Mass immunization programs have been seriously
questioned on both developmental and scientific grounds. It will be the
purpose of this report to proceed with a detailed examination of the issues
of controversy, draw some conclusions, and make appropriate recommendations.
The critique of these issues stems from a careful review and evaluation
of wide ranging biomedical literature sources of relevance to the subject.
This work has been carried out in the spirit of honest inquiry, thus affording
a fresh and critical analyses of the fundamental issues.
Although the conclusions as reached visibly
sustain "one side" of what is largely a hidden and professionalist
dominated debate on immunization, the reader should note that this is
done in order to provide a long neglected and constructive counterbalance
to the predominating supportive declarations of the establishment, and
in turn the parroted promotion of the same view by the popular media.
It must further be appreciated that past
and ongoing investments in the drive for universal immunization extend
well beyond the mere allocation of substantial government and publicly
donated funds (which translates into biennial expenditures of a billion
US dollars, 63 percent of which comes from Developing World countries
themselves) to include: extensive public and private sector commitment
to meeting the infrastructural, service, product and marketing requirements
of the worldwide medico-industrial complex which employs tens of thousands
of people in drug companies, private laboratories, universities, governmental
health departments, hospitals etc. (furthermore it is estimated that there
are 25,000 professional national and international staff who directly
oversee hundreds of thousands of field workers involved in the annual
vaccination of 60 million children); related domestic and international
legislation and politics; and massive public educational indoctrination
initiatives that are largely predicated on promoting the unquestioned
effectiveness and relative safety of immunization, and which by design
engender an impelling fear in those "unprotected."
In the Developing World immunization has
reached 50 percent for DPT vaccine and 40 percent for measles, and is
now saving over 1.3 million lives annually." Everyone is encouraged -- bordering
on religious fervor -- to get on the bandwagon. UNICEF.. calls for a 'Grand
Alliance' of all possible resources teachers, and religious leaders, mass
media and government agencies, voluntary organizations and people's movements,
business leaders and labour unions, women's groups and health services
to create an informed public demand for. . . the methods which could now
bring about 'a revolution' in child survival and development.
Immunization's high acceptance and apparent
success relate to a number of factors: A technological package that is
easily understood and readily available . . . the fact that vaccination
does not require substantial behavioral change; the relative ease of measuring
coverage and its offer of an opportunity for political leadership at all
levels to be visibly involved. It is accepted wisdom among medical professionals
and in turn the public, that millions of children now enjoy improved health
and freedom from various life-threatening diseases because of safe and
effective vaccines. In the words of Fulginiti, "morbidity and deaths
secondary to the contagious diseases have either been eradicated, measles
greatly reduced in occurrence, and rubella, mumps, pertussis, and other
diseases significantly lessened in terms of their impact."
VACCINE SCHEDULING
It is instructive to consider the experience
of Japan in this regard. Delay of DPT immunization until 2 years of age
in Japan has resulted in a dramatic decline in adverse side effects. In
the period of 1970-1974, when DPT vaccination was begun at 3 to 5 months
of age, the Japanese national compensation system paid out claims for
57 permanent severe damage vaccine cases, and 37 deaths. During the ensuing
six year period 1975-1980, when DPT injections were delayed to 24 months
of age, severe reactions from the vaccine were reduced to a total of eight
with three deaths. This represents an 85 to 90 percent reduction in severe
cases of damage and death. 21 Although it is obvious that conditions in
Japan remain distinctive from that of most Developing World countries,
it must be noted that insofar as susceptibility to infectious disease
remains greater in lesser developed countries, it clearly follows that
susceptibility to vaccine damage will also be proportionally greater.
Thus the lesson from Japan carries a valid message relative to the prevention
of vaccine damage in the Developing World.
IMMUNIZATION'S IMPACT IN THE DECLENSION
OF INFECTIOUS DISEASES
There has been a general failure since
the inception of the first vaccine programs to establish genuinely verifiable
evidence for their long term effectiveness, and safety. The general nature
of this problem in Selective Primary Health Care activities is well expressed
by prominent Medical Sociologist J. Williamson, when he says there has
been a failure to "assess explicitly the degree of validity and sufficiency
of the evidence linking care structures (facilities, personnel), and processes
to outcomes of care in general and to health outcomes in particular."
Epidemiological science is largely predicated
on the reality that changes in morbidity and mortality in populations
are necessarily linked to a whole series of contributive factors."
(Noted authority George Dick states that: "Many infectious diseases
can be prevented without immunization, because once the natural history
of the disease is understood, the source may be eliminated or transmission
prevented [e.g.,] . . . . When it was discovered that cholera and typhoid
epidemics were regularly transmitted by faecal contamination of water,
the provision of clean water supplies nearly eradicated these diseases
from many countries without recourse to immunization.")
It is widely acknowledged that factors
such as: nutrition, sanitation, potable water; the natural and social
environments (e.g., agricultural practices, food supply, education and
income), all play vital roles in determining the onset, severity, and
eradication of both infectious and degenerative diseases. Diseases such
as cholera and typhoid, have been strongly linked to water and sanitation,
whereas evidence continues to accumulate that nutrition remains likely
the most critical determinant factor in the full range of infectious and
degenerative human diseases.
INCOMPLETE STATISTICAL REPORTING
Selectively slanted and incomplete reporting
of the true statistical picture is not an infrequent problem in the promotive
oriented reporting. The following comment is made with respect to the
expansion of the measles vaccination program, ". . . the immunization
coverage for measles has increased from 6 percent in 1984 to 63 percent
in 1988, leading to a reduction in measles prevalence from 93.7/100,000
in 1984 to 37.1/100,000 in 1986." What the report fails to indicate
though is that although the 1986 inununization coverage of 44% had increased
by 1987 to 60%, the measles infection rate in the same period actually
more than doubled, with an increase from 37.1 to 87.1 per 100,000.
It is also noteworthy that the culminating
maximum immunization coverage of 63% achieved in 1988, correlates with
a 1988 infection report rate of 59.1 /100,000 -- which in fact poses higher
level of measles infection than the 1982 reported infection rate of 57.1
/100,000, which was a time when measles immunization was not being provided
in Thailand. (The higher per capita infection rate -- after five years of
expanding coverage -- obviously reflects very negatively on the assumed
efficacy of the vaccine, and may have been deliberately obfuscated in
the reporting. No evidence was seen to suggest that the post-immunization
increases in disease rates were attributable to case reporting improvements.)
IS IMMUNIZATION EFFECTIVENESS A CERTAINTY?
It can well be said that real "ignorance
is not knowing, but knowing what isn't so." The question of whether
vaccines in fact protect recipients from the diseases for which they are
given, might seem absurd on the face of it. As already noted, when we
closer examine the question of statistical evidence for immunization's
effectiveness, there remain significant epidemiological uncertainties.
The literature further reveals some critical problems in data gathering,
interpretation and reporting practices.
These basic concerns are succinctly summarized
by Professor Gordon Stewart, recent head of the Department of Community
Medicine at Glasgow University: What kind of immunization is this for
which success is being claimed?... What kind of epidemiology is this which
advocates immunization b excluding, consideration of factors other than
immunization? . . . "at kind of editorial policy is this which publishes
incomplete data and promotes far reaching claims about the efficacy of
immunization, but refuses to publish collateral data questioning this
efficacy?
We are thus confronted with an unenviable
situation where in the general absence of verifiable multifactored and
controlled studies, immunization remains today -- scientifically speaking -- as
a basically unproven program intervention. In fact, there is a substantive
and growing body of data that call into serious question the soundness
and effectiveness of mass immunization programs. This data not only calls
into question immunizations's effectiveness, but further details adverse
side effects and potential long term dangers of this widely implemented
medical intervention.
EARLY THEORETICAL FOUNDATIONS RE-EXAMINED
In order to better grasp the issue of vaccine
effectiveness, it would prove helpful for us to go back to the early theoretical
foundation upon which current vaccination and disease theories originated.
In simplest terms, the theory of artificial immunization postulates that
by giving a person a mild form of a disease, via the use of specific foreign
proteins, attenuated viruses, etc., the body will react by producing a
lasting protective response e.g., antibodies, to protect the body if or
when the real disease comes along.
This primal theory of disease prevention
originated by Paul Ehrlich -- from the time of its inception -- has been subject
to increasing abandonment by scientists of no small stature. For example
not long after the Ehrlich theory came into vogue, W.H. Manwaring, then
Professor of Bacteriology and Experimental Pathology at Leland Stanford
University observed: I believe that there is hardly an element of truth
in a single one of the basic hypothesis embodied in this theory. My conviction
that there was something radically wrong with it arose from a consideration
of the almost universal failure of therapeutic methods based on it . .
. Twelve years of study with immuno-physical tests have yielded a mass
of experimental evidence contrary to, and irreconcilable with the Ehrlich
theory, and have convinced me that his conception of the origin, nature,
and physiological role of the specific 'antibodies' is erroneous.
To afford us with a continuing historical
perspective of events since Manwaring's time, we can next turn to the
classic work on auto-immunity and disease by Sir MacFarlane Burnett, which
indicates that since the middle of this century the place of antibodies
at the centre stage of immunity to disease has undergone "a striking
demotion." For example, it had become well known that children with
agammaglobulinaemia -- who consequently have no capacity to produce antibody -- after
contracting measles, (or other zymotic diseases) nonetheless recover with
long-lasting immunity. In his view it was clear "that a variety of
other immunological mechanisms are functioning effectively without benefit
of actively produced antibody."
The kind of research which led to this
a broader perspective on the body's immunological mechanisms included
a mid-century British investigation on the relationship of the incidence
of diphtheria to the presence of antibodies. The study concluded that
there was no observable correlation between the antibody count and the
incidence of the disease." "The researchers found people who
were highly resistant with extremely low antibody count, and people who
developed the disease who had high antibody counts. (According to Don
de Savingy of IDRC, the significance of the role of multiple immunological
factors and mechanisms has gained wide recognition in scientific thinking.
[For example, it is now generally held that vaccines operate by stimulating
non-humeral mechanisms, with antibody serving only as an indicator that
a vaccine was given, or that a person was exposed to a particular infectious
agent.])
In the early 70's we find an article in
the Australian Journal of Medical Technology by medical virologist B.
Allen (of the Australian Laboratory of Microbiology and Pathology, Brisbane)
which reported that although a group of recruits were immunized for Rubella,
and uniformly demonstrated antibodies, 80 percent of the recruits contracted
the disease when later exposed to it. Similar results were demonstrated
in a consecutive study conducted at an institution for the mentally disabled.
Allen -- in commenting on her research at a University of Melbourne seminar -- stated
that "one must wonder whether the . . . decision to rely on herd
immunity might not have to be rethought.
As we proceed to the early 80s, we find
that upon investigating unexpected and unexplainable outbreaks of acute
infection among "immunized" persons, mainstream scientists have
begun to seriously question whether their understanding of what constitutes
reliable immunity is in fact valid. For example, a team of scientist writing
in the New England Journal of Medicine provide evidence for the position
that immunity to disease is a broader bio-ecological question then the
factors of artificial immunization or serology. They summarily concluded:
"It is important to stress that immunity (or its absence) cannot
be determined reliable on the basis of history of the disease, history
of immunization, or even history of prior serologic determination.
Despite these significant shifts in scientific
thinking, there has unfortunately been little actual progress made in
terms of undertaking systematically broad research on the multiple factors
which undergird human immunity to disease, and in turn building a system
of prevention that is squarely based upon such findings. It seems ironic
that as late as 1988 James must still raise the following basic questions.
"Why doesn't medical research focus on what factors in our environment
and in our lives weaken the immune system? Is this too simple? too ordinary?
too undramatic? Or does it threaten too many vested interests . . ?"
ARTIFICIALLY INDUCED IMMUNITY -- REALITY
OR DELUSION?
Physiologist, S.K. Claunch raises an reasonable
postulate when he suggests that the body's capacity to initiate a "vigorous
reaction" (i.e., the acute processes of elimination associated with
viral and infectious diseases) hinges essentially on its level of vitality,
and thus such reactions are most commonly found in children. In contrast,
it is generally acknowledged that the very feeble and or chronically diseased -- who
have significantly lower vital energy levels -- tend to remain relatively
free from such acute reactions.
This observation in turn lead him to express
the concept that: If any child has its vitality lowered and its health
impaired to the degree that it is no longer strong enough to develop an
acute disease, it is, for the time being, at least "immune."
This is the exact clinical picture one observes when serums, vaccines
and "biologicals" are shot into a child . . . its vitality is
so lowered that it is no longer healthy enough to protest or react against
them. So long as its vitality stays down, it will be "immune."
A number of detractors have legitimately
raised the question of how the injection of foreign disease matter into
the human system can constitute a legitimate approach to the sustenance
of human health. After all, we don't seek warmth of icebergs, is there
thus any more logic in seeking health from substances which are intimately
associated with disease and death? The articulate view of physiologist
H.M. Shelton is that: To interfere with the all-important composition
of the blood in the haphazard manner serologists do, results in incalculable
disturbance of its physiological equilibrium . . . health depends, not
upon killing bacteria [& viruses] but upon building up the soundness
. . . integrity [and] functional vigor . . . of our own tissues and organs.
. . . Normal resistance can be achieved only by use of the same means
by which it was originally built and maintained. Nature makes no mistakes
and violates no laws. She is uniformly governed by fixed principles and
all her actions harmonize with ... [nature's governing] laws . . . The
best, indeed the only method ofpromoting public health is to teach people
the laws of nature and.. how to preserve health. Immunization programs
are futile, and are based on the delusion that the law of cause and effect
can be annulled Vaccines and serums are employed as substitutesfor right
living; they are intended to supplant obedience to the laws of life. Such
programs are slaps in the face of law and order."
AN HISTORIC OVERVIEW OF THE BACTERIAL/VIRALTHEORY
OF DISEASE CAUSATION
In order to provide some further background
to the reader, this section will briefly recount some of the most significant
observations of earlier scientists on the broader question of what is
the actual role bacteria and viruses play in human infectious disease.
The debate on this issue -- although an old one remains highly relevant
and timely in that the whole edifice of Western selective medicine, both
preventive and therapeutic, hinges upon a correct perspective on and resolution
of the question.
Indeed, it remains remarkable that whether
we go to recent or more distant history, we find that fundamentally critical
scientific discoveries and observations which serve to clarify these issues,
and point in a more appropriate direction, continue -- at least in practice -- to
be largely unknown and or ignored. (Some researchers would suggest that
this failure arises because such discoveries -- if genuinely applied -- would
significantly curb what amounts to annual income totaling multiple billions
of dollars in the exploitation of human disease.)
However, it is apparent that the factors
underlying this failure are in reality much broader and more complex.
Due to the need for brevity, only two cases of historic significance will
be considered. Earlier in this century, C.E. Rosenow of the Mayo Biological
Laboratories began a series of experiments in which he took distinctive
bacterial strains from a number of different disease sources and placed
them in one culture of uniform media. In time the distinctive strains
all became one class. By repeatedly changing cultures, he could individually
modify bacterial strains making them some harmless or "pathogenic"
and in turn reverse the process. He concluded that the critical factor
allowing demonstration of the polymorphic nature of bacteria was their
environment and the food they lived upon. These discoveries were first
published in the year 1914 in the Journal of Infectious Disease."
Rosenow's work was corroborated and expanded
upon about two decades later by R.R. Rife, developer of the Universal
Microscope which was developed concurrent with RCA's initial marketing
of the electron microscope. Rife's alternative was a 5,682 component,
150,000 power (60,000 diameters of magnification) instrument which made
live bacteria visibly "clear as a cat on your lap." This microscope
was a light transmitting instrument with a resolution of 31,000 diameters
(traditionally electron microscopes had resolutions of up to 25,000 diameters)
which overcame the chief weakness of the electron scope, i.e., the inability
to view living cells structures and bacterial and viral organisms in their
unaltered living state. (An alternative was required, as living matter
when viewed under the electron scope, becomes altered and distorted due
to bombardment by a virtual hailstorm of electrons, with such distortions
increasing proportionally with the intensity of magnification. Consequently,
the extremely high magnification levels found in the latest electron microscopes
actually serve to exacerbate this major flaw.)
Modern microscopy texts suggest that with
light microscopes it is impossible to obtain extremely high magnifications
of objects and still retain visual clarity. For example Novikoff and Holtzman
affirm that in such instruments a point is reached after which the image
is "increasingly blurred and nothing is gained by further magnification.
Thus, light microscopes are rarely used at magnifications greater than
. . . 1500 X." However, Rife's invention with its 14 separate crystal
quartz lenses and prisms, was able to bend and to polarize light in such
a way that a specimen could be illuminated by extremely narrow portions
of the spectra, and even by a single light frequency. This combined with
the shortening of projection distance between prisms, and other innovative
technical features permitted high resolutions without distortion at extremely
high magnifications, never before or since attained in light microscopy.
Rife showed that by altering the environment
and food supply, friendly bacteria such as colon bacillus could be converted
into varied "pathogenic" bacteria. For example, Rife also observed
that bacillus coli could in time be modified into the viral agent associated
with certain forms of cancer, and the process actually reversed. In Rife's
words: In reality, it is not the bacteria themselves that produce the
disease, but we believe it is . . . the unbalanced cell metabolism of
the human body that in actuality produce the of disease. We also believe
if the metabolism of the human body is perfectly balanced . . . it is
susceptible to no disease.
This observation closely parallels Alexis
Carrel's earlier research at the Rockefeller Institute where he was able
to control the rates and levels of infectious disease mortality among
mice. Beginning with the standard diet he observed a corresponding death
rate of 52 percent. By making specific dietary improvements he was able
to reduce mortality rates downward to 32 percent, then 14 percent, and
finally to a rate of 0.45
Not too long after Rife's and Carrel's
reported observations, scientist Rene Dubos (also at the Rockefeller Institute)
reaffirmed their open and direct challenge to the conventional thinking
and practice of the scientific community at large. He suggested that the
presumed relationship between microbes and the onset of human disease
has been "so oversimplified that it rarely fits the facts of disease.
Indeed it corresponds almost to a cult . . . undisturbed by inconsistencies
and not too exacting about evidence."
He expanded upon this view in suggesting
that we need to objectively account for the fact that extremely virulent:
. . . pathogenic agents [i.e., bacterial and viral micro-organisms] sometimes
can persist in the tissues without causing disease, and at other times
can cause disease even in the presence of specific antibodies. We need
also to explain why microbes supposed to be non-pathogenic often start
proliferating in an unrestrained manner if the body's normal physiology
is upset. . . . During the first phase of the germ theory the property
was regarded as lying solely within the microbes themselves. Now virulence
is coming to be thought of as ecological . . . This ecological concept
is not merely an intellectual game; it is essential to a proper formulation
of the problem of microbial diseases and even to their control "
Indeed, Dubos -- in time -- came to voice the
conclusion that "Viruses and bacteria are not the cause of disease,
there is something else." In his classic work Mirage of Health, he
states "The world is obsessed by the fact that poliomyelitis can
kill and maim . . . unfortunate victims every year. But more extraordinary
is the fact that millions upon millions of young children become infected
by polio virus, yet suffer no harm from the infection."
This view closely corresponds to the oft
quoted conclusion arrived at in later life by R. Virchow (popularly reputed
as father of the "germ theory") when he stated, "If I could
live my life over again, I would devote it to proving that germs seek
their natural habitat, diseased tissues, rather than being the cause of
disease." Since Dubos' time, researchers have estimated that the
quantity of symptom free exposure to viruses outnumber clinical illnesses
by at least one hundred-fold. This conclusion is based on the "high
proportion of adults who have virus-neutralizing substances in their serum
and the number who, during an epidemic, excrete virus without becoming
ill.
HIV Corroborative Evidence
Further corroborative conclusions have
been recently reached by some prominent scientists in their critical examination
of the popular view that Human Immuno-deficiency Virus (HIV) is the key,
if not the singular cause of the Acquired Immuno-deficiency Syndrome (AIDS).
Evidence is in that the popularized view that HIV causes AIDS is far more
a political necessity, than a genuine scientific conclusion. (Although
the observed action and effects of viruses, and retroviruses -- such as
HIV -- do in fact significantly differ, what is being called into question
is the validity of labeling microbes -- of whatever form -- as the key and
or sole "cause" for disease, or as in this case of acquired
immunodeficiency.)
Peter Duesberg (Professor of Molecular
Biology at the University of Calif.- Berkeley; considered by many to be
the world's leading expert on retroviruses; and Nobel Prize candidate
for his work in discovering oncogenes in viruses) provides compelling
evidence that lifestyle based factors serve as the primal determinants
in the evolution of the 20 plus neoplastic and degenerative diseases that
are now associated with AIDS. Employing his own research -- complemented
by 196 cited references -- an article entitled "HIV and AlDs: Correlation
but not causation," was published in 1989 in the Proceedings of the
National Academy of Sciences USA.
This article indicates that "Free"
HIV virus (Free meaning that the retrovirus is already part of the genome)
is not detectable in most cases of AIDS;" "Pure HIV does not
cause AIDS upon experimental infection of chimpanzees or accidental infection
of healthy humans;" and "Epidemiological surveys indicate that
the annual incidence of AIDS [to be understood as a condition symptomized
by various secondary infections for which natural immunity has been lost]
depends critically on non-viral [related] risk factors . . . defined by
lifestyle, health, and country of residence."
In an interview published nearly five years
later Dr. Duesberg is more convinced than ever that the HIV retrovirus
is not the cause of AIDS, or of the mortality associated with AIDS. Some
of the key points he makes in this important interview follow: There are
roughly seven and a half million people world wide who are known carriers
of HIV, and who continue to remain free of the immune deficiency symptoms
associated with AIDS, and there's not one authenticated case "where
you get infected today and get a disease. . . years later . . . infectious
agents work immediately or never." HIV has been found to be totally
absent in the system of over 4,600 persons diagnosed with AIDS, so to
save political face the US Centers for Disease Control have been forced
of late to give such cases a new name i.e., "idiopathic CD 4 Iymphocytopenia."
There are a million Americans with HIV
and their T cells are normal, indeed, "HIV is one of the most harmless
viruses you could possibly have. It never claims more than one in 1,000
cells every other day" during which time your body replaces "at
least 30 out of 1,000" cells. AIDS is not an infectious disease,
but rather arises from "party swinger lifestyles" that includes:
the widespread and abundant use of various immune- depleting drugs both
legal and illegal such as cocaine, alcohol, marijuana, amphetamines, aphrodisiacs,
amyl or butyl nitrites (poppers), combined with correlated conditions
of malnutrition, inadequate sleep, and poor hygiene.
Another key cause of AIDS and the mortality
arising from it is medical treatment in itself, viz. AZT has become "AIDS
by prescription" and design. In other words in the US alone 200,000
persons (most of whom have normal health) who've tested positive for HIV
antibodies, are given 250 mg of AZT every six hours. This highly toxic
drug destroys bone marrow, as well as red blood cells thus precipitating
cellular oxygen starvation destroys white blood cells; causes anemia,
weight loss, muscle loss, nausea, and worsening immune system deficiency
coupled with the ensuing infectious diseases commonly associated with
AIDS, and finally death. (The very same sequence of rapid physiological
deterioration, immune deficiency and infections has been documented in
healthy persons who were tested positive for HIV, and quickly submitted
to medical treatment, but were later confirmed as false positives.)
Bio medical scientist and AIDS researcher
Joseph Sonnabend speaks of ". . . the failure of our scientific and
medical institutions to have provided an even rudimentary understanding
of the pathogenesis of this disease in the eight years since its first
description, let alone to have developed interventions...that might significantly
alter its course." His well researched conclusions include the view
that "The association of HIV seropositivity with AIDS could . . .
derive from the possibility that the expression of HIV (and consequent
seroconversion) is an effect, rather than a cause of AIDS. . ."
In summary, if we retum to Robert Koch's
19th century postulates of the "Germ Theory," viz. in order
to cause disease particular "bacterium:" a) must be found in
every case of the disease; b) must never be found apart from the disease;
and c) must consistently produce the same disease as that manifested by
the body from which the disease related germs were taken; we find that
in reality each postulate has been disproved time and again by varied
experience and experimental data. Nonetheless, it appears that to this
day there remains only a marginal acknowledgment or practical recognition
that it is the condition of the body-mind complex and its internal and
external environments, which are the principal determinants of the nature,
prevalence and role of bacteria, viruses, and even retroviruses.
THE BACTERIAL/VIRALVERSUS THE CELLULAR/ECOLOGICALTHEORY
OF INFECTIOUS DISEASE
As a result of the re discovery of many
of these earlier scientific investigations, as well as more recent observations
in molecular biology, there has arisen among more independent scientists
and primary health practitioners a new concept that has been coined as
the cellular theory of infectious disease. This seemingly more logical
and updated view, poses a serious challenge to the present unquestioned
emphasis on supporting mass selective medicine approaches (including artificial
immunization) in the Developing World. The traditional Bacterial -- Viral
and the emerging Cellular -- Ecological theories of disease are contrasted
in the table which follows. The practical acceptance of the cellular theory
as delineated would entail a substantive shift away from both preventive
and therapeutic interventions which are heavily predicated on Western
selective medicine, i.e., vaccines and drugs, and toward fundamental health
improvement measures such as sound nutrition, potable water, sanitation
and overall enhancement of the human physical and social environments.
Considerable experimental, historical and epidemiological evidence supports
the cellular ecological theory.
In that major declines in infectious disease
took place before the advent of specific vaccines and antibiotics, scientists
and or physicians such as Dubos, Dettman, Illich, McCormick, Taylor, Buttram,
and Hoffman agree that the overall eradication of varied infectious diseases
were due to basic improvements in nutrition, sanitation, housing, education
and related socioeconomic conditions. For example, Canadian physician
W.J. McConnick was able to make this telling observation at midpoint in
the present century.
The usual explanation offered for this
changed trend in infectious diseases has been the forward March of medicine
in prophylaxis and therapy; but, from a study of the literature, it is
evident that these changes in incidence and mortality have been neither
synchronous with nor proportionate to such measures . . . . . . . the
decline in diphtheria, whooping cough and typhoid fever began fully fifty
years prior to the inception of artificial immunization and followed an
almost even grade before and after the adoption of these control measures.
In the case of scarlet fever, mumps, measles and rheumatic fever there
has been no specific innovation in control measures, yet these also have
followed the same general pattern in incidence decline.
IMMUNIZATION EFFECTIVENESS DATA
Robert Mendelsohn (Assoc. Prof. of Preventive
Medicine and Community Health, University of Illinois) reports "that
children who have been immunized [for diphtheria] fare no better than
those who have not." He went on to describe an outbreak of diphtheria
in which "fourteen of twenty-three carriers had been fully immunized."
This means that just over 60 percent of the carriers who were presumed
to be protected by the toxoid, contracted the disease. In his words "Episodes
such as these shatter the argument that immunization can be credited with
eliminating diphtheria or any of the other . . . childhood diseases."
The following conclusion is extracted from
the Minutes of the 15th Session (November 20-21, 1975) of the Panel of
Review of Bacterial Vaccines and Toxoids with Standards and Potency (data
presented by the US Bureau of Biologics, and the Food and Drug Administration).
For several reasons, diphtheria toxoid, fluid or absorbed, is not as effective
an immunizing agent as might be anticipated. Clinical (symptomatic) diphtheria
may occur . . . in immunized individuals -- even those whose immunization
is reported as complete by recommended regimes . . . the permanence of
immunity induced by the toxoid . . . is open to question.
Earlier historical data on protective toxoiding
efforts in N. America clearly verify not only the FDA's conclusion, but
the fact that the toxoid actually exacerbated the seriousness of the disease.
North American data on various diphtheria outbreaks in the early 40's,
reveal the following facts. In the Halifax Canada epidemic, of the cases
admitted for hospital treatment, 66 had previously received one or more
doses of diphtheria toxoid or antitoxin, or were found Shick negative.
In fact, of this number five cases had been immunized within the preceding
two month period.
In the Ottawa Canada epidemic, of 99 cases
(all under the age of 15), 36 were found to have previously received all
three doses of the toxoid. In the Baltimore USA epidemic, 63 percent of
all cases had a record or history of prior immunization with toxoid. Among
the fatal and more serious "Bull-neck" cases, 77.8 percent had
previously been toxoided. During roughly the same historic period, we
find in various European countries a gripping picture suggesting that
the use of Diphtheria toxoid in fact precipitated epidemics of the disease.77
Throughout 1941 to 1944 "The Ministry and Dept. of Health, Scotland,
admitted almost 23,000 cases of diphtheria in immunized children,"
with 180 fatalities.
By the year 1941, the majority of children
in France had been inoculated for diphtheria, the case rate standing at
13,795 by the end of that year. Mass immunization efforts continued, and
"by 1943, the diphtheria cases were more than tripled to 46,750."79
Diphtheria increased by 55 percent in Hungary and tripled in Geneva, Switzerland
after the introduction of compulsory immunization laws. In Germany, with
compulsory mass immunization "introduced in 1940, the number of cases
increased from 40,000 per year to 250,000 by 1945, virtually all among
immunized children." Norway, during the same time frame -- just noted -- remained
unvaccinated, and had only 50 recorded cases of diphtheria. "In Sweden,
diphtheria virtually disappeared without any immunization." According
to Coumoyer's research, official US Military records show that enlisted
men and women who are thoroughly vaccinated -- manifest a morbidity and
mortality rate from diphtheria four times higher, than that of unvaccinated
civilians.
Data on Measles
The University of Alberta initiated special
research on the question of measles immunity, as a result of a measles
epidemic which "swept" the University campus in 1987, despite
a "98 percent immunization rate." The research team's head immunologist
R. Marusyk (who is also affiliated with the Alberta Provincial Public
Health Laboratory) has subsequently confirmed that it is an invalid assumption
that vaccination programs for measles -- which are normally administered
at 9 to 12 months, and a later childhood booster shot -- confers lifelong
immunity.
One of their findings indicated that 93
percent of infants "who were studied" showed no immunity by
the age of six months. The mothers of the 120 babies had all been vaccinated.
Normally, antibodies that have been transferred at birth from the mother
to the child remain present for a year." (According to D. de Saving
at IDRC, this transfer and retention of antibodies apparently occurs when
the mother has had an actual measles infection, and not just vaccination.)
Similar to the experience at the University
of Alberta, the National Geographic in its January 1991 issue article
"The Disease Detectives," refers to a 1988 measles epidemic
at Fort Lewis College, Durango, Colorado USA in these words: "Surprisingly
most who fell ill had been vaccinated. CDC (US Center for Disease Control)
investigators rushed to the campus during the 1988 outbreak to trace what
had gone wrong." There are repeated reports of measles epidemics
occurring in fully vaccinated populations. These failures have occurred
repeatedly since the vaccines introduction.
Other documented research findings follow:
A survey conducted in 1978 -- covering 30 states in the US -- revealed that
"more than half of the children who contracted measles had been adequately
vaccinated;" Moskowitz et al. found that in those states with comprehensive
(k-grade 12) immunization requirements, between 61 and 90 percent of measles
cases occur in persons who received the recommended vaccines; and A review
of 1,600 cases of measles in Quebec, Canada in the period of January to
May of 1989, revealed that 5 8 percent of school-age cases had been previously
vaccinated.
According to an unpublished WHO research
study comparing what would be defined as a "measles susceptible"
group of children, to a control group that had been immunized for measles,
it was observed that the non-immunized group manifested a normal contraction
rate of 2.4 percent, whereas the immunized group exhibited a 33.5 percent
contraction level. This implies a 15 times greater likelihood of infection
by the immunized. In spite of high measles immunization coverages, measles
epidemics are often reported, not only in the less developed regions but
also in those developed countries with measles elimination targets.
Data on Polio
An article in a major consumer journal
titled "Twentieth-century miraclemaker," in extolling the value
of Salk's polio vaccine, indicated that in 1953, there were 15,600 cases
of paralytic polio in the United States; by 1957, due to the vaccine,
this number dropped to 2,499." Since this popular conception persists
to this day as an important demonstration of the effectiveness of vaccination
procedures in general, and the polio vaccine in particular, it bears some
re-examination.
Bernard Greenberg (late Dean -- School of
Public Health, University of N. Carolina) who -- during the polio epidemics
of the 50's -- chaired the Committee on Evaluation and Standards for the
American Public Health Association, submitted testimony to the Congressional
Hearings on polio vaccines (HR0541, 1962). His evidence respecting diagnostic
modifications and statistical manipulation, seriously challenged the popularly
promoted view that the epidemics subsided as a result of vaccine intervention.
In his words "As a result of . . . changes in both diagnosis and
diagnostic methods, the rates of paralytic poliomyelitis plummeted from
the early 1950's to a low in 1957."
This involved: redefinition of what constitutes
an epidemic redefinition of the disease; and mislabelling, and later reclassification
(prior to 1954 "large numbers" of presumed "paralytic polio"
cases were actually "Coxsackie . . . and aseptic meningitis,"
statistical reclassification of "polio" cases (not leading to
permanent paralysis) in the ensuing 4 year period became the norm in virtually
all regions of the country. It is of further interest that Greenberg testified
that after the introduction of much more intensive and frequently compulsory
immunization programs -- beginning in 1957 -- there was a correspondingly
substantial increase in polio cases (which were presumably paralytic,
due to the aforenoted reclassification process).
In the period of 1957-1958 there was a
50 percent increase, and 1958-1959 an 80 percent increase in such cases.
He also indicated that during this period statistics were manipulated
and statements made by the US Public Health service, to give an opposite
impression.
A distinguished interdisciplinary medical
panel moderated at the 120th Annual Meeting of the Illinois State Medical
Society, confirmed that in the year 1959, roughly 1,000 cases of paralytic
polio occurred in persons who had previously received multiple doses of
the Salk vaccine. As a panel member, B. Greenberg contributed the following
observation: One of the most obvious pieces of misinformation . . . is
that the 50 percent rise in paralytic poliomyelitis in 1958, and the real
accelerated increase in 1959 have been caused by persons failing to be
vaccinated This represents . . . an unwillingness to face facts and to
evaluate the true effectiveness of the Salk vaccine. . . . A scientific
examination of the data and the manner in which the data were manipulated,
will reveal that the true effectiveness of the present Salk vaccine is
unknown and greatly overrated.
When pediatrician R. Mendelsohn, was asked
whether polio would return if vaccinations were stopped, he replied "Doctors
admit that forty percent of our population is not immunized against polio.
So where is polio? Diseases are like fashions, they come and go . . ."
Later on US National television he referred to epidemiological records
which revealed the disappearance of polio in Europe during the 40's and
50's, without benefit of immunizations.
Speaking at an international health convention
in 1978, A. Burton reported that statistical data compiled by the University
of New South Wales in Australia revealed that polio immunization programs
had no measurable impact in reversing what was a recent epidemic in that
country. He expressed the view that polio comes in cycles anyway, and
when it does subside, it is inadvertently considered "conquered"
by vaccines.
This naturally occurring cycle in polio
epidemics was well illustrated in Great Britain where polio peaked in
1950, and had declined by 82 percent by the year 1956, at which time the
vaccine was first introduced. Returning to the earlier cited US Congressional
Hearings (HR 1054), we find that the nation of Israel experienced a major
"type I" polio epidemic in 1958. Mass polio immunization had
already been enforced and there was no appreciable difference in contraction
levels between the vaccinated and unvaccinated. Additionally, 3 years
later in 1961, the state of Massachusetts experienced a "type II"
polio outbreak in which "there were more paralytic cases in the triple
vaccinates than in the unvaccinated".
It is noteworthy that in one of the few
double blind trials that have been conducted on a vaccine, was for the
Salk polio vaccine, in which trial over 200 individuals who received the
vaccine went on to contract polio, whereas no observed polio cases developed
amongst the controls. This trial was reported by Mendelsohn who in the
same 1984 article wrote: The evidence points to mass inoculation against
polio as the cause of most remaining cases of the disease . . . there
is an ongoing debate among the immunologists regarding the . . . killed
virus vs. live virus vaccine. Supporters of the killed virus vaccine maintain
that it is the presence of live virus organisms in the other product that
is responsible for thepolio cases that . . . appear. Supporters of the
live virus type argue that the killed virus vaccine offers inadequate
protection and actually increases the susceptibility (to polio) of those
vaccinated. . . . I believe that both factions are right, and that use
of either of the vaccines will increase not diminish the possibility that
your child will contract the disease.
Thirteen scientists recently concluded
that: vaccine failures in the major Oman polio epidemic could not be explained
by failures in the cold chain, nor on suboptimum vaccine potency; the
efficacy of OPV in inducing "humoral immunity" was lower than
expected; and primary reliance on routine polio immunization may be "inadequate"
to achieve the goal of eradicating polio by the year 2000. (They also
noted similar paralytic polio epidemics in other highly vaccinated populations,
e.g., the Gambia, Brazil, and Taiwan.)
Data on Pertussis (Whooping Cough)
V. Fulginiti, Chairman of the American
Academy of Paediatrics Committee on Infectious Diseases made this incisive
observation: Despite more than 30 years of experience with pertussis immunization,
the reasons for recovery from the acute infection and subsequent immunity,
are still uncertain. It is known that second attacks are rare following
natural disease.
It is also known that 45-95% of recipients
of pertussis vaccine are susceptible to pertussis up to 12 years later
. . . we do not understand the immunologic mechanisms involved in resistance
to infection after natural disease or immunization. Is pertussis vaccine
effective? . . . prior to the widespread use ofpertussis vaccine, both
the incidence of pertussis and the case-fatality ratio declined. A 50-fold
reduction in incidence and an 84% reduction in case-fatality were recorded
in Great Britain in the years between 1947 and 1972. . . . In England,
protection provided by vaccines prior to 1968 was meager; no greater than
20% protection was noted. . . .
Britain is in the position of advocating
use of a vaccine for which there are not hard data. G.T. Stewart's observations
as published in the British Medical Journal indicated that "of 8,092
cases of whooping cough, 2,940 (36%) were fully immunized, while only
2,424 (30%) were definitely not immunized." A Medical Tribune Report
(January 10, 1979) details an outbreak of whooping cough in which 46 out
of 85 fully immunized children contracted the disease.102 (the reason
that the other 39 did not contract the disease could have been related
to any number of predisposing factors). Ekanem's earlier noted research,
reveals an increase of 21 percent in the number whooping cough cases by
the end of the three year period following implementation of an Expanded
Program of Immunization in Nigeria.
Data on Tetanus Toxoid and Immune Globulin
Neustaedter indicates that "Tetanus
seems to be nearly eliminated from the United States, primarily because
of good hygiene and proper wound management." His research suggests
that in the period of 1982-1984 in the US, there were a total of nine
tetanus cases among both children and adolescents, in which there were
no deaths. Whereas Coumoyer's research points to "contaminated umbilical
stump infections" as a principal cause of tetanus in the Developing
World.
Such infections can be effectively rectified
through providing appropriate information and training to traditional
birth attendants. Both Cournoyer and Johnson indicate that there have
been some reports of lock jaw death in properly inoculated individuals.106
& 107 Additionally Cournoyer suggests that "Evidence in support
of the (tetanus toxoid) vaccine comes from epidemiologic studies which
are by nature controversial, and which do not satisfy the criteria for
scientific proof.
WHO SMALLPOX ERADICATION SUCCESS RECONSIDERED
Although smallpox is apparently now accorded
to the history books, it will be necessary to re-examine the issue of
this disease having been universally eradicated, with particular reference
to the WHO eradication campaign. An honest look at this question is of
considerable importance, as the current worldwide UCI-EPI program gains
much of its legitimacy and inspiration from this widely acclaimed success
story.
A strong challenge to this now popular
view, is reflected in the post-campaign findings of medical researchers
like Buttram and Hoffman: Most people probably credit the smallpox vaccine
with playing the major role in recent eradication of smallpox throughout
the world, but let us examine the facts. In the article 'Vaccines a Future
in Question,' statistics showed that less than 10 percent of children
in developing countries have received vaccines. They went on to comment
that with this level of coverage, the WHO campaign was not a real factor
in the eradication. Data obtained in their broad based research also led
them to conclude that "mass smallpox vaccination was not necessary
for the eradication of smallpox.
In further examining this question from
a longer historical perspective, it became readily apparent that the WHO
claim did not at all square with the earlier data, i.e., historical smallpox
eradication efforts. If we go back as far as the last century, we discover
that Creighton's independent research findings as published in the Ninth
Edition of the Encyclopedia Britannica, strongly contradict the effectiveness
of mass smallpox immunization programs.
A few revealing excerpts follow: . . .
in Bavaria in 1871 of 30,742 cases 29,429 were in vaccinated persons,
or 95.7 percent. Notwithstanding the fact that Prussia was the best re-vaccinated
country in Europe, its mortality from smallpox in the epidemic of 1871
was higher (69,839) than any other Northern state. According to a competent
statistician (A. Vogt), the death-rate from smallpox in the German army,
in which all recruits are re-vaccinated, was 60 percent more than among
the civil population of the same age . . . although re-vaccination is
not obligatory among the latter.
It is often alleged that the unvaccinated
are so much inflammable material in the midst of the community, and that
smallpox begins among them and gathers force so that it sweeps even the
vaccinated before it. Inquiry into the facts has shown that at Cologne
in 1870 the first unvaccinated person attacked by smallpox was the 174th
in order of time, at Bonn the same year the 42d, and at Liegnitz in 1871
the 225th.
As we move on into the earlier part of
this century we find the same dismal picture of increased susceptibility
correlated with increased vaccination coverage. Dettman and Kalokerinos
describe a visit they paid to the Philippines about 15 years ago: . .
. We were fortunate enough to address their own medical (and) health officials
where we reminded them of the incidence of smallpox in formerly "immunized"
Filipinos. We invited them to consult their own medical records and asked
them to correct us if our own facts and figures disagreed. No such correction
has been forthcoming, and we can only conclude that between 1918-1919
there were 112,549 cases of smallpox notified, with 60,855 deaths. Systematic
(mass) vaccination started in 1905, and since its introduction case mortality
increased alarmingly. Their own records comment that "The mortality
is hardly explainable."
Speaking at a 1973 environmental conference
in Brussels, Professor George Dick admitted that in recent decades, 75
percent of those that have contracted smallpox in Britain, have had prior
a history of vaccination. In that "only 40%" of children were
vaccinated (and at most 10 percent of adults), such figures clearly indicate
that the vaccinated -- as in the much earlier historical record -- continue
to show a higher tendency to contract the disease. Dick also admitted
that smallpox had been eradicated in certain tropical countries without
mass vaccination.
A. Hutchison writing in the Journal of
the Royal Society in 1974, referred to the smallpox vaccines "lack
of potency" and the inadequacies of other measures for containment,
in his words, "I have given details of the various outbreaks of smallpox
in Britain and where they were diagnosed. These clearly indicate that
the (preventive) measures are most ineffective. An article in the New
Scientist indicates that "The smallpox family of viruses is genetically
unstable," and that new viral strains which threaten the "WHO
smallpox eradication programme, could emerge anywhere.
It is thus of interest that in a 1980 article
in the Australasian Nurses Journal, Dettman and Kalokerinos pointed out
that electron-microscopy cannot distinguish between the various "poxviruses.
(According to D, de Saving of IDRC, as of 1990 DNA sequencing can make
the distinquishingment. What is not known though, is whether this has
any beating on the reporting of the various "pox" diseases worldwide.)
This fact led them to raise a vitally significant
question "as to whether smallpox may be declared conquered, (it's
estimated that only 10 percent of the world population actually received
the vaccine) with the possibility of it masquerading under the guise of
a similar pox." Their line of evidence and reasoning is summarily
stated: . . . we claim that if the evidence is honestly evaluated that
smallpox has actually been prolonged and that the so called protective
vaccinations actually put the recipient at risk from . . . the disease
itself.
Authorities now realize this and the 'top
world' countries are making vociferous protests about third world countries
continuing use of smallpox vaccination because (a) suddenly it has become
recognized that it is an extremely dangerous procedure, (To give some
idea of the vaccine's dangers, it was reported -- in the late sixties -- that
annually, roughly 3,000 children were experiencing varying degrees of
brain damage due to the smallpox vaccine; and according to G. Kiftel in
1967, smallpox vaccination damaged the hearing of 3,296 children in West
Germany, of which 71 became totally deaf) and (b) it has now been conquered.
In turning to recognized textbooks on human
virology and vertebrate viruses we find that attention has been given
since 1970 to a disease called "monkeypox," which is said to
be "clinically indistinguishable from smallpox." Cases of this
disease have been found in Zaire, Cameroon, Nigeria, Ivory Coast, Liberia,
and Sierra Leone (by May 1983, 101 cases have been reported). It is observed
that " . . . the existence of a virus that can cause clinical smallpox
is disturbing, and the situation is being closely monitored." (For
a highly detailed account of the history of this disease and efforts to
eradicate it, which further corroborates these observations, see, Razzell
P., The Conquest of Smallpox, Caliban Books, United Kingdom, 1977.)
VACCINE ASSOCIATED DANGERS -- GENERAL OBSERVATIONS
Another basic issue that has never been
raised in the programming, or evaluation contexts of Official Development
Assistance supported mass immunization, is the requirement for effective
monitoring and research on potential vaccinal adverse effects. The issue
of vaccine dangers and damage is obviously a rather unpleasant subject
that no one really enjoys thinking or talking about. In fact it appears
to have been totally ignored in both the planning and execution phases
of Canada's International Immunization Programme(CIIP).
Furthermore, the recently completed Qperational
Review of CIIP 1986 -- 1991, which according to its sub-title was supposed
to address inter alia ". . . lessons learned in the first three years,"
failed to even raise the two very fundamental issues of vaccine effectiveness,
and vaccine damage. In special PHC-EPI research conducted for the CIDA
Evaluation Division, the conclusion was reached that the extensive literature
written on the subject of immunization, adverse reactions and contra indications,
points clearly to the reality that "massive immunization programs
carry with them a number of very real risks and hazards.
In recognition of potential vaccine dangers,
David Karzon of the Vanderbilt University School of Medicine raises important
policy considerations with respect to mass immunization programs in the
Editorials section of the New England Journal of Medicine. . . . there
are two compelling reasons for reinspection of the process offormulating
and implementing our immunization program: the emergence of new societal
considerations and responsibilities; and the need for a fuller public
disclosure of the costs of disease prevention . . . we as a society have
not recognized and accepted all the costs . . . costs measured not only
in dollars spent or saved, but also as adverse biologic reactions. Literally
no drug or procedure used in medicine is risk free. Immunizing antigens,
originating from complex biological materials or arising as genetically
attenuated live agents, have their own peculiar endogenous hazards, Complications
. . . are particularly apt to be visible in mass immunization campaigns.
. . . The quality of the data base for national decisions is critical
because any vaccine recommendation carries such a vast Potentialfor harm
or good.
A relatively recent report suggests that
vaccine damage is likely more pervasive a problem than is generally acknowledged
or believed. In fact, it appears that chronic under-reporting of vaccine-induced
morbidity, disability, and mortality appears to be the norm. Probably
the most erudite scholar who has thoroughly investigated the issue of
vaccine hazards, is Sir Graham Wilson. As Honorary Lecturer in the Department
of Bacteriology at the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine,
the following observations are excerpted from an earlier lecture series
delivered at that school.
The risks attendant in use of vaccines
and sera are not as well recognized as they should be. Indeed our knowledge
of them is still too small, and the incomplete knowledge we have is not
widely disseminated.. a very small proportion [of the actual numbers of
vaccine accidents] . . . have been described in the medical literature
of the world. . . . a large number of accidents -- I suspect the majority -- have
never been reported in print, either through fear of compensation claims,
or of giving a weapon to antivaccinationists . . . I have come to the
conclusion that no vaccine or antiserum can be regarded as completely
safe . . . no vaccine or antiserum that has yet been used has been free
from complications or accidents . . . [with respect to assessing the "degree
of possible danger" he indicates that]
Unless both the numerator and the denominator
are known, quantitative assessments may fall wide of the true mark. Moreover,
the risk, even for a single vaccine, is not uniform. It varies, among
other things, with the immunological status of the population concerned..
The inherent danger of all vaccination procedures should be a deterrent
to their unnecessary or unjustifiable use. Vaccination is far too often
employed, especially in the developing countries . . . and should not
be used as an [instead] excuse from applying the well tried standard methods
for the prevention of infectious disease. Most important is it to realize
the potential dangers of mass immunization. In such an operation time
does not permit an inquiry into the suitability of each individual subject
for vaccination.
A strong echo of Wilson's conclusion that
vaccine damage is chronically under reported, is found in the official
minutes of the 15th session of the US Panel of Review of Bacterial Vaccines
and Toxoids with Standards and Potency. Many physicians are not cognizant
of the importance of reporting untoward reactions, or may be unaware of
their clinical features. Further, both physicians and manufacturers have
been held liable for damage suits by patients who may suffer adverse effects
from established vaccines. All of these factors undoubtedly discourage
reporting; without some other form of surveillance, definition of the
rates and significance of untoward reactions to current and future vaccines
cannot be ascertained.
H.S. Martland, former Chief Medical Examiner
for Essex County New York, describes how the above unawareness actually
translates into practice: Deaths from brain and spinal cord diseases (poliomyelitis,
encephalitis, and meningitis) resultingfrom . . . immunizations sometimes
are attributed to other causes, because doctors are not sufficiently alerted
to the connection between immunizations and the deaths. . . .
Neustadter maintains that the research
on vaccine side effects by the pharmaceutical industry remains seriously
marginalized due to a significant number of vaccine reactions going unreported,
and the fact that it is often difficult to attribute delayed effects with
a vaccine. He further suggests that the reason that the medico-pharmaceutical
industry has consistently failed to address the unanswered question of
the long term effects of vaccines, stems largely from their overriding
interest in the active promotion, and rapid marketing of vaccines. Investigation
of their adverse side effects generally remains a non-priority issue,
insofar as such efforts may undermine the public's acceptance of their
products.
On the other hand, Snead suggests that
when laboratories go public to the media and confirm that "no known
problems" exist, this does not mean that scientists have researched
to the limits of their knowledge and found no side effects, but rather
that no research has actually been done. Although there is compelling
evidence that vaccine induced damage remains chronically under-reported,
it is of interest that B. Bloom of the Albert Einstein College of Medicine,
openly admits that there is today an emerging reluctance on the part of
medico-pharrnaceutical industry to further develop vaccines, for both
the developed and Developing Worlds.
According to Bloom, this reluctance stems
from the fact that financial losses due to the "liability" of
established vaccines, actually exceed the "profits" derived
from them. In this vein, Mendelsohn indicates that vaccine costs have
"skyrocketed" as a consequence of multiple jury awards to damaged
children. In his words: As more and more parents begin to recognize the
link between vaccines and their child's condition -- epilepsy, convulsions,
mental retardation, cerebral palsy, Sudden Infant Death, etc. -- lawsuits
have become commonplace. As drug companies exit the vaccine field, public
health authorities worry about vaccine shortages.
OF WHAT DO VACCINE PRODUCTS CONSIST?
It would be instructive to consider the
range of substances -- additional to the attenuated virus etc. normally
found in vaccine products. Specific viruses and bacteria are grown in
the following substances, with their foreign proteins (antigens) including
those derived from: pig or horse blood; rabbit brain tissue; dog and monkey
kidney tissue; chicken and duck egg; and calf serum. (It is generally
acknowledged that any foreign substances including proteins -- which have
not been filtered through the body's normal digestive assimilative, and
excretory processes, can be highly toxic when freely ranging in the lymphatic
and blood systems.)
Other foreign additives normally found
in various vaccines include: formaldehyde -- (a known carcinogen) thimerosal -- (an
organomercurial antiseptic -- 49% mercury -- although the mercury is "closely
bound," it nonetheless is a toxic metal difficult for the system
to eliminate) aluminum potassium sulphate (toxic) aluminum phosphate -- (a
toxic substance commonly used in deodorants) lactalbumin hydrolysate phenol
(carbolic acid) -- (extremely toxic, not permitted in anti-toxins) acetone -- (volatile,
and can easily cross the placental barrier) glycerin -- (tri-atomic alcohol
derived from decomposed fats which can damage kidney, liver, lungs, local
tissue; cause dieresis and possible death.)
Commenting on the inclusion of such substances
in vaccine products, R. Moskowitz indicates that "the fact is that
we do not know and have never attempted to discover what actually becomes
of these foreign substances, once they are inside of the body."133
Although there are "rigid" precautions in licensing the use
and quantity of these common stabilizers and preservative, it certainly
seems self-evident that there should be further research to better determine
what relationship -- if any -- exists between such poisons, and various adverse
reactions.
SOME OBSERVED AND POTENTIAL ADVERSE EFFECTS
OF SPACIFIC VACCINES AND TOXOIDS -- DIAGNOSABLE IN THE SHORT TERM
By principally focusing on stimulating
the production of antibody -- which increasing evidence suggests is only
one marginal indicative factor among many in immunity to disease -- while
ignoring the basic multiple determinants of natural immunity (health),
viruses, foreign antigens and proteins are placed directly into the body
tissues and are in turn carried throughout the circulatory system (without
censoring by the liver) giving them direct accessibility to all of the
body's vital organs and systems. Furthermore, it is a strategy that this
short-circuiting of the body's natural defense system is imposed at an
extremely vulnerable time of life.
The stage has thus been set for the advent
of a wide range of adverse complications and sequelae. What follows is
a simple listing of observed side effects of specific vaccines, or when
noted toxoids. Practically all of the conditions listed are commonly reported
in the medical literature as linked to the prior administration of the
particular vaccine or toxoid noted. A few conditions listed -- such as the
sudden infant death syndrome linked to the pertussis vaccine -- are not
admitted by mainstream medicine as an adverse effect of that particular
vaccine, however the research as referenced is reputable and points otherwise.
(The vaccines covered in this section have been confined to those prescribed
in the Universal Childhood Immunization program.)
MEASLES
atypical measles (a more serious form of
measles) encephalopathy (irreversible brain damage) subacute sclerosing
panencephalitis (progressive brain damage which can lead to death) ataxia
(incoordination in voluntary muscular movements) mental retardation aseptic
meningitis (inflammation of the membranes of spinal cord or brain) seizure
disorders encephalitis (inflammation of the brain) hemiparesis (half-body
paralysis) retinopathy and blindness secondary complications can include:
juvenile-onset diabetes Reye's syndrome multiplesclerosis (degeneration
of the central nervous system)
PERTUSSIS (WHOOPING COUGH)
hyperactivity anaphylaxis (hyper-reaction
which can include convulsions, unconsciousness and or death) epileptic
type convulsions learning disorders (including IQ reduction) encephalopathy
febrile seizures invasive bacterial infections hay fever asthma encephalitis
sudden infant death (SIDS)1
DIPHTHERIA
(The following has occurred with combined
diphtheria-tetanus vaccination, and could be associated with either.)
altered electroencephalogram readings seizures
TETANUS TOXOID
brachial plexus neuropathy (disease affecting
nerves which serve the arm, forearm and hand) anaphylaxis encephalitis
recurrent abscesses (at injection site) abdominal pain debility
POLIO (OPV -- ORAL LIVE-VIRUS)
paralytic polio congenital brain tumors
(transmitted by mothers who received vaccine during pregnancy)
EXTENT AND NATURE OF OBSERVABLE VACCINE
DAMAGE
There is a considerable range in estimates
given as to the frequency of damage being produced by particular vaccines.
A case in point is the American manufactured DPT vaccine, for which the
claim is made that only 1 in 300,000 vaccinates exhibit permanent neurologic
damage, whereas other researchers suggest that permanent damage levels
can reach as high as 1 in 300. Coumoyer's research findings fall between
these two extremes for permanent neurologic or brain damage.
Her conclusions indicate that the following
varied rate reactions occur in vaccinates, per number of children vaccinated:
Persistent crying -- 1 in 20 High fever -- 1 in 66 High pitched screaming -- 1
in 180 Convulsions -- 1 in 350 Shock like condition or collapse -- 1 in 350
Acute brain disorder -- 1 in 22,000 Permanent brain damage -- 1 in 62,000
Death -- 1 in 71,600.
Again to illustrate the great variation
in estimates, a relatively recent study at UCLA that as many as one in
every 13 children exhibited persistent high pitched crying after receiving
the DPT vaccine. In reference to this specific reaction, physician B.
Young states that "This may be indicative of brain damage in the
recipient child."
According to data researched by Coulter
and Fisher, of the 3.3 million children vaccinated yearly in the US: 16,038
have high pitched (encephalitic) screaming (which is considered by many
neurologists as indicative of central nervous system irritation); 8,484
have convulsions; and 8,484 undergo collapse; "for an annual total
of 33,006 cases of acute neurological reactions within 48 hours of a DPT
shot." The authors further suggest that there is a strong basis for
concern with respect to the long term reaction to the DPT vaccine. Severe
neurologic sequelae may . . . occur after vaccination in the absence of
an acute reaction. When the baby reacts to a DPT shot with "a slight
fever and fussiness for a few days" this may be, and often is, a
case of encephalitis which is quite capable of causing even quite severe
long-term neurologic consequences . . . . They further suggest that any
who would dismiss this possibility, must first establish a basis for distinguishing
between post-vaccinal encephalitis and encephalitis arising from other
causes.
As a final observation on the issue of
short term vaccine dangers, is the postulated linkage of immunization
with the "mysterious" problem of sudden infant death (SIDS)
in which infants can die "suddenly and quietly" in their cribs.
Australian microbiologist Glen Dettman explains that when large amounts
of an antigen are given the body responds by a massive release of adrenal
products including: cortisol, adrenalin, and an excessive level of endorphins,
actually "as much as a thousand times more than is normally released
by the brain." He goes on to observe that: The endorphins will suppress
respiration and cardiac function. Thus if a child with malnutrition, or
an immune problem, is given a load of antigen larger than it can handle -- and
this antigen may be an immunisation -- endorphins may result in respiratory
or cardiac failure and death.
Torch's research indicates that two-thirds
of 103 infants who were victims of the sudden death syndrome had been
immunized with DPT vaccine within the 3 week period preceding death, with
many dying within a day of receiving the vaccine. In a widely debated
occurrence of SIDS in Tennessee (USA), in which eleven infant deaths occurred
within eight days of a DPT vaccination, (nine from the same lot), and
five within 24 hours of vaccination (four from the same lot). Mortimer
reported that the probability of this being mere chance or coincidental
to be between 2 and 5 in 1,000;148 whereas Shannon reported a much lower
chance association of 4 and 5 in 10,000.
LONG TERM (DELAYED) POTENTIAL ADVERSE EFFECTS
OF IMMUNIZATION
Leaving the continuing controversies that
exist over the extent and nature of observable adverse reactions to vaccines,
we go on to the equally serious spectre of delayed reactions and the larger
unanswered questions which surround the long term consequences of immunization.
(The material in both this and the following section on "Immunization
and Immune Malfunction" is afforded not necessarily as definitive
and factual conclusions, but rather as preliminary research observations
on vital -- albeit controversial -- issues and questions which undoubtedly
merit further examination, research and analyses.)
We began the exploration of this issue
by reviewing some basic concepts and concerns relative to the strongly
suspected linkage between live viral vaccines and the enormous escalation
of varied auto-immune disorders. Joshua Lederberg, a Stanford University
School of Medicine geneticist and Nobel Prize winner, was perhaps the
first to raise the warning that the use of live virus vaccines in mass
immunization campaigns represents "biological engineering on a rather
large scale."
He goes on to