The Gary Null Blog

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

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

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

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

century, but improved throughout

the 20

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

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

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

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

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]

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]

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

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

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

during the entire 20

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

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

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]

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

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

Century and Australia in the 18

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Century, "Changes in the Process of Aging during the 20

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]

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]