Page 1 of 3 (Page
2, Page 3,
by Alan Phillips, Director
Citizens for Healthcare Freedom
Last Revision: May 2001
When my son was set to begin his routine
vaccination series at age 2 months, I didn't know there were
any risks associated with immunizations. But the clinic's
flyer contained a contradiction: my child's chances of a serious
adverse reaction to the DPT vaccine were one in 1750, while
his chances of dying from pertussis were one in several million.
When I pointed this out to the physician,
he angrily disagreed, and stormed out of the room mumbling,
"I guess I should read that [flyer] sometime..."
Soon thereafter I learned of a child who had been permanently
disabled by a vaccine, so I decided to investigate
for myself. My findings have so alarmed me that I feel compelled
to share them; hence, this report.
Health authorities credit vaccines for
disease declines, and assure us of their safety and effectiveness.
Yet these assumptions are directly contradicted by government
statistics, published medical studies, Food and Drug Administration
(FDA) and Centers for Disease Control (CDC) reports, and the
opinions of credible research scientists from around the world.
In fact, infectious diseases declined
steadily for decades prior to mass immunizations, doctors
in the U.S. report thousands of serious vaccine reactions
each year including hundreds of deaths and permanent disabilities,
fully vaccinated populations have experienced epidemics, and
researchers attribute dozens of chronic immunological and
neurological diseases that have risen dramatically in recent
decades to mass immunization campaigns.
Decades of studies published in the world's
leading medical journals have documented vaccine
failure and serious adverse vaccine events, including
death. Dozens of books written by doctors, researchers, and
independent investigators reveal serious flaws in immunization
theory and practice.
Yet, incredibly, most pediatricians and
parents are unaware of these findings. This has begun to change
in recent years, however, as a growing number of parents and
healthcare providers around the world are becoming aware of
the problems and questioning mass mandatory immunization.
There is a growing international movement
away from mass mandatory immunization. This report introduces
some of the information that provides the basis for the movement.
My point is not to tell anyone whether
or not to vaccinate, but rather, with the utmost urgency,
to point out some very good reasons why everyone should examine
the facts before deciding whether or not to submit
to the procedure.
As a new parent, I was shocked to discover
the absence of a legal mandate or professional ethic requiring
pediatricians to be fully informed of the risks of vaccination,
let alone to inform parents that their children risk death
or permanent disability upon being vaccinated.
I was equally dismayed to see first-hand
the prevalence of physicians who are, if with the best of
intentions, applying practices based on incomplete-and in
some cases, outright mis-information.
This report is only a brief introduction;
your own further investigation is warranted and strongly recommended.
You may discover that this is the only way to get an objective
view, as the controversy is a highly emotional one.
A word of caution: Many have found pediatricians
unwilling or unable to discuss this subject calmly with an
open mind. Perhaps this is because they have staked their
personal identities and professional reputations on the presumed
safety and effectiveness of vaccines, and because they are
required by their profession to promote vaccination.
But in any event, anecdotal reports suggest
that most doctors have great difficulty acknowledging evidence
of problems with vaccines. The first pediatrician I attempted
to share my findings with yelled angrily at me when I calmly
brought up the subject. The misconceptions have very deep
...or are they?
The Federal government VAERS (Vaccine
Adverse Events Reporting System) was established by Congress
under the National Childhood Vaccine Injury Compensation Act
of 1986. It receives about 11,000 reports of serious
adverse reactions to vaccinations annually, which
include as many as one to
two hundred deaths, and several times that number
of permanent disabilities.
VAERS officials report that 15% of adverse
events are "serious" (emergency room trip, hospitalization,
life-threatening episode, permanent disability, death). Independent
analysis of VAERS reports has revealed that up to 50% of reported
adverse events for the Hepatitis B vaccine are "serious."
While these figures are alarming, they are only the tip of
The FDA estimates that as few as 1% of
serious adverse reactions to vaccines are reported, , and
the CDC admits that only about 10% of such events are reported.
In fact, Congress has heard testimony that medical students
are told not to report suspected adverse events.
The National Vaccine Information Center
(NVIC, a grassroots organization founded by parents of vaccine-injured
and killed children) has conducted its own investigations.
It reported: "In New York, only one out of 40 doctor's
offices confirmed that they report a death or injury following
In other words, 97.5% of vaccine related
deaths and disabilities go unreported there. Implications
about medical ethics aside (federal law directs doctors to
report serious adverse events ), these findings suggest that
vaccine deaths and serious injuries actually occurring may
be from 10 to 100 times greater than the number reported.
With pertussis (often referred to as "whooping
cough"), the number of vaccine-related deaths dwarfs
the number of disease deaths, which have been about 10 annually
for many years according to the CDC, and only 8 in 1993, one
of the last peak-incidence years (pertussis runs in 3-4 year
cycles; no none knows why, but vaccination rates have no such
When you factor in under-reporting, the
vaccine may be 100 times more deadly than the disease.
Some argue that this is a necessary cost to prevent the return
of a disease that would be more deadly than the vaccine.
But when you consider the fact that the
vast majority of disease decline this century preceded the
widespread use of vaccinations (pertussis mortality declined
79% prior to vaccines), and the fact that rates of disease
declines remained virtually unchanged following the introduction
of mass immunization, present day vaccine casualties cannot
reasonably be explained away as a necessary sacrifice for
the benefit of a disease-free society.
Unfortunately, the vaccine-related-deaths
story doesn't end here. Studies internationally have shown
vaccination to be a cause of SIDS , (SIDS, Sudden Infant Death
Syndrome, is a "catch-all" diagnosis given when
the specific cause of death is unknown; estimates range from
5,000 to 10,000 cases each year in the US).
One study found the peak incidence of
SIDS occurred at the ages of 2 and 4 months in the US, 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 4 days of vaccination each year in the US (amazingly,
the authors reported no SIDS/vaccine relationship), while
yet another researcher's studies led to the conclusion that
at least half of SIDS cases are caused by vaccines.
Initial studies suggesting a causal relationship
between SIDS and vaccines were quickly followed by vaccine-manufacturer-sponsored
studies concluding that there is no relationship between SIDS
and vaccines; one such study claimed that there was a slightly
lower incidence of SIDS in vaccines.
However, many of these studies were called
into question by yet another study that found "confounding"
had erroneously skewed the results of these studies in favor
of the vaccine.
At best, there is conflicting evidence.
But shouldn't we err on the side of caution?
Shouldn't any credible correlation between vaccines and infant
deaths be just cause for meticulous, widespread monitoring
of the vaccination status of all SIDS cases?
Health authorities have chosen to err
on the side of denial rather than caution.
In the mid 1970's Japan raised their vaccination
age from two months to two years; their incidence of SIDS
dropped dramatically; they went from an infant mortality ranking
of 17 to first in the world (i.e., Japan had the lowest infant
death rate when infants were not being immunized).
England's vaccination rate temporarily
dropped to about 30% at about the same time following media
reports of vaccine-related brain damage. Infant mortality
dropped substantially for about 2 years, then rose again in
close correlation to rising immunization rates in the late
Despite these experiences, the medical
community maintains a posture of denial. Coroners
don't check the vaccination status of SIDS victims,
and unsuspecting families continue to pay the price, unaware
of the dangers and denied the right to make an informed choice.
FDA and CDC admissions about the lack
of adverse event reporting suggests that the total number
of adverse reactions actually occurring each year may actually
fall within a range of 100,000 to a million (with "serious"
events being approximately 20% of these).
This concern is underscored by a study
revealing that 1 in 175 children who completed the full DPT
series suffered "severe reactions," and a Dr.'s
report for attorneys stating that one in 300 DPT immunizations
resulted in seizures.
saw a drop in pertussis deaths when vaccination rates dropped
to 30% in the mid 70's.
Swedish epidemiologist B. Trollfors'
study of pertussis vaccine efficacy and toxicity around the
world found that "pertussis-associated mortality is currently
very low in industrialized countries and no difference can
be discerned when countries with high, low, and zero immunization
rates were compared."
He also found that England, Wales, and
West Germany had more pertussis fatalities in 1970 when the
immunization rate was high than during the last half of 1980,
when rates had fallen.
Vaccinations cost us more than just the
lives and health of our children. The US Federal Government's
National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program (NVICP) has paid
out over $1.2 billion since 1988 to the families of children
injured and killed by vaccines, with money that comes from
a tax on vaccines that vaccine recipients pay.
Meanwhile, pharmaceutical companies have
a captive market; vaccines are legally mandated in all 50
US states (though legally avoidable in most; see Myth #9),
yet these same companies are "immune" from accountability
for the consequences of their products. Furthermore, they
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 an uninformed American public to pay for vaccine
manufacturer's liabilities, while ensuring that this same
public will remain ignorant of the dangers of their products.
This arrangement also diminishes any incentive that manufacturers
might have to produce safer vaccines (after all, when the
vaccine causes a death or injury, they don't have to pay for
it; they still get their profit).
It is important to note that insurance
companies, who do the best liability studies, refuse
to cover vaccine reactions. Profits appear to dictate
both the pharmaceutical and insurance companies' positions.
"Vaccination causes significant death
and disability at an astounding personal and financial cost
to uninformed families."
are very effective..."
...or are they?
The medical literature has a surprising
number of studies documenting vaccine failure. Measles, mumps,
small pox, pertussis, polio and Hib 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%
vaccinated 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."
A more recent study found that measles
vaccination "produces immune suppression which contributes
to an increased susceptibility to other infections."
These studies suggest that the goal of complete "immunization"
may actually be counter-productive, a notion underscored by
instances in which epidemics followed complete immunization
of entire countries.
Japan experienced yearly increases in
small pox following the introduction of compulsory vaccines
in 1872. By 1892, there were 29,979 deaths, and all had been
In the early 1900's, the Philippines
experienced their worst
smallpox epidemic ever after 8 million people received
24.5 million vaccine doses (achieving a vaccination rate of
95%); the death rate quadrupled as a result.
Before England's first compulsory vaccination
law in 1853, the largest two-year smallpox death rate was
about 2,000; in 1870-71, England and Wales had over 23,000
smallpox deaths. In 1989, the country of Oman experienced
a widespread polio outbreak six months after achieving complete
In the US in 1986, 90% of 1300 pertussis
cases in Kansas were "adequately vaccinated." 72%
of pertussis cases in the 1993 Chicago outbreak were fully
up to date with their vaccinations.
"Evidence suggests that vaccination
is an unreliable means of preventing disease."
are the reason for low disease rates in the US today..."
...or are they?
According to the British Association for
the Advancement of Science, childhood diseases decreased
90% between 1850 and 1940, paralleling improved
sanitation and hygienic practices, well
before mandatory vaccination programs.
The Medical Sentinel recently reported,
"from 1911 to 1935, the four leading causes of childhood
deaths from infectious diseases in the US were diphtheria,
pertussis, scarlet fever, and measles. However, by 1945 the
combined death rates from these causes had declined by 95
percent, before the implementation of mass immunization programs."
Thus, at best, vaccinations can only be
examined only for their relationship to the small, remaining
portion of disease declines that occurred after their introduction.
Yet even this role is questionable, as pre-vaccine rates of
disease mortality decline remained
virtually the same after vaccines were introduced.
Furthermore, European countries that
refused immunization for small pox and polio saw the epidemics
end along with those countries that mandated it; vaccines
were clearly not the sole determining factor. In fact, both
small pox and polio immunization campaigns were followed by
significant disease incidence increases.
After smallpox vaccination was being
mandated, smallpox remained a prevalent disease with some
substantial increases, while other infectious diseases simultaneously
continued their declines in the absence of vaccines.
In England and Wales, smallpox disease
and vaccination rates eventually declined simultaneously over
a period of several decades between the 1870's and the beginning
of World War II.
It is thus impossible
to say whether or not vaccinations contributed
to the continuing declines in disease death rates, or if the
declines continued unabated simply due to the same forces
which likely brought about the initial declines-improvements
in sanitation, hygiene and diet; better housing, transportation
and infrastructure; better food preservation techniques and
technology; and natural disease cycles.
Underscoring this conclusion was a recent
World Health Organization report which found that the disease
and mortality rates in third world countries have no direct
correlation with immunization procedures or medical treatment,
but are closely related to the standard of hygiene and diet.
Credit given to vaccinations for our
current disease incidence has simply been grossly exaggerated,
if not outright misplaced.
Vaccine advocates point to incidence rather
than mortality statistics as evidence of vaccine effectiveness.
However, statisticians tell us that mortality statistics are
a better measure of disease than incidence figures, for the
simple reason that the quality of reporting and record keeping
is much higher on fatalities.
For instance, a survey in New York City
revealed that only 3.2% of pediatricians were actually reporting
measles cases to the health department. In 1974, the CDC determined
that there were 36 cases of measles in Georgia, while the
Georgia State Surveillance System reported 660 cases.
In 1982, Maryland state health officials
blamed a pertussis epidemic on a television program, "D.P.T.-Vaccine
Roulette," which warned of the dangers of DPT; but when
former top virologist for the US Division of Biological Standards,
Dr. J. Anthony Morris, analyzed the 41 cases, he confirmed
only 5, and all had been vaccinated. Such instances as these
demonstrate the fallacy of incidence figures, yet vaccine
advocates tend to rely on them indiscriminately.
"It is unclear what impact, if any,
that vaccines had on 19th and 20th century infectious disease