhood Vaccines', says IOM[65]http://www.fda.gov/fdac/features/2001/401_vacc.htmlU.S. Food and Drug AdministrationFDA Consumer magazineJuly-August 2001 Understanding Vaccine Safety: Immunization Remains Our Best Defense Against Deadly Disease 'Alleged Associations' [66]http://www.fda.gov/fdac/features/095_vacc.html Developing New Pertussis Vaccines[67] Am J Prev Med. 2002 Apr;22(3):170-6. Pediatric deaths reported after vaccination: the utility of information obtained from parents.Silvers LE, Varricchio FE, [68] Pharmacoepidemiol Drug Saf. 2001 Jun-Jul;10(4):279-85. The epidemiology of fatalities reported to the vaccine adverse event reporting system 1990-1997.Silvers LE, Ellenberg SS, [69]J Paediatr Child Health. 2003 Sep-Oct;39(7):487-91 Immunization myths and realities: responding to arguments against immunization.MacIntyre CR, Leask J. Children's Hospital at Westmead, Westmead and University of Sydney, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia. RainaM@chw.edu.au  [70] Vaccine. 2006 Aug 4; Sudden infant death syndrome: No increased risk after immunisation. Vennemann MM, Butterfass-Bahloul T, [71]http://www.answers.com/topic/cigarette cigarette [72]http://www.upenn.edu/pnc/ptverkuil.html "A Leadership Case Study of Tobacco and its Regulation" Paul Verkuil Benjamin N. Cardozo School of Law [73]http://www.brownandcrouppen.com/news.html Lawsuit Charges HRT Caused Breast Cancer and Debilitating Stroke [74]http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/medicalnews.php?newsid=50004Hormone Replacement Therapy Study Good News For Some POSTED: 5:43 p.m. PDT August 26, 2003[75] http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/ap/fn/4178876.html  Sept. 11, 2006, 5:48PMLawyers Say Wyeth Drugs Promoted Cancer By ANDREW DeMILLO Associated Press Writer  2006 TheAssociated Press[76] Hormone replacement therapy (HRT) http://www.nlm.nih.gov/medlineplus/ency/article/007111.htm[77]Hormone replacement therapy (HRT) http://www.nlm.nih.gov/medlineplus/ency/article/007111.htm  [78]http://www.brownandcrouppen.com/news.htmlNIH Sends 11,000 Letters to Estrogen-Alone Study ParticipantsThe National Institutes of Health (NIH) has advised participants in the Women's Health Initiative (WHI) to stop taking their estrogen-alone study pills due to stroke risk and other findings in otherwise healthy women.[79]http://www.ahrp.org/infomail/04/10/12.php Pre 2006 Archives of the Alliance for Human Research Protection How Did the Vioxx Debacle Happen? USA Today / Lancet Tue, 12 Oct 2004 [80]http://www.flexicose.com/flexicose/COX-2-Death.htmlCox-II Inhibitors - Why They "Work" and Also Why They Can Potentially be Fatal[81]First of four parts http://www.dailypress.com/news/dp-anthday1dec02,0,7450119.story?coll=dp-widget-newsAn Incomplete Picture Despite promises that hospitalizations after anthrax vaccinations would be reported, the Pentagon withheld data on more than 20,000 cases.  BY BOB EVANS December 4, 2005[82]http://www.vaccinationnews.com/Adverse_Reactions/VAERS/credible_estimates.htmJames Froeschle, Connaught Laboratories, Swiftwater, Pennsylvania [83]http://medicine.plosjournals.org/perlserv/?request=advancedsearch&row_start=1&limit=10&order=score&search_fulltext=1&issn=1549-1676&jrn_issn=1549-1676&anywhere_type=any&anywhere=Frequency+of+Adverse+Events+after+Vaccination+with+Different+Vaccinia+&x=15&y=16 Frequency of Adverse Events after Vaccination with Different Vaccinia Strains Mirjam Kretzschmar1,2*, Jacco Wallinga1[84]http://www.vaccinationnews.com/Adverse_Reactions/VAERS/credible_estimates.htmJamesDavid Kessler statement in JAMA - June 2, 1993,vol.269, No.21, p.2785[85] Murphy, Jamie. What Every Parent Should Know About Childhood Immunization, Earth Healing Products, Boston, 1993. http://www.amazon.com/Every-Parent-Should-Childhood-Immunization/dp/0963037307/sr=1-14/qid=1158257640/ref=sr_1_14/102-3250943-7888120?ie=UTF8&s=books[86]http://darwin.nap.edu/books/0309057914/html/29.html Research to Identify Risks for Adverse Events Following Vaccination: Biological Mechanisms and Possible Means of Prevention Cynthia J. Howe, Richard B. Johnston, and E. Russell Alexander, EditorNational Academies Press[87]http://www.dailycamera.com/bdc/broomfield_home_life/article/0,1713,BDC_11938_4928345,00.html Shots all around As school gets under way, so should children's immunization By Terri Chance, Enterprise Staff Writer August 19, 2006[88]http://wmc.who.int/pdf/Vaccine_Adverse_Events_in_the_New_Mill.pdf#search=%22age%20vaccination%20adverse%20events%22Vaccine adverse events in the new millennium: is there reason for ...concern?  BJ Ward p.208 [89]http://www.immregistries.org/news/advocacy.phtmlADVOCACYAIRA is proud to be a member of the 317 Coalition (http://www.317coalition.org). Formed in April 2006, the sole focus of the coalition is advocating for increased 317 funds. Update on FY 2007 Labor HHS Appropriations Bill CDC Immunization Funding (Section 317) [90]http://www.hhs.gov/news/speech/2003/030320.html TOMMY G. THOMPSON, SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND HUMAN  SERVICES Before the House Appropriations Subcommittee on Labor, HHS, Education March 20, 2003 p.2,[91] Braun MM, et al. Descriptive epidemiology of adverse events after immunization: reports to the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS), 1991-1994. J Pediatr 1997 Oct; 131(4):529-35.[92]http://www.vaccinationnews.com/Adverse_Reactions/VAERS/credible_estimates.htmConnaught testimony to the Institute of Medicine[93] The anthrax vaccine: New questions, weak data  Posted on Fri, Dec. 09, 2005 http://www.charlotte.com/mld/charlotte/news/nation/13368280.htm  The anthrax vaccine: New questions, weak data Over 20,000 troops hospitalized from anthrax vaccine Sun, Dec 11 2005 10:02 pm[94]http://whale.to/vaccines/studies.html Vaccine long term studies[95]http://www.vaccinesafety.edu/mmrandibd.htm The following Research Letter appeared in The Lancet Vol 351 - May 2, 1998. pg 1327-8. No evidence for measles, mumps, and rubella vaccineassociated inflammatory bowel disease or autism in a 14-year prospective study[96]http://www.cfah.org/hbns/getDocument.cfm?documentID=1154  Release Date:October 18, 2005, 7:01 PM US Eastern time Newest Study Finds No Link Between MMR Vaccine and AutismBy Laura Kennedy, Contributing Writer  Health Behavior News Service[97]http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=16235361&dopt=AbstractCochrane Database Syst Rev. 2005 Oct 19;(4):CD004407.Vaccines for measles, mumps and rubella in children.Demicheli V, Jefferson T, Rivetti A, Price D.[98]http://www.vaccines.bizland.com/lkj.htmFact #1: Approximately 1/3 of Doctors Refuse Vaccinations, yet . . [99] JAMA. 1981 Feb 20;245(7):711-3. Rubella vaccine and susceptible hospital employees. Poor physician participation. Orenstein WA, Heseltine PN, [100]Mendelsohn, Dr. Robert, "The Drive to Immunize Adults," Herald of Holistic Health Newsletter, Sept.-Oct. 1985. Yih WK, Lieu TA, [101] Orenstein WA, Heseltine PN, LeGagnoux SJ, Portnoy B. Rubella vaccine and susceptible hospital employees. Poor physician participation. JAMA 1981 Feb 20; 245(7):711-3.[102]http://occmed.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/reprint/54/4/231.pdf#search=%22Attitudes%20of%20general%20practitioners%20towards%20their%20vaccination%20against%20hepatitis%20B.%22:  Management of hepatitis B immunizations and blood exposure incidents in primary care  Occupational medicine 2004; 54:  231-237  DOI: 10.1093/occmed/kgh 037   [103] Kinnersley P. Attitudes of general practitioners towards their vaccination against hepatitis B. BMJ 1990 Jan 27; 300(6719):238.[104]http://occmed.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/reprint/54/4/231.pdf#search=%22Attitudes%20of%20general%20practitioners%20towards%20their%20vaccination%20against%20hepatitis%20B.%22:  Management of hepatitis B immunizations and blood exposure incidents in primary care  Occupational medicine 2004; 54:  231-237  DOI: 10.1093/occmed/kgh 037  [105] Gary Null Interview with Jamie Murphy, December 18, 1997.[106] James, Walene. Immunization: The Reality Behind the Myth, Bergin & Gervey, Massachusetts, 1988. [107] Gary Null Interview with Walene James, April 6, 1995.[108] Gary Null Interview with Jamie Murphy, December 18, 1997.[109] Phillips, Alan. Vaccination: dispelling the myths. Nexus, October-November 1997.[110] J Infect Dis. 1994 Jan;169(1):77-82.Sustained transmission of mumps in a highly vaccinated population: assessment of primary vaccine failure and waning vaccine-induced immunity.Briss PA, Fehrs LJ,  [111] Ibid.[112] Clin Immunol Immunopathol. 1996 May;79(2):163-70 Changes within T cell receptor V beta subsets in infants following measles vaccination. Auwaerter PG, Hussey GD, [113] Auwaerter PG, Hussey GD, Goddard EA, Hughes J, et al. Changes within T cell receptor V beta subsets in infants following measles vaccination. Clin Immunol Immunopathol 1996 May; 79(2):163-70.110 J Infect Dis. 1994 Jan;169(1):77-82. Sustained transmission of mumps in a highly vaccinated population: assessment of primary vaccine failure and waning vaccine-induced immunity.Briss PA, Fehrs LJ, Parker RA114Clin Immunol Immunopathol. 1996 May;79(2):163-70 Changes within T cell receptor V beta subsets in infants following measles vaccination.Auwaerter PG, Hussey GD, 113Auwaerter PG, Hussey GD, Goddard EA, Hughes J, et al. Changes within T cell receptor V beta subsets in infants following measles vaccination. Clin Immunol Immunopathol 1996 May; 79(2):163-70.  [114] Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report Centers for Disease Control and Prevention1600 Clifton Rd, MailStop K-95, Atlanta, GA 30333, U.S.A  Department of Healthand Human ServicesThis page last reviewed 5/2/01 Recommendations and Reports  July 12, 1996 / 45(RR11);1-25 Prevention of Varicella: Recommendations of the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) Summary [115] Am J Perinatol. 2003 Aug;20(6):321-32. A population-based study of the effects of birth weight on early developmental delay ordisability in children.Thompson JR, Carter RL,    [116] Natl Vital Stat Rep. 2003 Jun 25;51(11):1-20.  Links  Births: preliminary data for 2002.Hamilton BE, Martin JA, Sutton PD; U.S. Department of Health and Human Services Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. [117] Scholl, T., et al. Dietary and serum folate: their influence on the outcome of pregnancy. American Journal of Clinical Nutrition, volume 63, April 1996, pages 520-525.    [118]http://www.marchofdimes.com/professionals/681_1153.asp114 Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report Centers for Disease Control and Prevention1600 Clifton Rd, MailStop K-95, Atlanta, GA 30333, U.S.A  Department of Healthand Human ServicesThis page last reviewed 5/2/01 Recommendations and Reports  July 12, 1996 / 45(RR11);1-25 Prevention of Varicella: Recommendations of the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) Summary [120] Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report Centers for Disease Control and Prevention1600 Clifton Rd, MailStop K-95, Atlanta, GA 30333, U.S.A  Department of Healthand Human ServicesThis page last reviewed 5/2/01 Recommendations and Reports  July 12, 1996 / 45(RR11);1-25 Prevention of Varicella: Recommendations of the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) Summary [121] Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report Centers for Disease Control and Prevention1600 Clifton Rd, MailStop K-95, Atlanta, GA 30333, U.S.A  Department of Healthand Human ServicesThis page last reviewed 5/2/01 Recommendations and Reports  July 12, 1996 / 45(RR11);1-25 Prevention of Varicella: Recommendations of the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) Summary [122] Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report Centers for Disease Control and Prevention1600 Clifton Rd, MailStop K-95, Atlanta, GA 30333, U.S.A  Department of Healthand Human ServicesThis page last reviewed 5/2/01 Recommendations and Reports  July 12, 1996 / 45(RR11);1-25 Prevention of Varicella: Recommendations of the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) Summary [123] Gary Null interview with Dr. Dean Black, April 7, 1995.[124] Cournoyer, op. cit., p. 150-1.[125] Miller, Neil Z. Vaccines: Are They Really Safe and Effective? A Parent's Guide to Childhood Shots, New Atlantean Press, Santa Fe, NM, 1992, p. 46.[126] Lovett, Lisa, et al. Immunity, Why Not Keep It? Technical Publications, Victoria, Australia.[127] Yves De Latte. Vaccinations: The Untold Truth, AUM Publications, San Antonio, TX, 1990, p. 65.[128] Miller NZ, op. cit.[129] Hearings Before the Committee on Interstate and Foreign Commerce, House of Representatives, 87th Congress, Second Session on H.R. 10541, May 1962, p. 94.[130] Coulter, Harris L and Fisher, Barbara Loe. A Shot in the Dark, Avery Publishing Group, Garden City Park, NY, 1991. [131] Coulter, Harris L. Vaccination, Social Violence, and Criminality, North Atlantic Books, Berkeley, CA, 1990. [132] Gary Null Interview with Dr. Harris Coulter, April 6, 1995.[133]Australian Nurses Journal, June 1981.[134] Gary Null Interview with Alan Phillips, December 17, 1997.[135] Gary Null Interview with Steven Lanka, [136] Phillips, op. cit.[137] Gary Null Interview with Walene James, April 6, 1995.[138] Merck & Co., Inc. Prescribing information for Recombivax HB Hepatitis B Vaccine (Recombinant). Issued August 2002.[139] SmithKline Beecham Pharmaceuticals. Prescribing information for Engerix-B Hepatitis B Vaccine (Recombinant). Date of issuance November 2001.[140] Merck & Co., op. cit.[141] Aventis Pasteur Inc. Prescribing information for Diphtheria and Tetanus Toxoids and Acellular Pertussis Vaccine Absorbed, Tripedia. Product information as of September 2000.[142] SmithKline Beecham Pharmaceuticals. Prescribing information for Infanrix Diphtheria and Tetanus Toxoids and Acellular Pertussis Vaccine Absorbed. Date of issuance December 2001.[143] Aventis Pasteur Inc. Prescribing information for Poliovirus Vaccine Inactivated, IPOL. Product information as of December 1999.[144] Merck & Co., Inc. Prescribing information for M-M-R II (Measles, Mumps, and Rubella Virus Vaccine Live). Issued August 2001.[145] Merck & Co., Inc. Prescribing information for Varivax [Varicella Virus Vaccine Live (Oka/Merck)]. Issued November 2000.[146] Phillips, op. cit.[147] Murphy, op. cit., p. 5.[148] Thimerosal in Vaccines: A Joint Statement of the American Academy of Pediatrics and the Public Health Service. MMWR07/09/1999; 48(26):563. [149] Thimerosal and vaccines: an Institute of Medicine (IOM) report. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, National Immunization Program, Atlanta, GA. From http://www.cdc.gov/nip/vacsafe/concerns/thimerosal/iomthim10-1-01.htm Last modified October 24, 2001.[150] Thimerosal in vaccines: frequently asked questions. Food and Drug Administration. From www.fda.gov/cber/vaccine/thimfaq.htm. Last updated October 5, 2001.[151] Ibid.[152] Sakamoto M, et al.Widespread neuronal degeneration in rats following oral administration of methylmercury during the postnataldeveloping phase: a model of fetal-type minamata disease. Brain Res 1998 Feb 16; 784(1-2):351-4. [153] Echeverria D, et al. Neurobehavioral effects from exposure to dental amalgam Hg(o): new distinctions between recent exposure and Hg body burden. FASEB J 1998 Aug; 12(11):971-80. [154] Myers GJ, et al. A review of methylmercury and child development. Neurotoxicology 1998 Apr; 19(2):313-28. [155] Myers GJ, et al. Prenatal methylmercury exposure and children: neurologic, developmental, and behavioral research. Environ Health Perspect 1998 Jun; 106 Suppl 3:841-7. [156] Thimerosal in vaccines: frequently asked questions, op cit.[157] Immunization update 2002: influenza vaccine. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Atlanta, GA. Satellite broadcast, August 15, 2002. From http://www.cdc.gov/flu/professionals/bulletin/2002-03/bulletin4_091302.htm[158] FDA approves preservative-free influenza vaccine for pediatric use. Press release. Aventis Pasteur. September 12, 2002.[159]http://www.cdc.gov/nip/vaccine/vacc-timeline.htm[160]http://www.cdc.gov/nip/vaccine/vacc-timeline.htm[161]http://www.pdhealth.mil/deployments/gulfwar/enviro_anthrax_vac.asp[162] Phillips, op. cit.[163] Measles vaccine failures: lack of sustained measles specific immunoglobulin G responses in revaccinated adolescents and young adults. Pediatr Infect Dis J 1994 Jan; 13(1):34-8. [164] Measles outbreak in 31 schools: risk factors for vaccine failure and evaluation of a selective revaccination strategy. Can Med Assoc J 1994 Apr 1; 150(7):1093-8. [165] Haemophilus b disease after vaccination with haemophilus b polysaccharide or conjugate vaccine. Am J Dis Child 1991 Dec; 145(12):1379-82.[166] Sustained transmission of mumps in a highly vaccinated population: assessment of primary vaccine failure and waning vaccine-induced immunity. J Infect Dis 1994 Jan 1; 169(1):77-82.[167] Secondary measles vaccine failure in healthcare workers exposed to infected patients. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol 1993 Feb; 14(2):81-6.[168] Failure to reach the goal of measles elimination. apparent paradox of measles infections in immunized persons. Arch Intern Med 1994 Aug 22; 154(16):1815-20. [169] Auwaerter, op. cit. [170] Outbreak of paralytic poliomyelitis in oman; evidence for widespread transmission among fully vaccinated children. Lancet 1991 Sep 21; 338:715-20.47http://www.vaclib.org/intro/present/index.htm#8, Vaccination, a parent's Dilemma 48 United States mortality rate from measles, scarlet fever, typhoid, whooping cough, and diphtheria, http://www.healthsentinel.com/graphs.php?id=14&event=graphs_print_list_item49http://www.healthsentinel.com/graphs.php?id=14&event=graphs_print_list_item50http://www.nber.org/aginghealth/fall03/w9941.html[171] Sato H, et al. Experience with diphtheria toxoid-tetanus toxoid-acellular pertussis vaccine in Japan. Clin Infect Dis 1999 Jun; 28 Suppl 2:S124-30. [172] Williams, AL. News and perspectives: new vaccines for childhood immunization. Drug Benefit Trends 1997; 9(3):10-11,15-22. [173] Rosenthal S, Chen R, Hadler S. The safety of acellular pertussis vaccine vs whole-cell pertussis vaccine. A postmarketing assessment. Arch Pediatr Adolesc Med 1996 May; 150(5):457-60. [174] Halperin SA, et al. Persistence of pertussis in an immunized population: results of the Nova Scotia Enhanced Pertussis Surveillance Program. J Pediatr 1989 Nov; 115(5 Pt 1):686-93. [175] de Melker, HE., et al. Pertussis in the Netherlands: an outbreak despite high levels of immunization with whole-cell vaccine. Emerging Infectious Diseases 1997; 3(2):175-8. Centers for Disease Control. [176] Hutchins SS, et al. Current epidemiology of pertussis in the United States. Tokai J Exp Clin Med 1988; 13 Suppl:103-9. [177] Ranganathan S, et al. Pertussis is increasing in unimmunized infants: is a change in policy needed? Arch Dis Child 1999 Mar; 80(3):297-9. [178] Williams GD, et al. Infant pertussis deaths in New South Wales 1996-1997. Med J Aust 1998 Mar 16; 168(6):281-3. [179] Cournoyer, op. cit., p. 42.[180] Whooping Cough, the DPT Vaccine and Reducing Vaccine Reactions. National Vaccine Information Center, Vienna, VA.[181] Miller DL, et al. Pertussis immunisation and serious acute neurological illness in children. Br Med J 1981 May 16; 282(6276):1595-9.[182] 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.[183] Menkes JH, et al. Workshop on neurologic complications of pertussis and pertussis vaccination. Neuropediatrics 1990 Nov; 21(4):171-6.[184] 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 Oct; 138(10):908-11.[185] Stetler HC, et al. History of convulsions and use of pertussis vaccine. J Pediatr 1985 Aug; 107(2):175-9.[186] Hirtz DG, et al. Seizures following childhood immunizations. J Pediatr 1983 Jan; 102(1):14-8.[187] Odent MR, et al. Pertussis vaccination and asthma: is there a link? JAMA 1994 Aug 24-31; 272(8):592-3.[188] Farooqi IS, Hopkin JM. Early childhood infection and atopic disorder. Thorax 1998 Nov; 53(11):927-32).[189] McLaughlin SA, et al. Incidence of sudden infant death syndrome in Olmsted County, Minnesota: 1945 through 1992. Mayo Clin Proc 1995 Sep; 70(9):837-43.[190] Torch, WS. Diphtheria-pertussis-tetanus (DPT) immunization: a potential cause of the sudden infant death syndrome (SIDS). Neurology 1982; 32(4):A169 (abstract). [191] Torch WC. Diphtheria-pertussis-tetanus (DPT) immunization may be an unrecognized cause of sudden infant death (SIDS) and nearmiss syndrome (NMS): 12 case reports. Neurology 1986 b. (suppl 1); 36:149 (abstract). [192] 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). [193] Baraff LJ, et al. Possible temporal association between diphtheria-tetanus toxoid-pertussis vaccination and sudden infant death syndrome. Pediatr Infect Dis 1983 Jan-Feb; 2(1):7-11.[194] Walker AM, et al. Diphtheria-tetanus-pertussis immunization and sudden infant death syndrome. Am J Public Health 1987 Aug; 77(8):945-51.[195] Bakshi R, et al. Guillain-Barre syndrome after combined tetanus-diphtheria toxoid vaccination. J Neurol Sci 1997 Apr 15; 147(2):201-2. [196] Bolukbasi O, et al. Acute disseminated encephalomyelitis associated with tetanus vaccination. Eur Neurol1999; 41(4):231-2.[197] Read SJ, et al. Acute transverse myelitis after tetanus toxoid vaccination. Lancet 1992 May 2; 339(8801):1111-2. [198] Topaloglu H, et al. Optic neuritis and myelitis after booster tetanus toxoid vaccination. Lancet 1992 Jan 18; 339(8786):178-9. [199] Schlenska GK. Unusual neurological complications following tetanus toxoid administration. J Neurol 1977 Jul 20; 215(4):299-302. [200] Baust W, et al. Peripheral neuropathy after administration of tetanus toxoid. J Neurol 1979; 222(2):131-3. [201] Fardon DF. Unusual reactions to tetanus toxoid. JAMA 1967 Jan 9;199(2):125-6. [202] Rose I. Adverse reactions to tetanus toxoid. Lancet 1973 Feb 17; 1(7799):380. [203] Sutter RW. Adverse reactions to tetanus toxoid. JAMA 1994 May 25; 271(20):1629. [204] 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.[205] Ibid.[206] Ibid.[207]www.cdc.gov/nip/vaccine/vacc-timeline.htm[208] Polio, An American Story:  The Crusade that Mobilized the Nation Against the 20th Century's Most Feared Disease p.27 http://www.cdc.gov/ncidod/dbmd/diseaseinfo/typhoidfever_g.htm[209] Polio, An American Story:  The Crusade that Mobilized the Nation Against the 20th Century's Most Feared Disease p.29 [210]http://www.wrongdiagnosis.com/contag/intro.htm[211] Polio, An American Story:  The Crusade that Mobilized the Nation Against the 20th Century's Most Feared Disease [212]http://www.wrongdiagnosis.com/contag/intro.htm[213]http://www.cdc.gov/ncidod/dbmd/diseaseinfo/cholera_g.htm#How%20does%20a%20person%20get%20cholera[214] Polio, An American Story:  The Crusade that Mobilized the Nation Against the 20th Century's Most Feared Disease [215] Kinnunen E, et al. Nationwide oral poliovirus vaccination campaign and the incidence of Guillain-Barre Syndrome. Am J Epidemiol 1998 Jan 1; 147(1):69-73 .[216] Uhari M, et al. Cluster of childhood Guillain-Barre cases after an oral poliovaccine campaign. Lancet 1989 Aug 19; 2(8660):440-1.[217] 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 Jan-Feb; 38(1):55-8.[218] Friedrich F. Rare adverse events associated with oral poliovirus vaccine in Brazil. Braz J Med Biol Res 1997 Jun; 30(6):695-703.[219] Ibid.[220] Fisher SG, et al. Cancer risk associated with simian virus 40 contaminated polio vaccine. Anticancer Res 1999 May-Jun; 19(3B):2173-80.[221] Martini F, et al. Simian-virus-40 footprints in human lymphoproliferative disorders of HIV- and HIV+ patients. Int J Cancer 1998 Dec 9; 78(6):669-74.[222] Ibid.[223] 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.[224] 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 Res 1996 Oct 15; 56(20):4820-5.[225] Huang H, et al. Identification in human brain tumors of DNA sequences specific for SV40 large T antigen. Brain Pathol 1999 Jan; 9(1):33-42.[226] 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 Apr 9; 326(15):988-93.[227] Testa JR, et al. A multi-institutional study confirms the presence and expression of simian virus 40 in human malignant mesotheliomas. Cancer Res 1998 Oct 15; 58(20):4505-9.[228] Galateau-Salle F, et al. SV40-like DNA sequences in pleural mesothelioma, bronchopulmonary carcinoma, and non-malignant pulmonary diseases. J Pathol 1998 Mar; 184(3):252-7.[229] Lednicky JA, et al. SV40 DNA in human osteosarcomas shows sequence variation among T-antigen genes. Int J Cancer 1997 Sep 4; 72(5):791-800.[230] Carbone M, et al. SV40-like sequences in human bone tumors. Oncogene 1996 Aug 1; 13(3):527-35.[231] Rizzo P, et al. Evidence for and implications of SV40-like sequences in human mesotheliomas and osteosarcomas. Dev Biol Stand 1998; 94:33-40.[232] Reactions of pediatricians to the recommendation for universal varicella vaccination. Newman RD, et al. Arch Pediatr Adolesc Med1998 Aug; 152(8):792-6. [233] Prevention of varicella. Update recommendations of the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP). MMWR 1999 May 28; 48(RR-6):1-5. [234]Pediatric News 33(3):12, 1999. [235] Connan L, et al. Intra-uterine fetal death following maternal varicella infection. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol 1996 Sep; 68(1-2):205-7. [236] Buchholz U, et al. Varicella outbreaks after vaccine licensure: should they make you chicken? Pediatrics 1999 Sep; 104(3 Pt 1):561-3. [237] 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 Oct; 14(10):874-9. [238] Johnson CE, et al. A long-term prospective study of varicella vaccine in healthy children. Pediatrics 1997 Nov; 100(5):761-6. [239] 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 Dec; 39(6):663-8. [240] Bernstein HH, et al. Clinical survey of natural varicella compared with breakthrough varicella after immunization with live attenuated Oka/Merck varicella vaccine. Pediatrics 1993 Dec; 92(6):833-7. [241] Clements, op. cit.[242] Johnson, op. cit.[243] Takayama, op. cit.[244] Halloran ME, et al. Theoretical epidemiologic and morbidity effects of routine varicella immunization of preschool children in the United States. Am J Epidemiol 1994 Jul 15; 140(2):81-104. [245] Gershon AA, et al. Varicella vaccine: the American experience. J Infect Dis 1992 Aug; 166 Suppl 1:S63-8.[246] Plotkin SA, et al. Zoster in normal children after varicella vaccine. J Infect Dis 1989 May; 159(5):1000-1. [247]N Engl J Med, September 11, 1989, p. 1333.[248] Fisher, Barbara Loe. The Consumer's Guide to Childhood Vaccines, National Vaccine Information Center, Vienna, VA, 1997.[249] Freed GL, Bordley WC, Clark SJ, Konrad TR. Family physician acceptance of universal hepatitis B immunization of infants. J Fam Pract 1993 Feb; 36(2):153-7.[250] Ibid.[251] Kinnersley P. Attitudes of general practitioners towards their vaccination against hepatitis B. BMJ 1990 Jan 27; 300(6719):238.[252] Burden AD, et al. Poor uptake of hepatitis B immunization amongst hospital-based health care staff. Postgrad Med J 1991 Mar; 67(785):256-8.[253] Freed GL, et al. Family physician acceptance of universal hepatitis B immunization of infants. J Fam Pract1993 Feb; 36(2):153-7.[254] 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 Sep; 15(9):771-6.[255] 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. From www.aapsonline.org/aaps/[256] Incao, Philip, M.D. Letter to Representative Dale Van Vyven, Ohio House of Representatives. March 1, 1999. Provided to www.garynull.com by The Natural Immunity Information Network.[257] 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.[258] Hadler SC, et al. Long-term immunogenicity and efficacy of hepatitis B vaccine in homosexual men. N Engl J Med 1986 Jul 24; 315(4):209-14.[259] Pasko MT, et al. Persistence of anti-HBs among health care personnel immunized with hepatitis B vaccine. Am J Public Health 1990 May; 80(5):590-3.[260] Encephalitis after hepatitis B vaccination: recurrent disseminated encephalitis or MS? Neurology 1999 Jul 22; 53(2):396-401.[261] Herroelen L, et al. Central-nervous-system demyelination after immunisation with recombinant hepatitis B vaccine. Lancet 1991 Nov 9; 338(8776):1174-5.[262] Viral Hepatitis Prevention Board. Hepatitis B vaccine and central nervous system demyelinating diseases. Pediatr Infect Dis J 1999 Jan; 18(1):23-4. Review.[263] Nadler JP. Multiple sclerosis and hepatitis B vaccination. Clin Infect Dis 1993 Nov; 17(5):928-9.[264] Hall A, et al. Multiple sclerosis and hepatitis B vaccine? Vaccine 1999 Jun 4; 17(20-21):2473-5.[265] Birley HD, et al. Hepatitis B immunisation and reactive arthritis. BMJ 1994 Dec 3; 309(6967):1514.[266] Pope JE, et al. The development of rheumatoid arthritis after recombinant hepatitis B vaccination. J Rheumatol1998 Sep; 25(9):1687-93.[267] Bracci M, et al. Polyarthritis associated with hepatitis B vaccination. Br J Rheumatol 1997 Feb; 36(2):300-1.[268] Hachulla E, et al. Reactive arthritis after hepatitis B vaccination. J Rheumatol 1990 Sep; 17(9):1250-1.[269] Vautier G, et al. Acute sero-positive rheumatoid arthritis occurring after hepatitis vaccination. Br J Rheumatol1994 Oct; 33(10):991.[270] Grotto I, et al. Major adverse reactions to yeast-derived hepatitis B vaccines-a review. Vaccine 1998 Feb; 16(4):329-34.[271] Vaccinations: how safe and how effective, Nexus, August-September, 1993, p. 64. [272] Scheibner, Viera. Vaccination: 100 Years of Orthodox Research Shows that Vaccines Represent a Medical Assault on the Immune System, Maryborough, Victoria, Australia, Australian Print Group, 1993, p. 86-9.[273] Fiumara NJ, Etking PH. Mumps outbreak in Westwood, Massachusetts - 1981. Epidemiologic notes and reports. MMWR 1982; 33(29):421-30.[274] Ibid.[275] Cherry JD. The 'new' epidemiology of measles and Rubella. Hosp Practice 1980 Jul; 15(7):49-57.[276] Gustafson TL, et al., Measles outbreak in a fully immunized secondary-school population. NEJM 1987; 316(13):771-4.[277] Miller, Neil Z. Immunization Theory vs. Reality, The Atlantean Press, Santa Fe, NM, 1996, p. 82.[278] Scheibner, op. cit., p. 111.[279] Cherry, op. cit.[280] Fulginiti VA, et al. Altered reactivity to measles virus. Atypical measles in children previously immunized with inactivated measles virus vaccines. JAMA 1967; 202(12):1075-80. [281] Scott TF, Bonanno DE. Reactions to live-measles-virus vaccine in children previously inoculated with killed virus vaccine. N Engl J Med 1967; 277(5):248-51.[282] Rauh JL, et al. Rubella surveillance and vaccination at adolescence. American Journal Dis Child 1972; 124:27-8. [283] Howson CP, Fineberg HV. Adverse events following pertussis and rubella vaccines. summary of a report of the institute of medicine. JAMA 1992; 267(3):392-6. [284] Markowitz LE, Preblud SR, Orenstein WA, Rovira EZ, Adams NC, Hawkins CE, Hinman AR. Patterns of transmission in measles outbreaks in the United States, 1985-1986. N Engl J Med 1989; 32:75-81.[285]JAMA 1990 May 9; 263:2467-71.[286]MMWR 1989; 38:329-30. [287] National Health Federation Bulletin, November 1969.[288] Gary Null Interview with Jamie Murphy, December 18, 1997.[289] Murphy, Jamie. What Every Parent Should Know About Childhood Immunization, Boston, Earth Healing Products, 1993, p. 114.[290] Gary Null Interview with Jamie Murphy, April 7, 1995.[291] Scheibner, op. cit., p. 38.[292] Gary Null Interview with Meryl Dorey, December 17, 1997. [293] Sawada H, Yano S, Oka Y, Togashi T. Transmission of Urabe mumps vaccine between siblings. Lancet 1993 Aug 7; 342(8867):371.[294] Scheibner, op. cit., p. 92.[295]Sawada, op. cit.[296]Dorey M. The Australian Vaccination Network Newsletter, November 1997.[297]British Medical Journal, July 4, 1987.[298]http://www.cdc.gov/nip/vaccine/vacc-timeline.htm[299] Poland GA, et al. Failure to reach the goal of measles elimination. Apparent paradox of measles infections in immunized persons. Arch Intern Med 1994 Aug 22; 154(16):1815-20.[300] Miller E, et al. Antibodies to measles, mumps and rubella in UK children 4 years after vaccination with different MMR vaccines. Vaccine 1995 Jun; 13(9):799-802.[301] Whittle H, et al. Poor serologic responses five to seven years after immunization with high and standard titer measles vaccines. Pediatr Infect Dis J 1999 Jan; 18(1):53-7.[302] Maldonado YA, et al. Early loss of passive measles antibody in infants of mothers with vaccine-induced immunity. Pediatrics 1995 Sep; 96(3 Pt 1):447-50.[303] Wong RD, et al. Clinical and laboratory features of measles in hospitalized adults. Am J Med 1993 Oct; 95(4):377-83.[304] Auwaerter PG, Hussey GD, Goddard EA, Hughes J, et al. Changes within T cell receptor V beta subsets in infants following measles vaccination. Clin Immunol Immunopathol 1996 May; 79(2):163-70.[305] 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 May; 67(2):171.[306] RESPONSE TO W.H.O. EVIDENCE FOR VACCINE SAFETY AND EFFECTIVENESS Trevor Gunn, BSc, RSHom [307] U.S. government statistic http://www.hhs.gov/news/press/pre1995pres/910000a.txt[308] E. Holt, et al from the Journal of Pediatrics, Vol. 85, No 2 pp188-194, February 1990   [309] (The lancet April 4, 1981 765). [310] , P. Aby, et Al, Pediat Infec DisJ 8: 197-200, 1989[311] Clemens et al, American Journal of Epidemiology, Vol 128, No. 6 1330-39[312]MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep 1996 Sep 6; 45(RR-12):1-35.[313] Cheek JE, et al. Mumps outbreak in a highly vaccinated school population. Evidence for large-scale vaccination failure. Arch Pediatr Adolesc Med 1995 Jul;149(7):774-8.[314] Briss PA, 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 Jan; 169(1):77-82.[315] Hersh BS, et al. Mumps outbreak in a highly vaccinated population. J Pediatr 1991 Aug; 119(2):187-93.[316] 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.[317] Matter L, et al. The incidence of rubella virus infections in Switzerland after the introduction of the MMR mass vaccination programme. Eur J Epidemiol 1995 Jun; 11(3):305-10.[318] Hillary IB, et al. Persistence of rubella antibodies 15 years after subcutaneous administration of Wistar 27/3 strain live attenuated rubella virus vaccine. JAMA 1981 Feb 20; 245(7):711-3.[319] Scheibner, op. cit., p. 111.[320]Cherry, op. cit., 49-57. [321] Howson CP, Fineberg HV. Adverse events following pertussis and rubella vaccines. summary of a report of the Institute of Medicine. JAMA 1992; 267(3):392-6. [322] 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 Nov; 100(5):767-71.[323] Miller D, et al. Measles vaccination and neurological events. Lancet 1997 Mar 8; 349(9053):730-1.[324] Sackey AH, et al. Hemiplegia after measles, mumps, and rubella vaccination. BMJ 1993 May 1; 306(6886):1169.[325] Kazarian EL, et al. Optic neuritis complicating measles, mumps, and rubella vaccination. Am J Ophthalmol 1978 Oct; 86(4):544-7.[326] Kline LB, et al. Optic neuritis and myelitis following rubella vaccination. Arch Neurol 1982 Jul; 39(7):443-4.[327] Akobeng AK et al. Inflammatory bowel disease, autism, and the measles, mumps, and rubella vaccine.  J Pediatr Gastroenterol Nutr 1999 Mar; 28(3):351-2.[328] Chiba Y, et al. Abnormalities of cellular immune response in arthritis induced by rubella vaccination. J Immunol 1976 Nov; 117(5 Pt 1):1684-7.[329] Tingle AJ, et al. Postpartum rubella immunization: association with development of prolonged arthritis, neurological sequelae, and chronic rubella viremia. J Infect Dis 1985 Sep; 152(3):606-12.[330] Roberts RJ, et al. Reasons for non-uptake of measles, mumps, and rubella catch up immunisation in a measles epidemic and side effects of the vaccine. BMJ 1995 Jun 24; 310(6995):1629-32.[331]http://165.112.6.70/exhibition/smallpox/sp_threat.html[332]http://165.112.6.70/exhibition/smallpox/sp_variolation.html[333] Miller, Neil Z. Immunization Theory vs. Reality, Santa Fe, NM, The Atlantean Press, 1996. [334] E. Jenner, Inquiry into the Causes and Effects of the Variolae Vaccine (London: Sampson Low, 1798) Case XVII [335] E. Jenner, Inquiry into the Causes and Effects of the Variolae Vaccine, p. 45. [336] summary of his practice in Bohn's Handbuch der Vaccination.   Leipzig, 1875, p. 82. [337] C. Creighton, JENNER AND VACCINATION - A Strange Chapter of Medical History, Chapter 6 p. 137-138 [338] E. Jenner, Inquiry into the Causes and Effects of the Variolae Vaccine, Case III [339] Salmade, La Pratique de I'Inoculation. Paris, An. vii. (1798) p. 51. [340] C. Creighton, JENNER AND VACCINATION - A Strange Chapter of Medical History, Chapter 2 p. 41. [341] J. Baron, Life of Jenner, i. p. 48. [342] C. Creighton, JENNER AND VACCINATION - A Strange Chapter of Medical History, Chapter 2 p. 23. [343] C. Creighton, JENNER AND VACCINATION - A Strange Chapter of Medical History, Chapter 2 p. 26.  [344] C. Creighton, JENNER AND VACCINATION - A Strange Chapter of Medical History, Chapter 2 p. 31. [345] C. Creighton, JENNER AND VACCINATION - A Strange Chapter of Medical History, Chapter 5 p. 123 [346]Contributions to Physical and Medical Knowledge, 1799 , p. 387. [347] C. Creighton, JENNER AND VACCINATION - A Strange Chapter of Medical History, Chapter 1 p. 8. [348] C. Creighton, JENNER AND VACCINATION - A Strange Chapter of Medical History, Chapter 1 p. 11. [349] C. Creighton, JENNER AND VACCINATION - A Strange Chapter of Medical History, Chapter 6 p. 150 [350] E. Jenner, Inquiry into the Causes and Effects of the Variolae Vaccine, general observations section of conclusion [351] J. Baron, Life of Jenner, ii. P304. [352] C. Creighton, JENNER AND VACCINATION - A Strange Chapter of Medical History, Chapter 6 p. 153- 154 [353] House of Commons, 17th June, 1840.  [354] C. Creighton, JENNER AND VACCINATION - A Strange Chapter of Medical History, Chapter 14 p. 339-340.  [355]Parliamentary Papers, vol. ci., 1852-53. [356] C. Ruata, A Summary of the Proofs That Vaccination Does Not Prevent Small-pox but Really Increases It (National Anti-Vaccination League S616: 1904) p. 8. [357] C. Ruata, A Summary of the Proofs That Vaccination Does Not Prevent Small-pox but Really Increases It (1904) p. 10. [358] C. Ruata, A Summary of the Proofs That Vaccination Does Not Prevent Small-pox but Really Increases It (1904) p. 10~11. [359] C. Creighton, JENNER AND VACCINATION - A Strange Chapter of Medical History, Chapter 14 p. 350 [360]Encyclopedia Britannica, Ninth Edition, 1888. subject: Vaccination, section: Influence of vaccination upon smallpox.Chart. [361] C. Ruata, A Summary of the Proofs That Vaccination Does Not Prevent Small-pox but Really Increases It (1904) p. 16~17. [362]http://www.informedchoice.info/cocktail.html[363]http://www.bt.cdc.gov/agent/smallpox/vaccination/live-virus.asp[364]http://165.112.6.70/exhibition/smallpox/sp_eradicate.html[365]http://www.cdc.gov/nip/vaccine/vacc-timeline.htm[366] Ibid.  [367] Intussusception Among Recipients of Rotavirus Vaccine-United States, 1998-1999. MMWR 1999 July 16; 48(27);577-81. [368] Rosenthal S, et al. The reporting sensitivities of two passive surveillance systems for vaccine adverse events. Am J Public Health1995; 85:1706-9. [369]http://www.rotavirusvaccine.org/documents/RotaShield_Fact_Sheet_CDC.pdf.[370] Michael Devitt, CDC Calls for Suspension of Childhood Rotavirus Vaccine "No One Should Now Be Giving Rotavirus Vaccine to Anyone." Dynamic Chiropractic October 4, 1999, Volume 17, Issue 21 http://www.chiroweb.com/archives/17/21/04.html[371] Parry, British Medical Journal, December 1, 1928, p.116.[372] Landrigan PJ, Witte JJ. Neurologic disorders following live measles-virus vaccination. JAMA 1973; 223(13):1459-62. [373] Pollock TM, et al. Symptoms after Primary Immunisation with DPT and with DT Vaccine. Lancet 1984 July; 21:146-9. [374] Hirtz DG, et al. Seizures Following Childhood Immunizations. Journal of Pediatrics 1983; 102(12):14-8. [375] Goldwater PN, et al. Sudden infant death syndrome: a possible clue to causation. Medical Journal Aust 1990; 153:59-60. [376] Goldwater PN, et al. Sudden infant death syndrome: a possible clue to causation. Medical Journal Aust 1990; 153:21-5.[377] Denborough MA, et al. Malignant Hyperpyrexia and Sudden Infant Death. Lancet 1982 Nov 13: 1068-72.[378] Chaitow, Leon. Vaccination and Immunization: Dangers, Delusions & Alternatives, Beekman Publishing, 1996.[379] Gary Null Report, November 15, 1994.[380] Coulter, Harris L and Fisher, Barbara Loe. A Shot in the Dark, Garden City Park, NY, Avery, 1991. [381] Merritt HH. Textbook of Neurology, Sixth Edition, Philadelphia, Lea and Febiger, 1979, p. 160.[382] Phillips, Alan. Vaccination: dispelling the myths. Nexus, October-November 1997.[383] National Technical Information Service, Springfield, VA. [384] Scheibner, Viera. Vaccination: 100 Years of Orthodox Research Shows that Vaccines Represent a Medical Assault on the Immune System, Maryborough, Victoria, Australia, Australian Print Group, 1993.[385] Torch WC. Diphtheria-pertussis-tetanus (DPT) immunization: a potential cause of the sudden infant death syndrome (SIDS). Neurology 1982; 32(4). [386] Scheibner, op. cit., p. 62.[387] Bafaff L, et al. Possible temporal association between diphtheria-tetanus toxoid-pertussis vaccination and sudden infant death syndrome. Pediatric Infectious Dis, 2, 1983, p. 7.[388] James, Walene. Immunization: The Reality Behind the Myth, Massachusetts, Bergin & Gervey, 1988.[389] Cournoyer, Cynthis. What About Immunizations?, 6th Edition, Nelson's Books, 1995, p. 34.[390]Immunization, Special Edition, Santa Fe, NM, Mothering Publications, 1984.[391] Moskowitz R. The Case Against Immunizations, Washington, DC, National Center for Homeopathy.[392] Cournoyer, op. cit., p. 35.[393] Scheibner, op. cit., p. 88-9.[394] Black FL, et al. Inadequate Immunity to Measles Immunity in Era of Vaccine-Protected Mothers. Bull WHO1984; 62(92):315-9.[395] Lennon JL, Black FL. Maternally derived measles immunity in era of vaccine-protected mothers. Journal of Pediatrics 1986; 108(1):671-6.[396] Scheibner, op. cit., p. 199.[397] Aaby P, et al. Long-term survival after Edmonston-Zagreb measles vaccination in Guinea-Bissau: increased female mortality rate. J Pediatr 1993 Jun; 122(6):904-8.[398] Garenne M, et al. Child mortality after high-titre measles vaccines: prospective study in Senegal. Lancet 1991 Oct 12; 338(8772):903-7.[399] Cournoyer, op. cit., p. 160.[400] "Interview with Barbara Loe Fisher." National Vaccine Information Center Newsletter Website.[401] Cournoyer, op. cit., p. 156.[402] The National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act of 1986 Public Law 99-690, The Compensation System and How it Works. The National Vaccination Information Center, Vienna, VA, 1990.[403] Vaccine injury compensation program statistics. NVIC News, August 1994, p. 10.[404] Phillips, op. cit.[405] National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program, Health Resources and Services Administration, Rockville, MD.[406] Neustaedter R. Do vaccines disable the immune system? Internet Document.[407] Fisher, Barbara Loe. The Consumer's Guide to Childhood Vaccines, Vienna, VA, National Vaccine Information Center, 1997.[408] Ibid, p. 48.[409] Ibid, p. 64.[410] National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program: monthly statistics report, September 30, 2002. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Health Resources and Services Administration. From www.hrsa.gov/osp/vicp/monthly.htm.[411] Gary Null Interview with Barbara Loe Fisher, April 11, 1995.[412] Ibid.[413] Gary Null Interview with Dr. Dean Black, April 7, 1995. [414] Gary Null Interview with Curtis Cost, December 17, 1997.[415] Gary Null Interview with Barbara Loe Fisher, April 11, 1995.[416] Gary Null Interview with Alan Phillips, December 17, 1997.[417] Gary Null Interview with Dr. Dean Black, April 7, 1995.