vaccinations for children questions

[Guest guest]

Hi CheriB,

With pleasure!

Love,

Elizabeth

 

Unvaccinated Children

 

 

 

Richard Moskowitz M.D.

 

 

--

 

The refusal of significant numbers of parents to vaccinate their

children has created a sizable group of people needing very much

to be studied, and has raised a number of important public health

issues. Foremost among them is the fear that a large reservoir of

unvaccinated persons could contribute to epidemic outbreaks that

might involve vaccinated individuals as well. Equally pressing are

the immediate practical questions of how best to protect the

unvaccinated persons from disease, how to prevent such outbreaks

if possible, and how to treat them effectively if they do occur.

The long-term question which interests me the most is what the

general health of this unvaccinated group will be like, and what we

can deduce from this data concerning how vaccines really act.

 

I would like to begin by proposing that we use the terms vaccinated

and unvaccinated instead of immunized and unimmunized, since

the basis of the vaccination controversy is the belief of many

parents that the vaccines do not produce a true immunity', but

rather act in some other fashion--or, in my view, that they act

immunosuppressively.

 

This may sound like a purely semantic distinction, but in fact it

bears directly on the first question raised above. If the vaccines

conferred a true immunity, as the natural illnesses do, then the

unvaccinated people would pose a risk only to themselves. Children

recovering from the measles or polio or whooping cough need

never fear getting them again, no matter how often they are

reexposed in the future. So, the reports of large-scale pertussis

outbreaks in the United Kingdom since the vaccine was made

optional seem to me a convincing argument against vaccinating

anybody, even those who desire it, because if the vaccine produces

authentic immunity, then this rebound phenomenon should not

occur.

 

Furthermore, we should be skeptical about the " outbreaks " that are

reported to have occurred. Pertussis, or " whooping cough, " is

actually rather difficult to diagnose conclusively, as it requires

special cultures or antibody tests that many laboratories cannot

perform and that many doctors, in the presence of suggestive

symptoms, rarely take the trouble to order. Conversely, there are

other cases of pertussis with typical signs and symptoms but

negative cultures and no detectable antibodies. In other words,

whooping cough as a clinical syndrome need not be associated with

the organism Bordetella pertussis, against which the vaccine is

prepared, or indeed with any microorganism whatsoever.

 

Reservoirs of people unvaccinated against measles, mumps, or

diphtheria, on the other hand, should result in periodic outbreaks of

these diseases. But again, authentic immunity, would insure that

only the unvaccinated would fall ill, which has never proved to be

the case. All known out breaks of these diseases in the post vaccine

era have included large numbers of vaccinated people as well; an.

in many instances a large majority of the cases had previously been

vaccinated, some of them quite recently.

 

The argument that parents should vaccinate their children to protect

society as a whole from epidemic does not make sense. Such

epidemic argue rather against vaccinating the ones who were

vaccinated but still came down with the disease as soon as they

were exposed to it. Likewise, if we accept partial or temporary

immunity--conceding that the vaccine are not that effective, but that

we have no other alternative to these rebound epidemics--then are

we not simply throwing good lives after bad, rather like

acknowledging that our patients are addicted to dangerous drugs

yet fearing to withdraw them or even withhold them from others, lest

the original error be fully or frankly exposed?

 

Which brings us to the second question, namely, how to protect

your unvaccinated child from an acute out break of one of these

illnesses in the vicinity. The first priority is clearly to know the

illness--its signs and symptoms, its natural history and vehicles of

spread, its prevention and treatment.

 

Rather than reading this information from a pediatrics text and the

passing it along to you, I suggest that you read up on these

diseases. Even more importantly, meet with your local pediatrician

or primary healthcare provider and plan a course of action. If you

cannot immediately find someone whom you can work with or relate

to, keep looking. Your local support system is too important to be

left for the time when you need to call on it in a hurry.

 

Taking responsibility for not vaccinating is no different from taking

responsibility for a homebirth or any other form of alternative health

care. It calls for not a substitute for conventional care, but rather a

different relationship to the healing process and the health-care

system, based on personal choice and direct participation. We still

need help when our children get sick, and we need to know that this

help is available to us.

 

In the event of an outbreak, a great deal can be done to minimize

the risk to those exposed and to treat those who actually fall ill--

much of which does not involve chemical drugs or vaccines of

questionable safety and effectiveness. The homeopathic method,

one such approach, uses minute doses of natural substances to

stimulate and enhance the natural defense mechanisms of the host.

The homeopathic prevention and treatment of specific acute

diseases are discussed in detail in the highly recommended book

Homeopathy in Epidemic Diseases, by Dr. Dorothy Shepherd, a

prominent English homeopath.'

 

The homeopathic approach to epidemic diseases in general was

first employed by Hahnemann in 1799, during an extensive scarlet

fever epidemic in the province of Saxony.2 After he had treated a

dozen or so cases in the usual homeopathic fashion, giving small

doses of remedies capable of producing similar illnesses

experimentally, Hahnemann realized that one remedy helped to

cure at least 75 percent of the cases, a second remedy covered

another 15 percent or so, and the remaining 10 percent required a

variety of different remedies corresponding to the unique features of

each case. The principal remedy, which corresponded to the genus

epidemicus (the main characteristics of the outbreak as a whole),

was then given out prophylactically to people exposed to the

disease, and also to patients in the early stages of illness--before

the critical point, when other remedies would sometimes be needed,

was reached.

 

The results were quite dramatic. Those so treated either did not get

sick at all or suffered much milder illnesses, on the whole, than their

compatriots who were not treated or who received the drugs and

other heroic measures in standard practice at the time. Hahnemann

became justly famous for this exploit; and since this time, his

method has been used with equal or greater success throughout the

world in treating numerous outbreaks of cholera, typhus, smallpox,

yellow fever, influenza, and other acute diseases of similar type.

Why it has not been more widely influential in this country is a great

mystery, and clearly has to do with the historic decline of

homeopathy as a thought form until the advent of the alternative

health and self-care movement of the past 10 years or so.

 

 

" The argument that parents should vaccinate their children to

protect society as a whole from epidemics does not make sense "

Pertussis

" Whooping cough " can be quite a nasty and prolonged illness, even

in older children, in whom it is seldom fatal or dangerous. It can

certainly threaten life in young infants under one year of age,

because of the narrowness of the immature laryngeal opening and

its particular vulnerability to obstruction from any inflammation or

swelling. It is rarely serious in children older than six; and adults,

for

some reason, rarely contract the illness at all, even when they are

exposed and have never had it before.

 

The incubation period varies from one to two weeks; and the illness

often begins quite slowly, with some fever, typical upper respiratory

symptoms, and a cough that gradually becomes more and more

paroxysmal, until the characteristic spasms appear, often

terminating in vomiting or tenacious sputum ejected with great

violence. Such a cough may commonly persist for six weeks or

even longer, suggesting an autoallergic as well as an infectious

origin.

 

The nosode Pertussin, prepared from the sputum of patients with

this disease, is the homeopathic remedy generally used for

prophylaxis of exposed children (Pertussin 30c, one dose daily for

two weeks after contact); and it can also be given in early stages of

illness, at four-hour intervals. Drosera is the remedy most often

used for the illness itself, although other remedies may also be

needed. For children with a well developed cough, Drosera 30c or

Pertussin 30c may be given every four hours, or even more often if

necessary. A physician should be consulted if the illness is severe.

 

Homeopathic remedies are available without prescription, but care

should be exercised to obtain them from a manufacturer belonging

to the American Association of Homeopathic Pharmacies. This way,

you will know that they have been prepared in accordance with the

standards of the U.S. Homeopathic Pharmacopoeia.

 

Diphtheria

Diphtheria is rarely seen today in developed countries, but small

outbreaks have occurred in the southwestern U.S. (San Antonio in

1977). The illness is primarily a poisoning attributable to the toxin (a

highly antigenic protein of high molecular weight) elaborated by the

diphtheria bacillus. Diphtheria toxin is the source from which the

standard vaccine is prepared (diphtheria " toxoid " is the toxin

denatured by heat, alum precipitated? and preserved with an

organomercury compound), and is also the source of the

homeopathic remedy, or nosode, Diphtherinum, which is commonly

used for prophylaxis and for treatment of complicated cases.

 

Diphtheria begins as a " cold " or sore throat after a very brief

incubation period of two or three days. The primary infection is

usually in the throat or nasopharynx, and quickly becomes apparent

with a greyish, ulcerating " pseudomembrane, " foul breath, high

fever, and marked swelling of the cervical Iymph nodes (producing

the classic " bull neck " in severe cases). Complications such as

heart or kidney failure or esophageal obstruction may follow within a

few days; and severe cases may be accompanied by difficulty in

swallowing or talking, due to residual postdiphtheritic paralysis that

may require further treatment. Diphtherinum 30c or 200c may be

given in a daily dose for the first three days following exposure. A

physician should be consulted and other remedies used if the illness

develops.

 

Tetanus

Tetanus is essentially a wound infection complicated by inoculation

of tetanus spores into the wound and germination of these under

strict anaerobic conditions. The infection itself is relatively minor;

like diphtheria (and its close relative botulism), tetanus is largely an

intoxication produced by a highly antigenic protein, tetanus toxin,

against which the standard vaccine is prepared by heat

denaturation.

 

Tetanus does not occur epidemically, and cannot be passed from

person to person, although conditions associated with wound

infections (such as warfare) definitely favor it if the spores are

present. The spore forming organisms live in horse manure, and to

a lesser extent in human manure (chiefly among people who keep

horses); but the spores themselves are highly weather-resistant and

can survive in the soil for decades. They will germinate only under

strict anaerobic conditions--such as a deep, jagged puncture wound

with enough tissue damage to get the infection started (the

proverbial " rusty nail " ) or a simple wound infection (a severe burn or

an infected umbilical cord stump in a newborn) which consumes all

the available oxygen and thereby allows the spores to germinate

underneath.

 

Careful attention to wound hygiene will effectively eliminate the

possibility of tetanus in the vast majority of puncture wounds.

Wounds should be carefully inspected, thoroughly cleaned,

surgically debrided of dead tissue (under local anesthesia, if

necessary), and not allowed to close until healing is well under way

" from below. " Two homeopathic remedies that may have a useful

role at this stage are Ledum 30c, which should be given every two

to four hours from the time of the puncture, and Hypericum 30c,

which should be substituted if any signs of infection are present.

 

I have had no experience with Tetanus, the remedy prepared from

the toxin itself; and tetanus toxoid is of no value unless the

individual has previously been vaccinated, since a primary antibody

response takes at least 14 days, and the incubation period of the

disease can be considerably shorter than this (three to 14 days).

Hypericum can reputedly treat as well as prevent tetanus, but I

would recommend giving human antitoxin at the first sign of the

disease, since it is far less effective later on.

 

If you do decide to vaccinate your children with tetanus toxoid

alone, there is no need to vaccinate until the child is old enough to

walk around and navigate on his or her own (18 to 24 months), at

which time the vaccine is far less likely to cause complications.

 

Poliomyelitis

The poliovirus produces no illness at all in over 90 percent of those

exposed to it; among others, it causes, at most, an ordinary flu

syndrome with fever, weakness, gastrointestinal symptoms, aches,

and pains. Even in epidemic conditions, poliomyelitis (the severe

central nervous system complication) develops only in relatively few

anatomically susceptible persons, most of whom eventually

recover.

 

The typical symptoms of poliomyelitis include extreme sensitivity to

touch, irritability, stiff neck, and fine tremors in the early or

preparalytic stage, which may look rather like a viral meningitis. Not

infrequently, the fever will return to normal for a few days just prior

to the onset of these central nervous system symptoms, at which

time it will rise again, producing the " dromedary, " or double-hump,

fever chart. Paralysis--due to inflammation of the anterior horn

cells, or motor nuclei of the spinal cord--often appears suddenly and

early in the course of the illness, as complete loss of voluntary

movement in a single limb, or perhaps of the palate and throat

muscles (in the dangerous brain-stem or bulbar type), producing

disturbances of swallowing. Most of these cases will still recover,

with residual paralysis or death often supervening much later, after

the acute inflammation has subsided.

 

The homeopathic remedy Lathyrus sativus has been found to

correspond most closely in its symptomatology to central nervous

system polio, and has been used with great effectiveness both for

prophylaxis of exposed individuals and for treatment in the early

stages of the illness, before irreversible damage has occurred.

According to Dr. Shepherd, a Dr. Taylor Smith of Johannesburg

used Lathyrus 30c, one dose every 16 days, in 82 healthy people

(aged six months to 20 years) living in a seriously infected area, 12

of whom were direct contacts. This regimen was continued for the

duration of the outbreak, and not one of these people developed

poliomyelitis.

 

Dr. Smith also used Lathyrus 30c in three doses, 30 minutes apart,

for a second group of 34 children who were ill with fever, neck

rigidity, and muscle tenderness of varying severity. All of these

children recovered promptly and completely, without any sequelae.

 

Dr. Grimmer of Chicago, a well known homeopath of the thirties and

forties, recommended Latharus 30c or 200c in a single dose

repeated every three weeks for the duration of the epidemic, and

stated most emphatically, from his own experience, that paralysis

will not develop in those so treated. Other remedies may be

required for the illness itself, at the first sign of which a physician

should, of course, be consulted.

 

Measles

Wild-type measles is a strong, febrile illness lasting at least one or

two weeks, with a long incubation period of 14 to 21 days; a

characteristically smooth, confluent rash; " measly " or runny catarrh

of eyes and nose; and a sizable risk of further developments, such

as pneumonia, otitis media, or even laryngitis of the croupy or

whooping-cough type. The incidence of measles in susceptible

contacts approaches 100 percent; and in populations not previously

exposed to it, the fatality rate may be 20 percent or more. After

generations of contact with European and North American cultures,

it became a largely self-limited illness for these populations, one still

memorable but producing complete recovery and a permanent or

lifelong immunity in the vast majority of cases.

 

The prophylaxis and treatment of measles varies somewhat from

outbreak to outbreak, the genus epidemicus corresponding most

closely to Pulsatilla in Hahnemann's series, Bryonia in Dr.

Shepherd's experience, and probably other remedies in other times

and places. In the U.S., largely because of mass vaccination

programs, acute measles is now predominantly a disease of

adolescents and young adults, undoubtedly involving some genetic

interaction with the vaccine virus; and it will probably call for still

other remedies. Pulsatilla remains the remedy most often

recommended for prophylaxis, although my own experience is still

too limited to confirm or refute it.

 

Mumps

Mumps, or epidemic parotitis, resembles measles in its highly

contagious nature and its predilection for the older age groups as a

result of the vaccine program; but it is rather milder, as a rule. After

an incubation period of three weeks, it begins with fever, runny

nose, tenderness around the ears, and swelling of the parotid on

one side, spreading to the other in a few days. About 25 percent of

boys with mumps show swelling and inflammation of one or both

testicles; in girls, the ovaries and breasts are occasionally affected.

Residual scarring and atrophy of one testicle is sometimes seen in

adolescent boys and young men.

 

The nosode Parotidinum, prepared from the saliva of an infected

individual, may be used prophylactically, although Pilocarpine 6c is

the remedy recommended by Shepherd for both prevention and

treatment. I have had no personal experience using remedies with

mumps.

 

Rubella

Rubella, or German measles, is the mildest of all the illnesses for

which vaccines are presently required, and very often escapes

detection entirely. In the adolescent and young adult populations--

those presently most likely to develop it--the illness may be

somewhat bothersome, with arthritic symptoms more likely; the

same symptoms are often encountered after vaccination of these

age groups. In children, there is no reason to treat rubella at all, in

most cases. Pregnant women, especially those exposed in the first

trimester, may be given Pulsatilla 6c or 30c every day for 14 days

following exposure, or every four hours for fever and acute

symptoms. Rubella should be suspected in the event of a mild

fever; punctate rash; and swollen or tender lymph nodes behind the

ears and neck, and around the base of the skull--an area seldom

affected in other ailments.

 

People often ask if it is possible to " vaccinate " homeopathically, to

use remedies for the same purpose that the vaccines are normally

given. This question addresses not short-term prophylaxis in the

event of an acute outbreak, which is discussed above, but routine,

long-term protection of the entire population against these diseases.

 

There is some evidence that remedies can be used in this way. I

know of several British veterinarians who use homeopathic rabies

nosode in lieu of injections to protect their dogs--with no serious

side effects and, as yet, no rabies. But in order to do so, they must

give the remedy repeatedly throughout the life of the animal--an

approach that would be much less suitable for humans. This brings

us back to the concept of trying to permanently eliminate

susceptibility to specific diseases. Why attempt such an

uneconomical fantasy, as well as an unnecessary one, since the

remedies work so splendidly well when illness is actually present or

threatening?

 

People also ask whether or not homeopathic treatment can be used

in conjunction with vaccines. Homeopathic remedies may be given

to mitigate the effect or severity of vaccines, just as they have been

used with good effect in cases of vaccine-related illness. Certainly,

when vaccines are given, I would recommend giving Ledum 30c--

the basic first-aid remedy for puncture wounds--immediately

afterward, in three doses 30 minutes apart; and following it with

either the nosode prepared from the disease or vaccine itself or

Thuja 30c, the general " antidote " to all vaccines, in three doses 12

hours apart.

 

Be aware of the possibility that a strong family history of vaccine

reaction may greatly increase the risk of receiving that particular

vaccine. Any child whose brother or sister or parent reacted strongly

or violently to a vaccine should certainly be excused from receiving

it, preferably by obtaining a medical exemption from a physician

practicing in that state. Likewise, any child whose sibling or parent

previously contracted poliomyelitis, or a severe or complicated case

of measles or whooping cough or any of the other diseases listed,

should not receive the vaccine prepared against that illness. Other

grounds for medical exemption include preexisting epilepsy, central

nervous system disorder, or any severe or disabling chronic disease

where the risk of serious exacerbation from the vaccine outweighs

the more imponderable long-term benefit.

 

This brings us to the final question of the long-term impact of mass

vaccination programs on individual and community health. Since I

have expressed my concerns on this score, many people have

asked if any research has been done to substantiate them. I can

only appreciate the irony in the fact that the compulsory feature of

these programs is precisely what makes it so conveniently

impossible to study them--so much so, that parents refusing to

vaccinate their children deserve to be congratulated for making

such research possible, and should, in fact, be recruited when it is

ready to be carried out.

 

Equally noteworthy is the unprecedented breadth and scope of the

research that will be required. Nothing less than the total health

picture of vaccinated and unvaccinated children, followed over an

entire generation, will suffice--a great collective enterprise that not

only will be exciting and important in itself, but surely will yield

invaluable new models for holistic medical research generally,

models that take us well beyond the outmoded focus on single

" disease entities " in which we are still imprisoned today. So,

regardless of whether or not you decide to vaccinate, I urge you all

to think about a mechanism for how collaborative research of this

kind can be conducted, and how each of us can play our part in it.

 

 

 

--

Notes

1. D. Shepherd, Homeopathy in Epidemic Diseases (Rustington,

Essex [u.K.]: Health Sciences Press, 1967). Available from

Homeopathic Educational Services, 2124 Kittredge St., Berkeley,

CA 94704.

2. Samuel Hahnemann, MD (1755- 1843), the discoverer of

homeopathy. .

3. R. Moskowitz, " The Case Against Immunizations, " Journal of the

American Institute of Homeopathy 6 (7 March 1983). Available from

the National Center for Homeopathy, 1500 Massachusetts Ave.,

NW, Washington, DC. Abridged version published in Mothering

(Spring 1984). .

 

 

Ricbard Moskowitz, MD (48) received his undergraduate degree.

from Harvard and his medical degree from New York University. He

has studied classical bomeopatb witb Professor Ceorge Vitboulkas

in Atbens, Greece. Dr. Moskowitz practices at tbe Turning Point

Wellness. Center in Watertown, Massachusetts. and is a past

President of the National Center for Homeopathy.

 

http://www.healthy.net/asp/templates/Article.asp?PageType=Article

& Id=1122

 

On Saturday, August 16, 2003, at 07:58 PM, writergrrrl48 wrote:

 

> I've seen a couple of people mention they don't vax their kids ... I'm

> pregnant, want to avoid this too, but I thought it was unavoidable ...

> can you tell me if I need to do anything in particular to keep my

> child from getting immunized?

[Guest guest]

Here you go...

Love,

Elizabeth

 

Do Vaccines Disable the Immune System?

© Randall Neustaedter O.M.D.

 

 

--

 

Parents watch with proud satisfaction as their infant, just a few months

old, begins to reach out into the world--tiny hands grasping at toys and

gently twirling locks of their mother's hair. Just when they have begun

to take a lively interest in the world, rolling-over, cooing, and

smiling, the first illnesses strike.

 

The baby's runny nose develops into a fever, fussiness, and

night-waking. Her previously placid demeanor suddenly changes to obvious

discomfort--crying, clinging, refusing to leave her mother's arms. The

pediatrician sees red eardrums and prescribes antibiotics. That first

infection starts a seemingly endless battle against viral and bacterial

illnesses that persists despite repeated treatment with a barrage of

different antibiotics. Something is dreadfully wrong. Frequent visits to

the pediatrician do nothing to prevent the continuous pattern of

illness—antibiotic—illness.

 

Why do these illnesses begin when babies are three or four months old?

What event triggers this frustrating scenario? What happens to babies at

two to four months that could initiate this relentless course of

symptoms? Perhaps maternal antibodies are beginning to wear out, making

babies susceptible to these environmental microbes. But why don't these

babies develop their own antibodies in response to the initial viral or

bacterial infections? What prevents the immune system from mounting a

vigorous response? And why does this pattern of illness with recurrent

ear infections occur now, a pattern that seldom occurred prior to thirty

years ago? What is weakening the immune function of today's infants?

 

The Cause of Chronic Illness

Ear infections have become the most common reason for visits to

pediatricians. The incidence of asthma has steadily increased in the

modern era. During the period 1980 through 1989 the prevalence rate of

self-reported asthma in the United States increased 38 percent, and the

death rate for asthma increased 46 percent. In the five years from 1985

through 1990, projected estimates for asthma's medical costs increased

53 percent. The total estimated cost of asthma rose from $4.5 billion to

$6.2 billion, or 1 percent of all US health-care costs. This dramatic

increase has been attributed to increased exposure to environmental

pollutants, and to the toxic effect of asthma medications themselves.

Could vaccines be weakening the immune system of our populations and

causing recurrent infections and allergies at unprecedented levels?

 

The only event that all infants routinely encounter at two months of age

is vaccination with at least five different vaccines

(Diphtheria-Tetanus-Pertussis-Polio-Haemophilus). They are repeated at

four months. Could this simple fact explain the onset of the recurrent

illnesses that plague so many infants? If vaccines stimulate antibody

production to fight diseases, why would they weaken the immune system?

Is there any evidence that vaccines do cause illness and immune system

dysfunction?

 

One answer came in a careful study of illness patterns observed in

babies before and after vaccination, published in Clinical Pediatrics in

1988. If vaccines cause a weakened immune system, then we would expect

to see a higher incidence of illness following vaccination. In that

study conducted in Israel, the incidence of acute illnesses in the 30

day period following DTP vaccine was compared to the incidence in the

same children for the 30 day period prior to vaccine. The three-day

period immediately following vaccine was excluded because children

frequently develop fever as a direct response to vaccine toxins. A total

of 82 healthy infants received DTP, and their symptoms were reported by

parents and observed by a pediatrician at weekly intervals. Those babies

experienced a dramatic increase in fever, diarrhea, and cough in the

month following DTP vaccine compared to their health before the shot.

 

How do researchers investigate immune system reactions to vaccines?

First, they can observe the incidence of serious disease onset soon

after vaccination. They can also study immune functions following

vaccines given to children and adults. Two research models have been

used to discover the possible adverse effect of vaccines on the immune

system. Laboratory researchers observe whether vaccines have any

negative effect on white blood cells, the body's primary immune defense

system. Clinical researchers study illness patterns preceding and

following vaccination. All of these investigative channels have reached

the same conclusions--vaccines can trigger immune system suppression.

 

Vaccines are destroying our immune systems. Amazingly, the medical

profession ignores the incriminating evidence against vaccines, and

continues to inflict more unnecessary and harmful vaccines on our

nation's infants. A recent study from the New England Journal of

Medicine of May 1996 revealed that tetanus vaccine disables the immune

system in HIV patients. Tetanus vaccination produced a drop in T cells

in 10 of 13 patients, a classic sign of immune deficiency. HIV viral

replication increased dramatically in response to tetanus vaccine.

Finally, white blood cells from 7 of 10 uninfected individuals became

more susceptible to HIV infection following tetanus vaccination. Despite

these findings, the authors made no comment about the immune depleting

effect of the vaccine.

 

Why is the public unaware of these findings? Why has the medical

profession kept these reports hidden from the public eye? With typical

condescension, Dr. Martin Smith, president of the American Academy of

Pediatrics, explained in the Academy's News that the inclusion of this

type of information in vaccine brochures would confuse many parents and

could even needlessly alarm them. An uninformed patient is compliant.

 

The cover-up of immune system failure following vaccination is

reminiscent of the tobacco industry's continuous denial and

misinformation campaign about the dangers of cigarettes. In both

instances huge profits are at stake in multibillion-dollar industries.

Vaccine manufacturers cannot afford to have their product maligned in a

public forum.

 

Doctors have often stated that broadcasting adverse effects of vaccines

to the public would hinder vaccine campaigns. This attitude emerged more

than thirty years ago when Dr. Paul Meier testified before a

congressional committee concerning the polio vaccine campaign of the

1960s. It is hard to convince the public that something is good.

Consequently, the best way to push forward a new program is to decide on

what you think the best decision is and not question it thereafter, and

further, not to raise questions before the public or expose the public

to open discussion of the issues.

 

The medical profession has been aware of the damaging effects of

vaccines on the immune system since their introduction. For example, the

ability of pertussis and DTP vaccines to stimulate the onset of

paralytic polio was first noted in 1909. In every polio epidemic since

then, DTP injections have caused the onset of polio disease.

 

In 1950, two careful studies were conducted in the state of New York to

evaluate the reports of an association between the onset of paralytic

polio and recent injections. The findings were published in the American

Journal of Public Health. Investigators contacted the families of all

children who contracted polio during that year, a total of 1,300 cases

in New York City and 2,137 cases in the remainder of New York State. A

history of vaccinations received in the previous two months was obtained

on each child and from a group of matched controls in the same

population. Those studies discovered that children with polio were twice

as likely to have received a DTP vaccination in the two months preceding

the onset of polio than were the control children.

 

The association of vaccines with the onset of polio continues in the

modern age. During a recent polio epidemic in the Arabian peninsula

country of Oman, DTP vaccination again caused the onset of paralytic

polio. In that epidemic, 70 children 5 to 24 months old contracted

paralytic polio during the period 1988-1989. The report in the British

medical journal Lancet confirmed that a significantly higher percentage

of these children had received a DTP shot within 30 days of the onset of

polio compared to a control group of children without polio, 43 percent

of polio victims compared to 28 percent of controls. The DTP vaccine

suppresses the body's ability to fight off the polio virus.

 

The destructive effect of vaccines on the immune system can persist over

an extended period of time. One study published in the Journal of

Infectious Diseases documented a long-term depressive effect on

interferon production caused by the measles vaccine. Interferon is a

chemical produced by lymphocytes (a type of white blood cell) that

renders the host resistant to infection. Interferon production is

stimulated by infection with a virus to protect the body from

superinfection by some other micro-organism. In this study, vaccination

of one-year-old infants with measles vaccine caused a precipitous drop

in the level of alpha-interferon produced by lymphocytes. This decline

persisted for one year following vaccination, at which time the

experiment was terminated. Thus, this study showed that measles vaccine

produced a significant long-term immune suppression.

 

Autoimmune Reactions to Vaccines

An 11 year old girl received a routine tetanus booster dose and three

days later developed blindness in the right eye and light perception

only in the left eye. Her optic discs were swollen on exam. Two days

later she had partial paralysis of her legs and loss of bladder control,

then more widespread sensory loss including a lack of vibrational and

positional senses. Seven weeks later she still had some vision loss and

decreased muscle power. Within one year she recovered (Lancet, 1992).

 

A 20 year old woman experienced pain and swelling of her right wrist and

fingers 4 days after a hepatitis vaccination. The pain and swelling

resolved, but returned again 6 months later with more severe swelling

and pain, following a second hepatitis vaccination. Nine years later,

X-ray of the hands showed destruction of the bones throughout her wrist

joints (Scandinavian Journal of Rheumatology, 1995).

 

A 4 year old girl developed progressive weakness of the legs, pain in

the legs and feet, and gradual inability to walk 10 days after Hib

vaccination. On the fifth day she had swallowing difficulties, facial

weakness, and a monotonous voice. Her symptoms gradually improved, and

within 3 weeks she could walk with help (Journal of Pediatrics, 1993).

 

A 42 year old man received tetanus toxoid on three separate occasions

over a period of 13 years. Following each vaccination he developed acute

nerve symptoms diagnosed as Guillain-Barre syndrome, a disease of the

nervous system characterized by rapid onset of motor weakness and loss

of sensation.. A nerve biopsy revealed destruction of the myelin nerve

sheath. Following his last injection he continued to experience multiple

recurrences, and continued to show abnormal findings on examination 15

years later (Journal of Neurological Science, 1978).

 

What is the effect of long-term immune suppression? Some investigators

are concerned that vaccines could be disabling our body's ability to

react normally to disease, and creating the climate for autoimmune

self-destruction. The many reports of autoimmune phenomena that occur as

reactions to vaccination provide incontrovertible proof that tampering

with the immune system causes devastating disease.

 

Federal legislation of 1986 commissioned the Institute of Medicine to

establish a Vaccine Safety Committee. The purpose of that committee was

to search the medical literature for reports of adverse events

associated with the vaccines routinely administered to children, and

report their findings. Computer searches revealed 1,800 relevant

articles. However, the committee's rigid criteria for establishing a

causal relationship between vaccine and adverse event made it nearly

impossible for a disease condition to make their short list. Without a

case-controlled study proving a relationship, the hundreds of case

reports of immune system destruction following vaccines were relegated

to coincidence. Case-controlled studies are expensive. They must include

tens or hundreds of thousands of children.

 

Even the Vaccine Safety Committee acknowledged the onset of several

autoimmune diseases as a result of vaccination (Guillain-Barre syndrome,

a disease that causes muscle weakness and paralysis, following tetanus

and polio vaccines; thrombocytopenia, destruction of blood platelets

responsible for blood clotting, following MMR; and chronic arthritis

following rubella). These types of symptoms have occurred following

every vaccine routinely given to children--the suppressed immune system

begins to attack the body's own cells, usually the nerves and joints.

Thousands of autoimmune incidents following vaccines have been reported

in the medical literature and adverse event reporting systems. These

autoimmune responses to vaccines have resulted in permanent, chronic

disease conditions--deforming arthritis and muscle wasting and paralysis.

 

In their attempt to explain the repeated occurrence of autoimmune

diseases that attack and destroy the myelin sheaths of nerves as a

direct result of vaccines, the committee members explain:

 

It is biologically plausible that injection of an inactivated virus,

bacterium, or live attenuated virus might induce in the susceptible host

an autoimmune response by deregulation of the immune response, by

nonspecific activation of the T cells directed against myelin proteins,

or by autoimmunity triggered by sequence similarities of proteins in the

vaccine to host proteins such as those of myelin.

 

Since the committee's report, a large ecological study in New Zealand

revealed that an epidemic of diabetes followed a massive campaign to

vaccinate children against hepatitis B. This report, published in the

New Zealand Medical Journal in 1996 revealed that a 60 percent increase

in childhood diabetes occurred in the years following the 1989-1991

vaccination program of children aged 6 to 16. The widespread use of the

new Haemophilus meningitis vaccine has similarly resulted in diabetes

epidemics. Diabetes is an autoimmune disease that has been frequently

observed to occur as a consequence of mumps vaccine. Three European

studies reported 22 cases of diabetes that began within 30 days of mumps

vaccination. The dramatic rise in vaccine-induced diabetes has led

researchers to raise a warning flag. Immunologist Bart Classen has said,

" We believe the effects of vaccines on diabetes are of tremendous

clinical importance and that trials need to be started immediately to

address the effect of vaccines on diabetes and other autoimmune

diseases. "

 

Vaccines have become a sacred cow of our culture, unassailable to

criticism. Now that we know their devastating effects on the immune

system, perhaps we need to take a more cautious approach to the vaccine

campaigns.

 

New vaccines for children are being developed in an unprecedented effort

to wipe out childhood diseases. In some cases this effort has strictly

monetary goals. For example, the most frequently stated purpose of the

chickenpox vaccine is not to protect children from this benign childhood

illness, but to keep parents at their jobs rather than missing a few

days of work to care for their sick child at home. According to Dr.

Philip Brunell, a leading chickenpox vaccine researcher, it is clear

that we can reduce the cost of chickenpox by routinely immunizing normal

children, primarily by reducing the loss of parental income. Vaccination

of the entire population would save an estimated $380 million dollars in

lost income and wages. Economic interests have spurred the adoption of a

chickenpox vaccine, not our concern for the well-being of children.

 

This callous disregard for the potential damage inflicted by vaccines

characterizes the goals of vaccine manufacturers. The pharmaceutical

giant Merck invested over $5 million in chickenpox vaccine development,

according to The Wall Street Journal. Dr. Samuel Katz, Duke University's

pediatrics chairman and head of a vaccine panel at the National Academy

of Sciences, expressed the manufacturer's concerns: Merck isn't going to

make back its investment in that vaccine by just distributing it to kids

with cancer. They're going to be interested in pushing for use in the

normal population.

 

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. The formula was simple--no profits, no vaccines.

 

Now that drug companies are protected from legal action, the race to

invent and distribute new vaccines has again switched into high gear.

Vaccines for hepatitis, haemophilus, and chickenpox have all been pushed

into the recommended schedule for children. This zealous rush to bring

new vaccines to market, heedless of the damage inflicted in the name of

prevention, could have far-reaching consequences. We may be setting the

stage for the unwitting destruction of our population's health, a result

that may continue to remain a hidden cause of widespread immune system

failure and autoimmune disease.

 

About the Author

Dr. Neustaedter has practiced homeopathic medicine and Traditional

for over twenty years. His book, The Vaccine Guide:

Making an Informed Choice (North Atlantic Books, 1996), has become a

popular resource for parents. He is a licensed acupuncturist and

received his Doctorate in Oriental Medicine in Hong Kong. He lives and

works in the San Francisco Bay Area.

 

http://www.healthy.net/asp/templates/article.asp?PageType=Article & ID=539

 

On Saturday, August 16, 2003, at 07:58 PM, writergrrrl48 wrote:

 

> I've seen a couple of people mention they don't vax their kids ... I'm

> pregnant, want to avoid this too, but I thought it was unavoidable ...

> can you tell me if I need to do anything in particular to keep my

> child from getting immunized?

>

> thanks for any info.

>

> CheriB

[Guest guest]

Do Vaccines Work And Are They Safe?

 

Most doctors and nurses genuinely believe that vaccines have helped

wipe out some of the deadliest infectious diseases. Many members of

the medical profession would put vaccination high on any list of

great

medical discoveries.

 

The perceived value of vaccination is so great that even though I

have, for many years, been a vociferous critic of some specific

vaccines (see section headed Whooping Cough) I have up until now

always been reluctant to damn all vaccination programmes as worthless

and dangerous.

 

The mythical power of vaccination programmes has for years constantly

been sustained by governments, and bodies, such as the World Health

Organisation announcing, apparently with complete conviction, that

such and such a disease will be eradicated when the relevant

vaccination programme has been completed.

 

The principle behind vaccination is a convincing one.

 

The theory is that when an individual is given a vaccine ? which

consists of a weakened or dead

version of the disease against which protection is required ? his or

her body will be tricked into developing antibodies to the disease in

exactly the same way that a body develops antibodies when it is

exposed to the disease itself.

 

But in reality things aren’t quite so simple. How long do the

antibodies last? Do they always work? What about those individuals

who

don’t produce antibodies at all? Vaccination, like so much of

medicine, is a far more inexact science than doctors (and drug

companies) would like us to think.

 

Vaccination is widely respected by doctors and others in the health

care industry because of the assumption that it is through

vaccination

that many of the world’s most lethal infectious diseases have been

eradicated. But this simply isn’t true. As I have shown in many of my

books infectious diseases were conquered by the provision of cleaner

drinking water and better sewage facilities. The introduction of

vaccination programmes came along either just at the same time or

later when the death rates from the major infectious diseases had

already fallen. There really isn’t any evidence to show that

vaccination programmes have ever been of any real value ? either to

individuals or to communities.

 

THE SMALLPOX MYTH

 

One of the medical profession’s greatest boasts is that it eradicated

smallpox through the use of the smallpox vaccine. I myself believed

this claim for many years. But it simply isn’t true.

 

One of the worst smallpox epidemics of all time took place in England

between 1870 and 1872 ? nearly two decades after compulsory

vaccination was introduced. After this evidence that smallpox

vaccination didn’t work the people of Leicester in the English

midlands refused to have the vaccine any more. When the next smallpox

epidemic struck in the early 1890s the people of Leicester relied

upon

good sanitation and a system of quarantine. There was only one death

from smallpox in Leicester during that epidemic. In contrast the

citizens of other towns (who had been vaccinated) died in vast

numbers.

 

Obligatory vaccination against smallpox was introduced in Germany in

around 1816, largely as a result of state by-laws, but these

vaccination programmes had no influence on the incidence of the

disease. On the contrary, the smallpox epidemic continued to grow and

in 1870 the war with France led to the gravest smallpox epidemic in

Germany history. At that point the new German Reich introduced a new

national law making vaccination against smallpox an even stricter

legal requirement. The police were given the power to enforce the new

law.

 

German doctors (and medical students) are taught that it was the

Reich

Vaccination Law which led to a dramatic reduction in the incidence of

smallpox in Germany. But a close look at the figures shows that the

incidence of smallpox had already started to fall before the law came

into action. And the legally enforced national smallpox vaccination

programme did not eradicate the disease.

 

Doctors and drug companies may not like it but the truth is that

surveillance, quarantine and better

living conditions got rid of smallpox ? not the smallpox vaccine.

 

When the World Health Organization campaign to rid the world of

smallpox was at its height the number of cases of smallpox went up

each time there was a large scale (and expensive) mass vaccination of

populations in susceptible countries. As a result of this the WHO

changed its strategy. Mass vaccination programmes were abandoned and

replaced with surveillance, isolation and quarantine.

 

For example, in the 1960s Sierra Leone had the highest rate of

smallpox in the world. The country got rid of smallpox in just over a

year ? largely by the simple process of identifying and isolating

patients with the disease.

 

The myth that smallpox was eradicated through a mass vaccination

programme is just that ? a myth.

 

It is worth pointing out that Edward Jenner, widely feted as the

inventor of the smallpox vaccine, tried

out the first smallpox vaccination on his own 10 month old son. His

son remained mentally retarded until his death at the age of 21.

Jenner refused to have his second child vaccinated.

 

TUBERCULOSIS

 

Vaccination against tuberculosis is often given as the reason why

this

disease stopped being quite the threat to life that it had been in

the

18th century.

 

But again, this isn’t true.

 

Robert Koch discovered the pathogen that causes TB back in 1883.

After

that BCG vaccination was introduced and then, subsequently, mass

treatment programmes were devised with chemotherapy.

 

None of these discoveries or introductions had any effect on the

incidence of tuberculosis.

 

Contracting TB doesn’t provide any immunity against a second

infection. And if a natural infection doesn’t provide protection then

a vaccination certainly won’t provide protection. How on earth can

it?

 

It was noticed decades ago that in the lung sanatoriums that

specialised in the treatment of TB patients there was no difference

in

the survival rates of patients who had been ‘protected’ against TB

with BCG vaccination when compared to the survival rates of patients

who had received no such ‘protection’.

 

The tuberculosis vaccination (the Bacillus Calmette-Guerin ? known as

BCG) consists of a weakened, living bovine mycobacterium. The vaccine

was used for many years but a WHO trial in India showed that the

vaccine offers no protection against the disease. Indeed, when new

cases of tuberculosis increased annually in the areas where people

had

been vaccinated against the disease the trial seemed to suggest that

there might be a link between the vaccine and outbreaks of the

disease.

 

Many countries have now abandoned the TB vaccine ? and have no plans

to reintroduce it even though the disease is once again a major

health

problem.

 

DIPTHERIA

 

Vaccination against diphtheria was introduced to Germany in 1925.

After the introduction of the vaccine the number of cases of

diphtheria steadily increased until, shortly after the Second World

War, production of the vaccine was halted. There was a decline in the

incidence of the disease which coincided with the fact that the

vaccination was no longer being used. When the vaccine was

subsequently reintroduced the decline in the incidence of the disease

slowed down.

 

As with whooping cough, tetanus and other diseases the incidence, and

number of deaths from diphtheria, were in decline long before the

vaccine was introduced.

 

POLIO

 

Paralysis caused by poliomyelitis is now unheard of in Germany. But

every year there are some cases of paralysis caused by the oral polio

vaccine.

 

In America the incidence of polio increased dramatically (by around

50%) after the introduction of mass immunisation. In some States the

incidence of polio roughly doubled after the polio vaccine was

introduced. The number of deaths from polio had fallen dramatically

before the first polio vaccine was introduced. As with other

infectious diseases the significance of polio dropped as better

sanitation, better housing, cleaner water and more food were all made

available in the second half of the nineteenth century. It was social

developments rather than medical ones which increased human

resistance

to infectious diseases.

 

Proof that the introduction of the polio vaccine wasn’t the success

it

is often made out to be isn’t difficult to find. In Tennessee, US,

the

number of polio victims the year before vaccination became compulsory

was 119. The year after vaccination was introduced the figure rose to

386. In North Carolina, the number of cases before vaccination was

introduced was 78, while the number after the vaccine became

compulsory rose to 313. There are similar figures for other American

states.

 

The fact is that polio (like many other infectious diseases) comes in

cycles. When a disease is at a high point in its cycle the

authorities

(egged on by doctors and drug companies) will use this to frighten

citizens into agreeing to be vaccinated. And when a disease is at a

low point in its natural cycle it is often vaccination programmes

which get the credit. This is exactly what happened with polio.

 

However, whether or not the polio vaccine actually works is, for many

people, a relatively unimportant health issue.

 

Of far more significance is the fact (revealed in my book Why Animal

Experiments Must Stop in 1991) that millions of people who were given

the polio vaccine as children in the 1950s and 1960s may now be at a

greatly increased risk of developing cancer.

 

Although an early breakthrough in the development of a polio vaccine

was made in 1949 with the aid of a human tissue culture, monkey

kidney

tissue was used when the first practical vaccine was prepared in the

1950s. The monkey tissue was used simply because that was standard

laboratory practice, but no one realised that one of the viruses

commonly found in monkey kidney cells can cause cancer in human

beings.

 

(As a side issue this is yet another example of the stupidity of

using

animal tissue in the treatment of human patients. The popularity of

using transplants derived from animals suggests that doctors and

scientists have learned nothing from this error. I sometimes despair

of those who claim to be in the healing profession.)

 

Bone, brain, liver and lung cancers have all been linked to the

monkey

kidney virus SV40 and something like seventeen million people who

were

given the polio vaccine in the 1950s and 1960s are probably now at

risk. Moreover, there now seems to be evidence that the virus may be

passed on to the children of those who were given the contaminated

vaccine. The SV40 virus from the polio vaccine has already been found

in cancers which have developed both in individuals who were given

the

vaccine as protection against polio and in the children of

individuals

who were given the vaccine. It seems inconceivable that the virus

could have got into the tumours other than through the polio vaccine.

 

The American government was warned of this danger back in 1956 but

the

doctor who made the discovery was ignored and her laboratory was

closed down. Surprise, surprise. It was five years after this

discovery before drug companies started screening out the virus. And

even then Britain had millions of doses of the infected polio vaccine

in stock. There is no evidence that the government withdrew the

vaccine. In Britain official records which would identify those who

received the contaminated vaccine were all destroyed by the

Department

of Health in 1987. Oddly enough this means that no one can take legal

action against the government. Gosh. Another surprise. How do these

bastards sleep at night?

 

WHOOPING COUGH

 

Throughout the 1970s and the 1980s I was a critic of a number of

vaccines ? most notably the

whooping cough vaccine. The following essay on the whooping cough

vaccine appeared in 1988 in my book The Health Scandal.

 

The story of the whooping cough vaccine provides us with a remarkable

example of dishonesty and deceit in medicine.

 

There has been controversy about the whooping cough vaccine for many

years but in the UK the Department of Health and Social Security has,

through the years, consistently managed to convince the majority of

medical and nursing staff to support the official line that the

vaccine is both safe and effective. The official DHSS line has for

years paid little attention to the facts. Put bluntly the DHSS (on

behalf of successive governments) has consistently lied about the

risks and problems associated with the whooping cough vaccine.

 

I will explain exactly why I think that governments have lied to

their

employers (the public) a little later. For the time being I would

like

to concentrate on the facts.

 

The first point that should be made is that although official

spokesmen claim otherwise, the whooping cough vaccine has never had

much of an influence on the number of children dying from whooping

cough. The dramatic fall in the number of deaths caused by the

disease

came well before the vaccine was widely available and was, historians

agree, the result of improved public health measures and, indirectly,

the use of antibiotics.

 

It was in 1957 that the whooping cough vaccine was first introduced

nationally in Britain ? although the vaccine was tried out in the

late

1940s and the early 1950s. But the incidence of whooping cough, and

the number of children dying from the disease, had both fallen very

considerably well before 1957. So, for example, while doctors

reported

170,000 cases of whooping cough in 1950 they reported only about

80,000 cases in 1955. The introduction of the vaccine really didn’t

make very much, if any, difference to the fall in the incidence of

the

disease. Even today (1988) thirty years after the introduction of the

vaccine, whooping cough cases are still running at about 1,000 a week

in Britain.

 

Similarly, the figures show that the introduction of the vaccine had

no effect on the number of children dying from whooping cough. The

mortality rate associated with the disease had been falling

appreciably since the early part of the twentieth century and rapidly

since the 1930s and 1940s ? showing a particularly steep decline

after

the introduction of the sulphonamide drugs. Whooping cough is

undoubtedly an extremely unpleasant disease but it has not been a

major killer for many years. Successive governments have frequently

forecast fresh whooping cough epidemics but none of the forecast

epidemics has produced the devastation predicted.

 

My second point is that the whooping cough vaccine is neither very

efficient nor is it safe. The efficiency of the vaccine is of

subsidiary interest ? although thousands of children who have been

vaccinated do still get the disease ? the greatest controversy

surrounds the safety of the vaccine. The DHSS has always claimed that

serious adverse reactions to the whooping cough vaccine are extremely

rare and the official suggestion is that the risk of a child being

brain damaged by the vaccine is no higher than one in 100,000. Now,

leaving aside the fact that I find a risk of one in 100,000

unacceptable, it is interesting to examine this figure a little more

closely, for after a little research work it becomes clear that the

figure of one in 100,000 is a guess.

 

Over the last decade or two, numerous researchers have studied the

risks of brain damage following whooping cough vaccination and their

results make fascinating reading. Between 1960 and 1981, for example,

nine reports were published showing that the risk of brain damage

varied between one in 6,000 and one in 100,000. The average was a

risk

of one in 50,000. It is clear from these figures that the DHSS has

simply chosen the figure which showed the whooping cough vaccine to

be

least risky. Moreover, the one in 100,000 figure did not come from

any

rock solid research. It was itself an estimate ? a guess.

 

These are just a couple of the important facts about the whooping

cough vaccine that have been ignored or overlooked or disguised by

the

DHSS. But they are not the only facts that have been distorted.

 

Although the DHSS consistently claims that whooping cough is a

dangerous disease, the figures show that it is not the indiscriminate

killer it is made out to be. Whooping cough causes around four deaths

a year in Britain. Compare that to approximately 300 deaths caused by

tuberculosis and 100 deaths caused by meningitis. Most of the victims

of whooping cough are babies under three months old. That fact is

particularly important because the vaccine is never given to babies

under three months old.

 

The truth about the whooping cough vaccine is that it has always been

a disaster. The vaccine has already been withdrawn in other countries

because of the amount of brain damage associated with its use. In

Japan, Sweden and West Germany the vaccine has been omitted from

regular vaccination schedules. In America two out of three whooping

cough vaccine manufacturers have stopped making the vaccine because

of

the cost of lawsuits. On 6th December 1985 the Journal of the

American

Medical Association published a major report showing that the

whooping

cough vaccine is, without doubt, linked to the development of serious

brain damage. And even here in Britain the DHSS has been so worried

about the vaccine that for ten years it has been paying research

workers at Porton Down to search for ways to make a new, safer, more

effective whooping cough vaccine. At long last, after a £5 million

research programme, a new vaccine is indeed being tested on children.

 

The final nail in the coffin lid is the fact that the British

Government has already paid out compensation to the parents of some

800 children who have been brain damaged by the whooping cough

vaccine. Some parents who accepted damages a few years ago were given

£10,000. More recently parents have been getting £20,000.

 

It is a startling fact that for many years now the whooping cough

vaccine has been killing or severely injuring more children than the

disease itself. Since 1979 around 800 children (or their parents)

have

received money from the Government for vaccine produced brain damage.

In the same period less than 100 children have been killed by

whooping

cough. I think that makes the vaccine more dangerous than the

disease.

And that, surely is quite unacceptable. So, why has the DHSS

continued

to encourage doctors to use the vaccine?

 

There are two possible explanations. The first explanation is the

more

generous of the two and concerns the Government’s responsibility for

the health of the community as a whole. The theory here is that by

encouraging millions of parents to have their children vaccinated the

Government can reduce the incidence of the disease in the community.

In the long run this (theoretically) reduces the risk of there being

any future epidemics of whooping cough. In other words the government

risks the lives of individual children for the good of the next

generation.

 

The second, less charitable explanation is that the DHSS is looking

after its own interests by continuing to claim that the whooping

cough

vaccine is safe enough to use. In 1987 there were 258 sets of parents

preparing to sue the DHSS for damages. They claim that the whooping

cough vaccine damaged their children. They are claiming something in

the region of £250,000 each. If the DHSS withdrew the whooping cough

vaccine, it would be admitting that the vaccine was dangerous. And it

would obviously lose its court cases. Such an admission would,

therefore, cost it 258 times £250,000.

 

And that would be just the beginning for there are, you will

remember,

800 sets of parents who have already received payments from the

Government of either £10,000 or £20,000. If the DHSS admitted

liability (and those payments did not include an admission of

liability) then it is fair to assume that the DHSS would find itself

with several hundred more lawsuits and a damages bill running into

billions of pounds.

 

Whatever explanation you consider most accurate the unavoidable fact

is that the government (in the form of the DHSS) has consistently

lied

about the whooping cough vaccine, has distorted the truth and has

deceived both the medical profession (for the majority of doctors and

nurses who give these injections accept the recommendations made by

the DHSS without question) and millions of parents.

 

The DHSS may have saved itself a tidy sum in damages. But the cost to

the nation’s health has been enormous. And this, remember, is merely

one more example of the way in which the truth has been distorted by

those whom we trust to provide us with honest, accurate advice about

medicine and health care.

 

(The above account of the whooping cough vaccine is taken from The

Health Scandal by Vernon Coleman, published by Sidgwick and Jackson

in

1988.)

 

MORE AND MORE VACCINES

 

As the years have gone by the number of vaccines available has

increased steadily. Modern American children receive around thirty

vaccinations by the time they go to school.

 

A decade or two ago the only vaccines available were against a

relatively small number of diseases

including smallpox, tuberculosis, polio, cholera, diphtheria, tetanus

and whooping cough. Today, the number of available vaccines seems to

grow almost daily. In the past vaccines were produced against major

killer diseases. Today vaccines are produced against diseases such as

measles, mumps and chickenpox which have been traditionally regarded

as relatively benign inconveniences of childhood.

 

In the UK the death rate from measles had dropped dramatically

decades

before the vaccine was introduced. Today the incidence of measles is

rising again.

 

In attempts to persuade parents to have their children vaccinated

against measles governments and doctors around the world have thought

up an apparently unending ? and hysterical ? series of scare

campaigns. Now that there is a vaccine against it measles has, by a

strange coincidence, stopped being an annoying childhood disease and

has, instead, become a deadly killer.

 

Scares often consist of claiming that a major epidemic is just around

the corner and that only vaccination can offer protection. I have

lost

count of the number of whooping cough epidemics which governments

have

wrongly forecast. Governments and their advisers are either

unbelievably stupid or else they are deliberately lying to help boost

drug company profits.

 

Of course, countless scientists around the world have spent vast

fortunes trying to create a vaccine

against AIDS (in view of the fact that AIDS may not exist ? see later

in this edition of VCHL ? they may find this trickier than expected).

 

And scientists have apparently developed a banana vaccine by creating

genetically engineered banana plants. There are plans to develop

bananas which ‘protect’ against hepatitis B, measles, yellow fever

and

poliomyelitis.

 

Other scientists have developed a genetically engineered potato which

it may be possible to use as a vaccine against cholera. The active

part of the potato remains active during the process of cooking and

so

a portion of genetically engineered chips could soon be a vaccine

against cholera. (I am not making this up.)

 

Naturally, the pharmaceutical industry is constantly searching for

more and more new vaccines. I have lost count of the number of times

I

have read of researchers working on a vaccine to prevent cancer.

Every

year new flu jabs appear on the market. There are, so I am told,

vaccines in the pipeline for just about everything ranging from

asthma

to earache. There is a planned genetically engineered vaccine which

will provide protection against forty different diseases. The

vaccine,

which will contain the raw DNA of all those different diseases, will

be given to newborn babies to provide them with protection for life.

Oh, goody.

 

I don’t know about you but I can no longer keep up with what is going

on. I have long since given up trying to work out which vaccines are

very dangerous and which are just a bit dangerous ? and to whom.

 

Nor can I keep up with which vaccines might work a bit and which

don’t

seem to do much good at all. Does anyone know what the hell happens

inside the body when all these different vaccinations are given

together? Do different vaccines work with or against one another?

What

about the risk of interactions? Exactly how does the immune system

cope when it is suddenly bombarded with so much foreign material?

 

I am an enthusiastic supporter of the principle of preventive

medicine. It is usually much easier to avoid an illness than it is to

treat one.

 

Vaccination programmes are usually sold to the public as though they

are an integral part of a general preventive medicine programme.

 

But over the years I have steadily come around to the view that

vaccination programmes cannot truly

be described as preventive medicine but are, rather, a part of the

interventionist approach to medical care.

 

DOCTORS REFUSE TO DISCUSS THE ISSUE

 

One of the big problems with vaccination is that it has, for many

years, been nigh on impossible to discuss the issue of vaccination

without arousing great antagonism from doctors and politicians. Many

parents who have tried to discuss vaccination programmes offered to

their children have been startled by the response. Doctors who will

discuss other issues in a rational and understanding way suddenly

become hysterical when it is suggested that the value of a

vaccination

programme be discussed. Doctors, nurses and health visitors often put

a great deal of pressure on parents to force them to have their

children vaccinated. It is common for doctors to refuse to discuss

the

issue and it is common for doctors to use a great deal of emotional

blackmail to force parents to have their children vaccinated. All

this

is made even more worrying by the fact that these days doctors often

have a personal financial interest in making sure that their patients

are vaccinated. (For example, doctors in general practice often get a

financial bonus if they can show that a high percentage of their

patients have been vaccinated.)

 

Instead of providing members of the public with the facts politicians

and civil servants have frequently introduced blatantly misleading

and

downright dishonest advertising campaigns in an attempt to bully

patients and parents into accepting vaccination. Diseases which are

often short lived and relatively harmless may be described as deadly

and lethal while the side effects associated with particular vaccines

are often ignored, minimised, trivialised or even hidden completely.

 

In my experience it is often extremely difficult to find the truth

about a particular vaccine. GPs who rely upon official information

(from the government) probably find it difficult to discover the

whole

truth and I suspect that most of the doctors and nurses who are such

enthusiastic supporters and promoters of vaccination programmes do so

because they innocently and naively believe what they have been told

and have no idea of the real facts.

 

One of the arguments often put forward in favour of vaccination is

that if a large enough number of people are vaccinated then the

community will benefit because fewer people will catch the disease in

question. The individual who does not get vaccinated (or who refuses

to allow his or her child to be vaccinated) will be accused of being

irresponsibly selfish. In some parts of the world it is now illegal

for parents not to have their children vaccinated. Children in the US

have been arrested for not having valid vaccination certificates.

 

Apart from the fact that it is odd to see doctors and drug companies

(most of whom are hardly left wing in their day to day approach to

life) embracing this curiously communistic approach to health care

(with the rights of the individual being regarded as less important

than the future prospects of the community) the big flaw is that all

the evidence shows that vaccination just doesn’t work this way.

 

Survey after survey has shown that the incidence of a disease in a

community simply isn’t related to the number of people who have been

vaccinated.

 

FLAWS AND MYTHS

 

The whole business of vaccination is riddled with flaws and myths.

 

Here are just a couple of the most obvious ones.

 

First, vaccines simply aren’t very effective. Much to the annoyance

of

doctors and drug companies, viruses and other organisms don’t just

sit

still and remain the same for year after year. They are constantly

changing. And new organisms are being formed all the time. Attempts

to

prevent influenza by giving flu jabs are, in my view, utterly futile.

Every year scientists, drug companies and doctors enthuse about the

latest anti-flu vaccine. But each year’s new vaccine is based on last

year’s brand of flu. And it will not necessarily provide any

protection against the latest flu bug.

 

While your doctor is busy jabbing you and your family with the latest

vaccine a new flu bug is probably on its way from China, Australia or

South America. The result is that vaccines are, at best,

unpredictable

and at worst utterly ineffective.

 

During outbreaks of whooping cough around half the victims are people

who have been vaccinated. (At least one important study has shown

that

whooping cough epidemics mainly occur among children who have had the

full vaccination course.) Research from Sweden and Italy has shown

that the whooping cough vaccine is effective in 48% and 36% of those

to whom it is given. Hardly reassuring when one considers the risks

involved.

 

Measles vaccines are similarly often ineffective. In an attempt to

cope with this doctors usually simply suggest giving booster shots.

Naturally, this has nothing whatsoever to do with the fact that

abandoning the vaccine would damage drug company (and doctor) profits

whereas giving booster profits would increase drug company (and

doctor) profits.

 

Measles used to be a relatively mild disease that usually affected

children. Today it seems to be a more serious disease which often

affects young adults. Measles is now a significant disease among

college students who have been vaccinated against it. (Incidentally,

there is now some evidence to suggest that trying to stop children

getting the typical childhood infections isn’t a good idea for

another

reason. It seems possible that children who don’t get many infectious

diseases in childhood may be more likely to develop cancer later in

life. The explanation for this is that those childhood infections

help

the immune system to develop.)

 

Failure rates with other vaccines are also high. There is much

evidence to show that the polio vaccine may fail (some outbreaks of

polio seem more likely to affect the vaccinated than the

unvaccinated)

and one study showed that a vaccination given to protect against

meningitis increased a child’s risk of contracting the disease by

five

times.Other studies have shown that the vaccine increases

susceptibility to complications.

 

The vaccine against tuberculosis has been estimated to be effective

between 0% and 80% of the time. (The Heaf test which is used to

measure tuberculin sensitivity can be something of a mystery. False

negatives and false positives are possible. A positive test could

mean

that the patient is allergic to the test, has had a TB infection or

is

immune to TB. Take your pick.)

 

Second, the side effects which may be associated with vaccines are

invariably worse than those who give and enthuse about the vaccines

are prepared to admit. There is no such thing as an entirely safe

vaccine. There are today more people in Germany suffering from

vaccination damage than there are people suffering from AIDS. (This

is

probably true for most other so called ‘developed’ countries.) The

amount of money being wasted on AIDS research runs into billions of

any currency you like to name. (I am not saying that research into

this disease is inevitably useless but that the research which is

being done is probably useless.) The amount of money being spent on

studying vaccine damage is approximately nothing.

 

Some side effects are relatively mild but nevertheless inconvenient.

For example, the flu jab regularly causes symptoms which are

virtually

indistinguishable from flu itself. Other side effects may be

crippling. For example, the side effects which may be associated with

the whooping cough vaccine can cause serious, life long damage.

 

For over two centuries doctors have persisted with vaccination

programmes despite the fact that there

has never been any convincing evidence to show that they work or,

indeed, are safe. Moreover, to their eternal shame, doctors have

consistently refused to debate the issue of vivisection and have done

everything they could to prevent the public discovering the truth

about an activity which has been extremely profitable both for the

medical profession and for the drugs industry.

 

In the 1970s, when I wrote extensively about the hazards of specific

vaccination programmes (particularly the whooping cough vaccine), I

was widely blamed by doctors and politicians for the fact that many

parents were refusing to have their children vaccinated. My only

weapon against the propaganda techniques employed by the government

was the truth. At the time I was writing a syndicated newspaper

column

which appeared in a number of local newspapers. Time and time again

doctors put pressure on local newspaper editors to encourage them to

drop my column on the grounds that by printing the facts about the

whooping cough vaccine (as far as I know, no one ever disputed the

accuracy of the facts I printed) I was threatening the safety of the

nation!

 

YET MORE FLAWS AND FAILURES

 

Evidence that vaccines may do more harm than good is supported by

experiences with animals. Between 1968 and 1988 there were

considerably more outbreaks of foot and mouth disease in countries

where vaccination against foot and mouth disease was compulsory than

in countries where there were no such regulations. Epidemics always

started in countries where vaccination was compulsory. This

experience

clearly shows that the alleged advantage to the community of

vaccinating individuals simply does not exist.

 

Similar observations were made about the hyena dog, which was in 1989

threatened with extinction. Scientists vaccinated individual animals

to protect them against rabies but more than a dozen packs then died

within a year ? of rabies. This happened even in areas where rabies

had never been seen before. When researchers tried using a

non-infectious form of the pathogen (to prevent the deaths of the

remaining animals) all members of seven packs of dogs disappeared.

And

yet the rabies vaccine is now compulsory in many parts of the world.

Is it not possible that it is the vaccine which is keeping this

disease alive?

 

Horses are regularly and repeatedly vaccinated with a whole range of

vaccines. Some vets now believe that these vaccinations damage the

immune systems of the animals concerned (though most vets, like most

doctors, are frightened to speak out and attack vaccines).

 

Similarly, what evidence is there to show that the many vaccines

given

to family pets are of value ? other than to the companies making the

vaccines and the vets giving the jabs?

 

Those who eat meat should be aware that cattle (and other animals

reared for slaughter) are regularly vaccinated. The meat that is

taken

from those animals may, therefore, contain vaccine residues in

addition to hormones, antibiotics and other drugs.

 

THE BOTTOM LINE

 

I have for decades argued that some vaccines may be unnecessary

and/or

even potentially dangerous in some circumstances, and may sometimes

be

promoted too enthusiastically by both politicians and doctors.

Tragically, many doctors seem to know very little about the vaccines

they advocate. In my view, if a doctor wants to vaccinate you or a

member of your family you should insist that he confirm in writing

that the vaccine is both entirely safe and absolutely essential. You

may notice his enthusiasm for the vaccine suddenly diminish.

 

The first vaccine which really attracted my attention was the

whooping

cough vaccine. For years now whooping cough has not been a major

killer disease ? not, at least, in most westernised, developed

countries and for many years I have believed ? and publicly argued ?

that the number of children allegedly brain damaged by the vaccine

has, during the last decade or two, probably exceeded the number

allegedly killed by the disease itself.

 

Many readers who have tried to discuss vaccines with their doctors

have complained that their physicians simply insist that the whooping

cough vaccine is perfectly safe and won’t even discuss it with them.

I

firmly believe that all parents should be told the facts so that they

can make up their own minds about the value of any vaccine. Deciding

whether or not to have a child vaccinated is a big decision. It isn’t

something to be done lightly. The wrong decision can easily lead to a

lifetime of regrets. Sadly, however, one big problem is undoubtedly

the fact that many doctors simply don’t know very much about the

safety or effectiveness of vaccines. They know what the government

tells them and they may know what the company which makes the vaccine

tells them. But I don’t trust governments and I don’t think that drug

companies are always the best source of unbiased information about

effectiveness and safety.

 

In my view all parents should have the right to decide whether or not

their child has any vaccine. They should not just be told by their

doctor that they must accept his assurance that the vaccine is

perfectly safe and completely essential.

 

‘My doctor implied that I was just being stupid when I said I wasn’t

sure that I wanted my child vaccinated,’ complained one reader. ‘His

attitude was that it had nothing to do with me and that I should just

allow him to do whatever he thought best.’

 

‘My wife came home crying,’ complained another reader. ‘She had had

the temerity to question her doctor about vaccination. He told her

that if she refused to have our child vaccinated he would call in the

social workers since in his view our refusal to allow vaccination

made

us unfit to be parents. What really upset me is that my wife hadn’t

refused to have our child vaccinated. She just wanted to talk about

it.’

 

This paternalistic attitude seems strong among doctors and other

health workers, most of whom seem to prefer to answer any questions

with abuse rather than facts.

 

I believe that all parents should make up their own minds about

whether or not to have their children vaccinated. Before you allow

your doctor to vaccine your child (or you) ask your doctor some

questions. Essential questions to ask include:

 

How dangerous is the disease for which the vaccine is being

given?

How effective is the vaccine?

How dangerous is the vaccine?

Which patients should not be given the vaccine?

 

And, finally, as I said earlier, I advise patients to ask doctors to

give them written confirmation that they have personally investigated

the risk-benefit ratio of the vaccine and that, having looked at all

the evidence, they believe that the vaccine is safe and essential for

that particular patient. How could any doctor object to signing such

a

confirmation?

 

I cannot give you specific advice about whether or not you should

have

your child vaccinated against whooping cough, measles or any other

disease. It would be dangerous and irresponsible for me to try to

offer you specific advice because we are all different and

circumstances change from day to day.

 

My own personal view is that vaccines are unsafe and worthless. I

will

not allow myself to be vaccinated again. Readers of VCHL must,

however, make their own judgements based on all the available

evidence. I strongly recommend that anyone contemplating vaccination

discuss the issue with their own medical adviser.

 

The bottom line is that infectious diseases are least likely to

affect

(and to kill) those who have healthy immune systems. I no longer

believe that vaccines have any role to play in the protection of the

community or the individual. Vaccines may be profitable but, in my

view, they are neither safe nor effective.

 

I prefer to put my trust in building up my immune system. (See VCHL

Vol 1 No 8 and VCHL Vol 2 No 10.)

 

http://www.vernoncoleman.com/vaccines.htm

 

 

On Saturday, August 16, 2003, at 07:58 PM, writergrrrl48 wrote:

 

> I've seen a couple of people mention they don't vax their kids ... I'm

> pregnant, want to avoid this too, but I thought it was unavoidable ...

> can you tell me if I need to do anything in particular to keep my

> child from getting immunized?

>

> thanks for any info.

>

> CheriB

[Guest guest]

There are exemptions in every state. I sign a paper (the vx form they

send you each year before school or pre school starts) saying I object

and offer no explanation. Then I take it and get it notarized for free

at my bank and hand it in...like millions of other parents are doing all

the time...the school has no trouble w/ it at all!

 

I can send more info on it from state to state on or off list as you

like.

Elizabeth

 

PS Sorry to bombard the list w/ articles- they are good ones and I truly

hope they help and help save some kids too. ;-)

 

On Saturday, August 16, 2003, at 08:11 PM, Tigger Greg wrote:

 

> How do you get your kids in school with no shots?

> Here they have to have them or no school.

>  

> Greg