Doctors against vaccines

Flu Vaccine - Useless, Dangerous Lottery Ticket

In my recent studies I have been enlightened by some interesting information about the flu vaccines. A systematic review of 51 studies involving 260,000 children age 6 to 23 months found no evidence that the flu vaccine is any more effective than a placebo in that group. A JAMA study showed the incidence of clinical influenza in the vaccinated group was 2 percent but in the un-vaccinated group it was only 3 percent. This means that out of 100 people, one person was attributed with avoiding the flu because of the vaccine. According to the CDC, common substances found in flu vaccines include: antibiotics, MSG, formaldehyde, mercury-containing thimerosal, and polysorbate 80 (PS 80 can cause severe anaphylactic reactions). There are one to two cases of Guillain-Barre syndrome per 1 million vaccinated persons. Taking a flu shot is essentially the same as buying a lottery ticket for acquiring GBS, an inflammatory demyelinating condition of the nervous system. Thankfully, there are alternatives to improving your immune system other than the flu vaccine.

Dr. Tom Lankering, The Aspen Times



Vaccination and immuno-difficiency in children
by Gunner Ødum MD

Classical Homeopath MDSKH

Like everybody else I have been told that vaccinations can protect us against dangerous diseases like small-pox (variola), tuberculosis, diphteria, polio, tetanus and whooping cough. These are all of them serious illnesses, which have cost the lives of a lot of people. Children have been especially threatened, and consequently I have never been in doubt, when it came to vaccination of children. It was important to protect them against these dreadful diseases.

Side effects

This was my attitude as a student of medicin and later on as a qualified doctor. I was told that on rare occasions there might be serious side effects like encephalitis, but they occurred so seldom that they were nothing compared to the damages and deaths caused by the diseases themselves. Most side effects consisted of a local irritation caused by the insertion, a little screaming and some passing fever. Moreover I was told that the serious brain damages might be coincidental, having nothing to do with the vaccination.


As mentioned before I`m a qualified doctor and have worked as such in the Danish health insurance system for 10 years (1977-1986). Concurrently I had become interested in alternative therapy, but I still believed that vaccination was the safest protection against infant and children diseases. In 1987 I started an education as a Classical Homeopath. This was the start of my scepticism towards the effectiveness of vaccinations. Nevertheless I submitted to being vaccinated, when I was sent to Croatia in 1993 as a UN - doctor.

A change of attitude

The real change of attitude took place when in November 1995 I worked as a substitute for a doctor in Scoresbysund, Greenland. I had been given the Danish translation of a book about homeopathic treatment of vaccination damages. The reading of this book made me alert to the problems of vaccination, and I loathed being forced to vaccinate the Greenland children. Two things about the book fascinated me especially:

  1. The possibility of treating children suffering from side effects from vaccination with homeopathic nosodes. Learning that the decline in the number of deaths among children suffering from children's diseases was not due to vaccinations. This decline had started long before doctors had begun vaccinating and was primarily due to better personal hygiene, improved sanitation, pure drinking water, wholesome food and generally improved condition of life.

When returning from Greenland in December 1995 I immediately applied my new knowledge on children suffering from various chronic diseases. It was my suspicion that these diseases had been originated by vaccinations.

Four cases

With a background in this understanding I started proving my suspicion by giving children suffering from the above mentioned chronic diseases homeopathic nosode therapy.

In the following I'm going to describe four cases:

Case 1.

Kris was born on 7th of March 1990. I first saw him in 1992, when I treated him for asthmatic bronchitis. His mother told me he was born a healthy child, weighing 3.200 g. He had been given the usual vaccinations stipulated by the Danish health system. After one of these the parents remembered him crying and screaming all through the night. They didn`t remember how old he was at that time, but it had been difficult to get in contact with him. He had high fever after each vaccination, and after the third DiTePol and MMR his mother had noticed a remarkable change in his behaviour. He was seldom happy, often dissatisfied and became easily angry and aggressive. Occasionally it was difficult to get into contact with him.

At the age of 10 months he started in daynursery and had recurrently returning otitis media and bronchitis. He was given penicillin several times, had both eardrums punctured and a drainage tube inserted. He lost weight, looked pale and unhealthy and was often tired.

After I had given him two homeopathic remedies his ear problems disappeared, while his bronchitis still recurred.

In 1992 he had started in Kindergarten, where he was extremely shy and reticent. When his parents had visitors he hid in his room and would see nobody. He often had furious fits of rage, kicking, beating and scratching. As this behaviour grew worse his anxious parents came to see me in December 1995, the day after my return from Greenland. I gave Kris a vaccine nosode. It was the first time I tried a nosode therapy. When I saw Kris again one month later his behaviour had changed remarkably. His fits of rage had diminished and become less violent, and his parents had obtained a better contact with him. His appetite had improved and he had put on weight.

One year later his parents told me that Kris had developed positively. His bronchitis was still recurring, but he no longer felt so ill and weak as formerly.In school he was still a little shy, but the teachers described him as a happy boy who felt secure and comfortable.

I must admit that I felt rather astonished to see the dramatic effect of just one vaccine nosode, but I also felt confirmed in my suspicion that it was the vaccines that had brought about the change in his personality.

Case 2.

Her name was Elisa and she was almost 2 years old when I saw her in October 1995. She had also gone through the usual vaccination programmes. Six months old she started in a daynursery and had constantly recurring colds with coughs and fever. In periods of fever she had to be looked after by her grandmother, but when she returned to the daynursery she fell ill again.

I started the therapy by giving her a homeopathic remedy Calc-p C 200. It helped her to stay well for a whole month. When she fell ill again I gave her another Calc-p C 200 with the same result. She was well for a month, but then fell ill again. I started wondering why this was so.

After I had returned from Greenland and successfully had tried the nosode therapy on Kris, I thought that Elisa might be the victim of an immuno-deficiency caused by vaccines. I tested her and found that she had been especially weakened by the whooping cough vaccination. So I gave her vaccine nosode. The result was astonishing. Elisa was well for more than 6 months. Then she had another vaccination according to the usual vaccination programmes - and fell ill again. The same thing happened every time, whichever vaccine she was given.

This was the second time I had seen the effect of nosode therapy. I had also learned that the effect of homeopathic remedies like Calc-p C 200 is limited because homeopathy seems to be blocked up by vaccines.

Case 3.

My third case was Kristoffer. He was born in 1988 and 7½ years old, when I saw him in March 1996. Since infancy he had suffered from otitis media and now had to read lips because he was almost deaf. He had also developed asthma and was daily given Bricanyl spray and Spirocort spray. Because of his asthma he could not play with other children. He had no appetite and was often aggressive and sorry for himself.

I tested him for vaccination damage and gave him a vaccine nosode. The parents told me that already the first evening there was a noticeable change. For the first time in years Kristoffer was hungry! In the course of a few weeks he had changed totally. His appetite was better, he had more energy, his hair was glossy and his hearing had improved to the extent that he need not read lips any more. A couple of months later his asthma medicine was discontinued, and he could now play with other children, running and riding his bicycle.

I no longer doubted that vaccines caused serious damages on children's health's, but what amazed me was the fact that one single pill could initiate a process of healing so quickly in a child having suffered from vaccination damages since infancy.

Case 4.

Carina was born in May 1993 and had been given only some of the vaccinations stipulated for her age. Generally she was strong and healthy and her problems were not colds or otitis media. Still she had had pneumonia in connection with colds. Her problem was not having a language. When she was 3 years old she could not say one understandable word. Her mother came to me because she had heard about the damaging effects of vaccinations on children's health, and now she wanted her child to be sort of purified for vaccines.

I tested Carina and was confirmed in my suspicion that her problem was caused by vaccines. I gave her a vaccine nosode, and less than two days later she was able to utter a whole sentence containing 4 understandable words. At the same time she was in a very unstable psychic state of mind, being very irritable and aggressive. From now on language was pouring out of her mouth, and her personality changed completely after having been confined by lack of language. After 6 month she was in possession of a language adequate to her age. Her immune system must have benefited, too, because when an epidemic of impetigo broke out in her Kindergarten, she was the only one not to catch it. This case started me wondering whether many of the speech problems met with in schools could have their origin in vaccinations? If so, then a nosode therapy would be more helpful than any educational endeavors!

Chronic diseases

After these 4 initial cases in 1996 I have treated more than 700 children whose immunity had been weakened by vaccinations. The chronic diseases I had seen in a lot of children were the following:

    1. Constantly returning colds.

    2. Fluids from the ears/ otitis media.

    3. Defective hearing.

    4. Asthma and bronchitis.

    5. Recurring pneumonia.

    6. Eczema of various kinds.

    7. Sleeping problems.

    8. Appetite problems.

    9. Hyperactivity.

    10. Physical or psychic handicaps.

    11. Speech disturbances.

    12. Backward readers.

    13. Behaviour disorder.

    14. DAMP - children (Dysfunction as to Attention, Motor nerves and Perception)

    15. Autism.

    16. Epilepsy.

    17. Rheumatoid arthritis and

    18. Diabetes Mellitus.

Vaccines are highly noxious substances

It was not difficult for me to understand why so many children were ailing, when I considered what was the content of the vaccines injected into infants and children. Primarily vaccines contain pathogenic germs or vira, mostly grown on animal tissue. These germs or vira have been weakened or killed in order not to provoke the disease - anyway only in a mild form. These vaccines contain tissue fixatives (formaldehyde, aluminium phosphate, aluminium hydroxide) and preservative (thiomersal, a mercury compound). Certain vaccines even contain neomycin, which is an antibiotic. When injected they cause local reactions (redness, swelling at injection site) or even systemic reactions (fever, vomiting). Thiomersal causes various allergies.

Vaccination programmes in Denmark

All medical systems - except orthodox or allopathic medicine - look at the human body as a whole and interconnected system. Homeopathy understands disease as a need of the body to rid itself of toxins, and it does so in an orderly and meaningful fashion without attempting to suppress the symptoms. Vaccines introduce vira directly in the bloodstream while the natural way of catching a disease goes through the air passage or the digestive organs, where the local immune defence sets in. Far from preventing diseases vaccines push the disease into a chronic form and deeper into the body, where it then attacks vital organs. The result of suppressing measles and other infectious diseases in this manner is cancer and other autoimmune and chronic diseases.

It has been documented in medical literature (Viera Scheibner 1993) that people who contracted cancer and other chronic degenerative diseases in later years have remarkably few infectious diseases of childhood to report.

The sordid story of vaccination programmes reveals the enormous gaps in the knowledge base of the orthodox medical establishment, especially a profound lack of knowledge of the dynamics of health and disease and functioning of the human body. It is the same medical industry, which enjoys the protection of the institutions of the State in most industrially developed countries.

Prevention is better than cure

After these 4 initial cases I have treated more than 700 children whose immunity had been weakened by vaccinations, but all the time I kept thinking: We can`t solve this problem with the help of therapy. The only solution is stopping vaccinations! I know we are talking about big business now, and that we are up against powerful forces. The vaccination industry is backed up world-wide by WHO in close co-operation with governments, financiers and industrialists. But this is no excuse for not starting doing something now. Because if we don't try to stop this madness now the coming generations will suffer not only from immuno-deficiency, but we`ll see changes of genetic codes caused by the animal tissues injected into our children.


Ravi Roy & Carola Lage-Roy: Homøopatisk behandling af vaccinationsskader (Klitrose 1995).

Isaac Golden: Vaccination. En gennemgang af risiko og alternativer (Klitrose 1998).

Viera Scheibner, Ph.D.: Vaccination. 100 years of orthodox research shows that vaccines represent a medical assault on the immune system. (Australian Print Group, Maryborough, Victoria, Australia 1993).

Guilaine Lanctôt, MD.: The Medical Mafia (The Key Inc. 1995. P.O. Boks 223 Morgan, U.T. 05853 USA.). Danish translation, Klitrose 1999.


Don't ever stop screaming about the present situation. I suggest you do your screaming into the ears of your legislators, tell them you want ALL laws advocating mandatory medicine repealed. OFF THE BOOKS!  Forget the polite talk, it never works against organizations such as the AMA, FDA, CDC, NIH - all of which destroy rather than improve, public health.  These government organizations have conspired with legislators and have poisoned the soil in which we grow our food, they have poisoned our drinking water with fluorides and chlorides, they are now  poisoning our food chain with genetically altered foods that have already knocked off an entire population of pigs... BUT ABOVE ALL ELSE THEY ARE POISONING OUR BODIES - the last frontier of privacy of the common man!
      Scream into the ear of your legislators - tell them we're NOT interested in SAFE VACCINES, or IMPROVED VACCINES, or HIGHLY EFFECTIVE vaccines -
      Scream into their ears that what we want is AN END to MANDATED VACCINES!!
      Scream into their ears that we want ALL MANDATED MEDICINE off the law books.
      We'll never get these greedy medical criminals off our backs until enough mothers like yourself are screaming scientific facts into the ears of their legislators. There is just too much money being made by the vaccine drug lords. The legislators will never get the scientific facts on vaccines from the people responsible to deliver those facts. Those people are in the pay of the drug companies. A long list of which appears at the end of this letter.
      Only when enough mothers scream into the ears of their legislators will we rid ourselves of these wretched medical quacks who are destroying the health of our children and our nation [factually and statistically] via highly skilled propaganda.
      This powerful, well supported propaganda machine has infected the public mind and the minds of MOST legislators and given the medical quacks pseudo official status - a dangerous situation warned against by one of the writers of our constitution, [Benjamin Rush MD] who was himself an MD.
      Unfortunately for the public health, and for the health of  mothers such as yourself, and for the health of your children [which has been severely reduced by the medical quacks] Rush's advice was ignored by the other honorable men who put together the greatest document for freedom ever devised throughout history. They made one mistake, they placed trust in future politicians, a fatal error as far as the public health goes.  The greedy medical quacks have taken full advantage of the situation - preying upon the greed and egos of: the medical doctors, medical researchers, and the appointed guardians of the public health - the legislators.
      Your legislator is the most culpable of all those involved - it is natural for men to want to prosper and do well financially so as to provide for themselves and their families, but not at the expense of their neighbors life and health. That is what the constitution and  the legislature is for, to guard the public against the uncontrolled, natural desires of men arising out of their human nature. The constitution and the legislative guardians are there to protect us  [literally] from ourselves. They have allowed their own greed to get in the way of their duty to the public.
      Dr Daniel H Duffy Sr
      Geneva, Ohio

From Dr. Duffy:

To those who think of themselves as antivaccinationists,

I keep seeing all these email messages entitled
"Help Us Treat Autism"
"Autism Conference"
"Recovering the Autistic Child"

Etc Etc Etc

How about one entitled:


Wake up out there folks, you're all sound asleep. The white collar criminals go right on doing quack medicine right under your noses - even those MDs with children who have suffered the results of their own stupidity go right on recommending other "safe" vaccines!! And the stupid public goes right on worshipping these half educated fools who are more of a danger than those who recommend vaccines outright.

Get the point for God's sake, all the old diseases were on the way out before ANY of these vaccines were EVER used and when they were used only a tiny portion of the  world population received them. No vaccine ever prevented cured or ameliorated ANY disease - the diseases were all the result of populations outgrowing supplies of fresh foods.

GET WITH IT!!!!!!!!!!!

  "The only safe vaccine is a vaccine that is never used."  

                      --Dr. James A. Shannon      National Institutes of Health

The evidence for indicting immunisations for SIDS is circumstantial, but compelling. However, the keepers of the keys to medical-research funds are not interested in searching this very important lead to the cause of an ongoing, and possibly preventable, tragedy. Anything that implies that immunisations are not the greatest medical  advance in the history of public health is ignored or ridiculed.   Can you imagine the economic and political import of discovering that immunisations are killing thousands of babies?" Dr William C. Douglass, M.D. (Honored twice as America's 'Doctor of the Year')

"Only after realising that routine immunisations were  dangerous did I achieve a substantial drop in infant death rates. The worst vaccine of all is the whooping cough  vaccine... it is responsible for a lot of deaths and for a lot of infants suffering irreversible brain damage. In susceptible infants, it knocks their immune systems about, leading to irreparable brain damage, or severe attacks or even deaths from diseases like pneumonia or gastro-enteritis and so on". Dr Kalokerinos, M.D.

"Official data shows that large scale vaccination has failed  to obtain any significant improvement of the diseases against which they were supposed to provide protection" Dr Sabin, developer of Polio vaccine. 

 "All vaccination has the effect of directing the three values of he blood into or toward the zone characteristics of cancer and leukemia...Vaccines do predispose to cancer and  leukemia." Professor L. Vincent - founder of Bioelectronics

"Sudden Infant Death Syndrome has been reported following administration of DPT. The significance is unclear.85% of SIDS cases occur in the period 1 through 6 months of age, with the peak incidence at age 2 to 4 months." From the accompanying insert to Connaught Labs  DPT shot. "There has been a frightening increase in cases of autism that has not been explained. There are a number of anecdotal reports from parents that symptoms of autism have appeared close to the time of the (MMR) vaccine."  Jane Orient, M.D., executive director of the Association of American Physicians and Surgeons and clinical lecturer in medicine at the University of Arizona College of Medicine, and a professor of clinical medicine at the Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine.

"I once believed in Jenner; I once believed in Pasteur. I believed in vaccination. I believed in vivisection. But I changed my views as the result of hard thinking."--Dr Hadwen

"If you want the truth on vaccination you must go to those who are not making anything out of it. If doctors shot at the moon every time it was full as a preventive of measles and got a shilling for it, they would bring statistics to prove it was a most efficient practice, and that the population would be decimated if it were stopped."---Dr Allinson

"The greatest threat of childhood diseases lies in the dangerous and ineffectual efforts made to prevent them through mass immunisation.....There is no convincing scientific evidence that mass inoculations can be credited with eliminating any childhood disease."

Dr Robert Mendelsohn, M.D.

"I think that no person would permit anybody to get close to them with an inoculation if they would really know how they are made, what they carry, what has been lied to them about and what the real percent of danger is of contracting such a disease which is minimal."

--Dr Eva Snead

"It is pathetic and ludicrous to say we ever vanquished smallpox with vaccines, when only 10% of the population was ever vaccinated." Dr Glen Dettman.

"There is a great deal of evidence to prove that immunisation of children does more harm than good."

Dr. J. Anthony Morris (formerly Chief Vaccine Control Officer at the US Federal Drug Admin.)

There is insufficient evidence to support routine vaccination of healthy persons of any age." Paul Frame, M.D., Journal of Family Practice

As well consult a butcher on the value of vegetarianism as a doctor on the worth of vaccination."---Bernard Shaw

"The vaccinations are not working, and they are dangerous..  We should be working with nature."----- Lendon H.Smith, M.D.

"The decline in infectious diseases in developed countries had nothing to do with vaccinations, but with the decline in poverty and hunger."-

"I was working in one of the oldest lung illness treatment centres in Germany, and just by chance, I looked at the files of those people who had fallen ill during the first German epidemic of smallpox, in 1947...We had always been told   that the smallpox vaccination would protect against smallpox. And now I could verify, thanks to the files and  papers, that all of those who had fallen ill had been vaccinated. This was very upsetting for me."

Dr Buchwald, M.D.

"No batch of vaccine can be proved safe before it is given to children." Surgeon General of the United States Leonard Scheele, addressing an AMA convention in 1955

Perhaps the best hope for change is coming from front-line physicians themselves. Several years ago, Dr. Bob Goodman of New York noticed a sharp spike in the number of patients asking for "clean" doctors. He set up

< ,

 a website where doctors can pledge to accept no money or gifts from the pharmaceutical industry, and to seek out unbiased research.

From Arnold Gore:

Hi Activists and Consumers,

Dr. Rebecca Carley, MD the leading authoritative medical voice of reason warning parents of the potential dangers of vaccinations is being brought up on charges to take away her license. The state ordered Dr.Carley to undergo a psychiatric examination conducted by a doctor whose license is subject to the whims of this medical board. The psychiatrist indicated that Dr.Carley was "delusional" based on statements made on her public access cable TV program. The statements concerned the very unusual actions and failures to act as procedurally mandated. Dr.Carley has been subjected to the most reprehensible conduct of any government agency.

The state has not been content with attempting to take away her medical license, which is a dispute between adults. They have stooped to taking away her only child and giving him to his father who sexually abused the child, despite overwhelming evidence presented by the child's foster mother, social worker and the head of the Sex Abuse Unit of Nassau County Medical center. I have personally seen court transcripts of testimony verifying these circumstances. The child complained that the father inserted a magic marker in his anus and he was unable to move his bowels. The child was examined at Nassau County Medical Center and a "rape kit" was prepared with DNA evidence. For some unexplained reason the police did not pick up the evidence kit as they procedurally should. Therefore Nassau County Medical Center threw out the evidence kit. The Nassau County District Attorney, therefore stated that because he did not have the evidence kit he dropped the charges against the father. This unusual chronology would raise eyebrows among most "reasonable persons" Last June I was scheduled to appear on Health Action with Kathy Davis. We asked Family Court to give their side of the case before we presented our story on the radio program. The authorities knew we were scheduling a telephone call to Dr.Carley on Tuesday between 2 and 3pm. Curiously, when Kathy Davis attempted to call Dr.Carley's telephone number, the phone did not work. When she called another doctor scheduled for that day his phone did work. Therefore the problem was Dr.Carley's telephone. When Dr.Carley, heard the program on the radio and heard we could not call her and she called in from a cell phone, and gave out her office phone number. Some listeners tried to call her number but also were suspiciously unable to get through, pointing to someone deliberately disabling her phone service at that crucial time. This is
not a "delusion."

In case anyone reading this is unfamiliar with the facts legitimating the controversy surrounding vaccination, the official federal data cannot be disputed. The federal government pays out over $100 million dollars a year to the parents of vaccine injured and dead children. Under the Vaccine Injury Compensation Program individual payments are capped at $250,000 per case, these official figures are posted at

What started as a small program has exploded as vaccine manufacturers no longer have the incentive to make sure vaccines are as safe as possible. Most of the cost can even be passed on to the consumer, who has no choice.

The OPMC and its consulting psychiatrist are blatantly violating Dr.Carley's free speech rights protected under the constitution. The Supreme Court has particularly defended political speech which is at issue in this case. It is embarrassing to the State to have a doctor reversing vaccine injured diseases and warning parents to educate themselves before they consent to the use of vaccinations. Call Governor Pataki's office in NYC at 212-681-4580 or In Albany at 518-474-1041 and ask that make sure the OPMC observes Dr.Carley's First Amendment rights to free speech without jeopardizing her medical license. In this election year he should be responsive. In the meantime save the date of Thursday July 11 for a protest demonstration at the OPMC hearing to be held at 5 Penn Plaza at 34th Street and 8th Avenue right near Penn Station starting at 8am.
Arnold Gore
Consumers Health Freedom Coalition


"My honest opinion is that vaccination is the cause of more disease and suffering than anything I could name.

Dr. Harry R. Baybee

Harold E Buttram, MD

"In response to the recent flurry of events, I feel I have both a right and an obligation to make a few comments:

"Based on more than forty years of observation of the vaccine scene, I am increasingly convinced that science has not and never will be a governing factor in this area as long as vested interest has the power to mandate vaccines. Experience has shown that those in power simply ignore that which does not suit them. "In my opinion there is only one basic issue with which we are confronted; there is only one hope of reversing the current downward health trend among American children, and that is for parents to gain the right of free choice to accept or reject vaccines based on informed consent. Under today's bureaucratic regime, this right will never be given to parents. Following legal channels, it is a right that must be demanded. It will not be easy, but it can and must be done. Personally I will support anything or anyone leading in this direction."

False hope on TB

JOHN HUMPHRYS (Comment, last week) writes that the Americans would not touch TB vaccine (BCG), but it seems to do the trick here. It does not. BCG, the most used vaccine in the world since it was introduced more than 50 years ago, has made no difference to TB in countries which rely solely on it to halt its spread. It has never been claimed to prevent TB, but even the evidence of its protectiveness is patchy and historical. And there have been no studies of its effectiveness in the past three decades.
It may leave an ugly scar and, indeed, do more harm than good. Further, as TB, with rare exceptions, is largely a disease of the elderly in the Western world, vaccinating children makes no sense. TB in Britain is a legacy of its empire. As long as people from third world countries come and settle here, there cannot be a let-up in its spread. People who come from high prevalence countries will continue to harbour TB germs in their bodies until they die. The World Health Organisation has set its face against vaccination and routine screening. It advocates effective disease management - early diagnosis and supervised treatment - to contain it and avoid its spread to the host community. Vaccination wastes resources, gives false hope and distracts attention from what needs to be done.
Dr Surinder Bakhshi
Consultant in Communicable Disease Control, Birmingham

From Dr. Duffy:

Here is a report with my comments in red. This should be kept alive and passed out all over the world, over and over and over until we begin to bring the medical criminals and their conspirators to justice.
Dr Daniel H Duffy Sr

Date: Fri, 4 Oct 2002 06:36:17 EDT
Subject: Dr Mannion's Internet-Article of the Week - Fighting the
System...and WINNING

ARTICLE 10/05/02:

Girl gets $4.7M for vaccine injuries
Friday, August 16, 2002
Staff Writer
a New Jersey girl whose mental development stopped at 2 months old after a routine immunization has received a $4.7 million settlement from a national trust fund. The money comes out of MY pocket, it's a tax supported fund, it is NOT paid for by the perpetrator of the crime, it is paid by the abused citizens. We can thank our legislators for that.

More than $3 million of the award will go to an annuity that will pay for the child's care as long as she lives. Its payout could exceed $61 million if she lives to 71, said Mindy Michaels Roth, the Glen Rock attorney who brought the case in the U.S. Court of Federal Claims. So my children and probably grandchildren will be paying off that bill.

The payment to the girl, now 9 years old but with the mental ability of a 2-month-old, comes from the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program (NVICP), funded by a 75-cent tax on each vaccination. Congress created the fund in 1986, at a time when a growing number of lawsuits against vaccine manufacturers was driving them out of the marketplace, and more parents were choosing not to immunize their children because they feared harmful side effects.

Why are not the perpetrators of this crime brought to justice? Would not an auto manufacturer or toy manufacturer be brought to trial for such a travesty? Why are medical doctors and vaccine manufacturers immune from the laws of this country? Are the legislators responsible? Are we sleepy people responsible? Is the consensus of medical opinion, driven by drug company profit responsible? Do we ALL share in the blame?

"It removes a tremendous weight as to how we'll care for [our daughter] financially,'' said the girl's father, who lives in Central Jersey and asked that the family not be identified. "As finite human beings, we die. Who's going to care for her? This eliminates that burden'' because her eventual care in a nursing home is provided for, he said.

You bet, it's all paid for by our hard earned tax dollars rather than by the perpetrators of this heinous crime.

Congress established the program to stabilize the supply of vaccines and free money for research on safer alternatives.

THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS A  SAFER ALTERNATIVE- THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS A  SAFE VACCINE - THAT IS A CLEVER OXYMORON. EVERY VACCINE IS LIKE PLAYING RUSSIAN ROULETTE. Congress established that program at the insistence of the vaccine makers lobbyists who were lobbying the legislators and paying them money for their campaigns to get themselves off the malpractise HIT LIST. They succeeded!! The tax payor, the poor slob that suffers from the ENFORCED, MANDATORY QUACK MEDICINE FROM THE MIDDLE AGES pays for it!!

The program also created a less expensive method to resolve claims outside the normal court system. Less expensive? I'd say that in the long run, protecting criminals from engaging in criminal activity is a LOT more expensive. And don't kid yourself with any idea about the humanitarian nature concerning the practise of medicine.

Since its inception, the fund has settled more than 5,500 claims, and awarded nearly $1.4 billion. Awards range up to $9.1 million. This year's average has been $800,000.

All paid for by the tax payors, not the criminals.

The fund provides compensation for injuries from all vaccines mandated by the federal government: diphtheria, tetanus, and pertussis (DTP); measles, mumps, and rubella (MMR); polio, hepatitis B, chickenpox, and H. influenza Type B.

This month, the pneumococcal vaccine was added to the list, and it became easier for parents whose babies suffered a bowel blockage following the rotavirus vaccine to secure compensation. Injuries from smallpox and anthrax vaccines are not covered by the fund.

Can you imagine an educated person injecting a foreign protein into an infant that would cause such a condition under the guise of protecting them from some disease that began to disappear long before the vaccines were ever used? DOES ANYONE EVER READ ANY HISTORY????

Legislation is also pending, Roth said, to consider autism as a possible vaccine-related injury. WHAT A JOKE!! If you don't understand how and why vaccines caused AUTISM, you're brain dead! 62.5 times the toxic dose of mercury in every booster the kids received!! And some people are still wondering about the cause of AUTISM??? This is the crime of the century folks and the perpetrators have yet to be brought to justice. Let's get them along with the ENRON criminals and let them all hang together!

Some people believe the rising incidence of autism is partly attributable to the growing number of vaccines administered before a child's immune system is mature. In particular, they cite the mercury used as a component in some vaccines as a possible toxin. DUHHHHHHHHH!!!!!!!!!

However, a recent Institute of Medicine report concluded there was insufficient evidence to accept or reject a link between thimerosal, a mercury component in some vaccines, and autism and other developmental and neurological disorders. Everyone who was part of that panel belongs behind bars.  Everyone on that committee should be brought to justice and tried for the crimes of conspiracy and at the very least, involuntary manslaughter.

Of the 4 million children each year who receive multiple vaccines, about 10,000 adverse reactions are reported to the federal Centers for Disease ontrol and Prevention. (But it must be noted that according to the AMA's own research only 10% of all injuries ever get reported.) Most of those reactions are minor, but about 15 percent report incidents of hospitalization, disability, life-threatening illnesses, or death. Those reports do not prove the vaccine caused the problem, however.

The Central Jersey girl, the youngest of four children, was a bright, healthy 2-month-old when she visited a pediatrician in September 1993, her mother said. While there, she was given a vaccination for diphtheria, tetanus, and pertussis (DTP). Eleven hours later, her mother noticed odd eye movements as she changed the baby's diaper. She put the baby to bed and went to sleep, she said. When she awoke the next morning, she realized her daughter hadn't cried for her 3 a.m. feeding.

She found the baby "red in the face, foamy at the mouth, and having difficulty breathing,'' the mother said. The baby didn't have a fever, however, and the pediatrician advised her to keep an eye on the situation. That pediatrician belongs in jail as does ANY pediatrician giving ANY baby ANY vaccine for ANY reason IN FACE EVIDENCE - PRESENT AND PAST.

The baby was very lethargic, her parents said. Later, as her father held her in his arms, she started to shake - the first of many seizures. As the seizures increased, she was hospitalized.

"It was very frightening,'' the girl's mother said.

At first, neither the family nor the doctors connected her problems with the vaccination. "It's a highly emotional state,'' the father said. "It takes time to wrestle with this. ... There are all sorts of different distractions.'' At first, they didn't know her condition would be permanent. Health-care professionals tried to give them hope. Only through careful questioning did the parents learn the likely long-term prognosis for their daughter. They hoped that her condition would not be permanent, but they realized they had to plan as if it were. When a pediatric neurologist told them he believed the girl's problems were linked to the vaccine, he suggested they might seek compensation from the fund. That was when they learned the urgency of filing such a claim.

The fund operates with strict time limits, and the family said it spoke publicly to help make others aware of the potential for compensation and its timetables. There is no statute of limitations on CAPITAL CRIMES - this was a capital crime committed by the pediatrician. The pediatrician and his co conspirators belong on trial for criminal negligence and for children who die, for murder or at the very least, involuntary manslaughter A child injured by a vaccine must file a claim within three years after the first symptoms appear.

The family of a child who dies must file within two years of the death. There is no statute of limitations on CAPITAL CRIMES - this was a capital crime committed by the pediatrician. The pediatrician and his coconspirators belong on trial for criminal negligence and for children who die, for murder or at the very least, involuntary manslaughter  No lawsuits concerning vaccine injuries can be filed in a civil court, the law says, until after a claim has been filed with the vaccine compensation program and the litigant has decided to reject its award. Another way the legislator protected the real criminals in this situation.

As a result, the number of lawsuits filed against vaccine manufacturers has plunged since the fund's inception: four suits against DTP makers in 1997, compared with 255 in 1985. Of course - this is what they want , no more litigation!!! And we allow that to happen - that is the REAL problem here.

In New Jersey, four attorneys are listed by the Court of Federal Claims for iling vaccine-related claims with the program. Roth and her partner, Drew ritcher of Britcher, Leone & Roth, are two of them.

"People need to know to get to the fund,'' Roth said. "They have this child. They have huge medical bills. They'll be capped-out on their insurance. There is a place to go. If you don't go there, you aren't going to go anywhere. You will be dismissed from state court, and have no recourse.'' The program, which operates with a special master, pays attorney fees regardless of whether the claim succeeds or fails. The fees are based on an hourly rate of $175, plus expenses - not a percentage of the settlement, as in malpractice cases. Awards for pain and suffering are capped at $250,000. The child is the sole beneficiary of the award, not the family. If the child dies, the annuity established as part of the award reverts to the compensation fund.

Another ripoff - who has damage claims here besides the abused child?

Nine years after the Central New Jersey girl's DTP shot, she continues to suffer seizures and to be affected by swelling in the brain. "In physical development, she's a 9-year-old girl,'' said her father, chuckling that she may turn out to be the tallest member of the family. Mentally, or cognitively, however, "her development was arrested at two months.'' She cannot control her own movements, and is blind. The family cares for her at home. Among their first purchases from the settlement is a specially equipped van, with a ramp and space for her wheelchair.

The girl weighs 47 pounds; lifting her in and out of the car has become increasingly difficult. The van hasn't arrived yet, her mother said, "but we feel better already, just having ordered it.''

So, is this a success story or not? I think the parents of this young girl would rather have a normal healthy child. They would have preferred to know the possible consequences and then be allowed to choose whether they would
take the risks.

What this story doesn't tell is the hell these parents had to go through just to get this case to court. Thanks to the NVIC and this special group of lawyers for their tenacity and courage to fight a powerful system. This article should serve as a wake up call to all of you who think it can't happen to you. As this article pointed out their are at least 10,000 reported injuries and this accounts for only 10% of all injuries ever being reported. This lack of reporting is mostly due to ignorance on our part. But hopefully with seminars and info such as this you will be able to pass on to others that these things can and do happen. Even more importantly I would rather see all of you learn ALL of the facts and then decide whether it is worth the risks of getting these shots at all. This article only discusses the short term ramifications but there are long term problems as well, which we have discussed in past articles and seminars. These problems may not show up till years later. I still have not been able to find an open date to hold this years vaccination seminar, but once I find an empty (?) time slot I'll let you know.

Thanks and please feel free to pass this article on to others who may need to know!



September 18. 2002 6:30AM
Vets focus on vaccine, cancer link in pets

Sun staff writer

Before Dr. Patti Gordon will vaccinate a pet at her All Cats HealthCare Clinic, the owner must sign a waiver acknowledging a link between cancer and certain vaccinations. And when Gordon does give the shot, it may be low on one of Tiger's legs. "I give them way far down in those legs so that if there is a sarcoma, amputation is usually more of a financially affordable alternative than radiation and chemo," Gordon said. "We are over-vaccinating, I think. There  are a ton of vaccines, but not everything is necessary."

Links between vaccinations and subsequent cancers and autoimmune diseases have changed the frequency and the methods of vaccination among many area veterinarians and Alachua County Animal Services. For instance, the vast majority of pet owners in Alachua County now get their cats and dogs a rabies vaccine that lasts three years - an option made available in the county in 2000 in part to reduce the threat of diseases, said  Dr. Randy Caligiuri, director of Alachua County Animal Services. But experts say pet owners should be more aware of the potential problems from vaccinations and discuss them with their veterinarian.

"People need to talk with their vet and consider the risk factors - including the sex of the animal, whether the cats are indoor or outdoor," said Dr. Janet Yamamoto, a University of Florida College of Veterinary Medicine professor.  "Vets need to vaccinate as needed and not over-vaccinate. Not all vaccines need to be given annually."

Cats that are strictly indoors, for instance, and have no contact with outdoor cats do not need certain vaccinations, she said. Yamamoto developed the first feline AIDS vaccine. But she said even that vaccine should not routinely be given. Instead, it should be given only to cats at greater risk of feline AIDS, such as those that go outside or males, which get in more fights.

Vaccination-related cancer is limited to cats. It is often associated with vaccines that use a killed virus rather than a modified live virus to develop immunity. Killed-virus vaccines are most commonly used for rabies and feline leukemia. The cancer culprit may be the "adjuvant" that is used in killed-virus  vaccines. The adjuvant is a material that holds the virus in the area of the shot for a few weeks so it can be time-released slowly. The adjuvant is believed to sometimes cause fibrosarcomas - deep-rooted tumors - at the spot of vaccination.

Tumor treatment
Studies vary widely on the rate of fibrosarcomas - anywhere from one-in-1,000 to 1-in-10,000 vaccines administered.

But veterinarians say the tumors are difficult to treat.

"I personally lost a cat to fibrosarcoma," Caligiuri said. "I've done my share of taking out the tumors and they always come back. Without irradiating it or pretty much killing the cat with these other treatments, they are going to come back. When you look at the general population, it is not that bad, but it is a trend that vaccinating too often with adjuvanted stuff in cats can cause cancer."

While companies that make vaccines recommend they be given yearly, veterinarians said the vaccines typically provide longer protection. Knowing that, some veterinarians will forego the manufacturing recommendation and vaccinate less frequently.

"If you have a good veterinarian, they will tell you that you don't have to do it annually, that every two to three years is sufficient," Yamamoto said. "The companies have tried to help by combining multiple vaccines into a single vaccine so therefore you get vaccinated one time. The less immunization, the less exposure to the adjuvant." Vaccine research Some companies are now marketing adjuvant-free vaccines, but veterinarians say the products haven't been out long enough to determine if they are safe. And Gordon said she has seen sarcomas from modified live-virus vaccines and steroid injections. She said research is now focusing on whether some cats have a genetic predisposition to the tumors.

Dogs, meanwhile, are believed to be subject to autoimmune diseases from vaccines. Researchers believe the vaccines may trigger the production of antibodies that attack the dog's own tissue, blood cells or other systems. Vaccines, for instance, have been linked to a type of anemia.

Cindy Swirko can be reached at 374-5024 or swirkoc@

Incao's Hepatitis B Vaccination Testimony in Ohio
Representative Dale Van Vyven Chairman, Health Committee
Ohio House of Representatives
77 South High Street Columbus,
Ohio 43266

Dear Representative Van Vyven:

I have been asked by Kristine M.  Severyn for testimony regarding hepatitis B vaccination.  Dr.  Severyn is doing excellent work on behalf of the children of Ohio and of our nation and I am honored to add my voice to hers in a plea for reason and objectivity regarding vaccination policy in the U.S.

I am a physician in private general practice, having received my M.D. degree in 1966 from Albert Einstein College of Medicine in New York City.

For 29 years I have privately and independently pursued a study of vaccinations and vaccine policy.  I have served as an expert witness in court trials concerning vaccinations and have submitted medical opinions in cases of vaccine-damaged children adjudicated under the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program.  I was an invited speaker at the First International Public Conference on Vaccinations sponsored by the National Vaccine Information Center in Alexandria, Virginia in September1997.

I am one of the two physician-signers of the cover letter to the 16-page special report "Hepatitis B Vaccine: The Untold Story" which the National Vaccine Information Center sent out recently to 55,000 U.S. pediatricians.  The report was also sent to 8,000 state and federal legislators and to 1500 media outlets in the United States.

In October 1998 I was invited to speak at a special workshop on vaccinations in Manchester, New Hampshire where a citizens’ initiative to roll back the hepatitis B vaccine mandate is under way.

As a private physician with no ties to any academic or government institution, I am free to give voice to my conscience without the usual constraints that group affiliation confers.  In what follows I am motivated simply to express the truth as I see it, by a deep concern for the long term health of our nation’s children.

The present growing distrust of vaccinations by concerned parents nationwide is a grassroots movement that will not go away because it springs from a very real source: from a frequency of acute and chronic adverse effects of vaccinations far greater than is being officially acknowledged.  This grassroots movement is only bound to increase until its concerns are acknowledged and dealt with in a scientifically objective and forthright manner.

In 1979 the Centers for Disease Control stated: "Vaccinations are recommended and administered to millions of children and other individuals each year on the presumption (emphasis mine) that the benefits far outweigh the risks.  The benefit side of the equation is straightforward: vaccinations can prevent serious disease.  The risk side is not as straightforward since it includes factors that are known and others that may exist but have not yet been discovered.  It is necessary, therefore, to maintain surveillance of potential risks of vaccination to continually reevaluate whether individual vaccinations are, on balance, good for people."

The above clear statement of purpose to monitor vaccine safety has unfortunately been totally eclipsed by our nations’ enormous intellectual, bureaucratic and economic commitment to vaccination as the method to eradicate illness.

This commitment has made it virtually impossible to achieve an open, fair and unbiased risk-benefit evaluation of any vaccination in use today.  With a conflict of interest of this magnitude, the pressures that exist to maintain the momentum of our national vaccine initiative and to avoid "alarming the public" overshadow by far those voices who might question the wisdom of such a one-sided and politicized health agenda.

In addition, severe constraints are placed on the media in the name of "responsible journalism" with the result that the American public very seldom hears both sides of the vaccination story, and comes to have an unquestioning faith in vaccinations as our greatest hope against future imagined disease plagues.  In this fear-based scenario, the questioning
voice of reason is drowned out amid the hysteria surrounding the emerging "killer infections" which are such a favorite media topic.

This propagation of fear by the media and by its sources in the public health industry has resulted in a growth of power of this industry far beyond the usual checks and balances of our democracy. One aspect of this power is the ability of many state health departments to legally mandate a new vaccination for all children completely bypassing any discussion or deliberation in that state’s legislature. In a democracy this cannot and must not be.

Practicing physicians and the general public rely on the monitoring capacity and the scientific objectivity of the C.D.C., the F.D.A.  and the health departments of our 50 states to alert us to the very real risks of vaccinations in use today, and to provide us with as accurate an assessment of that risk, both acute and chronic, as is scientifically possible.  In fact, the C.D.C.  has retreated utterly from its 1979 statement quoted above emphasizing the importance of vaccine safety monitoring. It is extremely regrettable, but no exaggeration to say that with regard to informing physicians and the public on vaccine safety, the responsible agencies have failed the American people.

In support of this assertion, I cite the following facts:

1.  In 1994 a special committee of the Institute of Medicine of the National Academy of Sciences published a comprehensive review of vaccine safety which had been commissioned by federal law.  Of five possible and plausible adverse effects of the hepatitis B vaccination which the committee investigated, they were unable to come to any conclusion for four of them because they found to their dismay that the relevant research had not been done!

Why aren’t the agencies responsible for vaccine safety commissioning such research?  For the fifth adverse effect, anaphylactic shock, the committee concluded that the evidence positively established a causal relation to the hepatitis B vaccination.

2.  In contrast to the lack of research on the adverse effects of hepatitis B vaccination found by the Institute of Medicine, the National Vaccine Information Center in its recent special report on hepatitis B vaccination sites 38 reports in the international medical literature, some dating back to 1987, that hepatitis B vaccination is causing chronic autoimmune and neurological disease in children and adults.

3.  In July 1998, 15,000 French citizens filed a class action lawsuit against the French government accusing it of understating the risks of hepatitis B vaccine and of exaggerating its benefits for the average person.  In October 1998 the French government declared a moratorium on hepatitis B vaccination in public schools while it evaluates more
carefully the true risk-benefit profile of the vaccine.

4.  Since July 1990, 17,497 cases of hospitalizations, injuries and deaths in America following hepatitis B vaccination have been reported to the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS) of the U.S. government.  This figure includes 146 deaths in individuals after receiving only hepatitis B vaccine without any other vaccines, including 73 deaths in children under 14 years old.

In 1996 alone there were 872 serious adverse events in children under 14 years old reported to VAERS. 658 of those injuries were following hepatitis B vaccination in combination with other vaccinations and 214 of these injuries were after hepatitis B vaccination alone.  In these children under 14 years old, there were 35 deaths after hepatitis B vaccination in combination and 13 deaths after hepatitis B vaccination alone, for a total of 48 deaths.  Compare these statistics with the total number of hepatitis B cases nationwide reported that same year (1996) in children under 14, just 279, and the conclusion is obvious that the risks of hepatitis B vaccination far outweigh its benefits.

In those infants who died under one month of age, most of the deaths are classified as Sudden Infant Death Syndrome (SIDS).  However, in the past this syndrome has never struck infants so young, and SIDS is officially defined as beginning only after one month of age.

With 6,000 children dying of SIDS every year, we have no idea how many of these deaths are actually caused by hepatitis B vaccination.  Though the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting system was created by federal law to permit a more accurate assessment of the risks of vaccination, and although the raw data it generates is analyzed, the individual reports of injury or death are rarely, if ever, investigated.  If one factors in that fewer than 10% of physicians report adverse reactions to vaccines because we are taught to regard them as merely "temporally related", as only a coincidence, it would be quite plausible to say that the risks of hepatitis B vaccination clearly outweigh its benefits for 99% of the children who receive it.

5.  The best way to determine the risk-benefit profile of any vaccination is well known and in theory is quite simple: Take a group of vaccinated children and compare them with a matched group of unvaccinated children.  If the groups are well-matched and large enough and the length of time the children are observed following vaccination long enough, then such a study is deemed the "gold standard" of vaccine research because its data is as accurate a reflection as medical research is capable of achieving of how vaccinations are actually affecting our nation’s children.

Incredible as it sounds, such a common-sense controlled study comparing vaccinated to unvaccinated children has never been done in America for any vaccination. This means that mass vaccination is essentially a large-scale experiment on our nation’s children.

6.  A critical point which is never mentioned by those advocating mandatory vaccination of children is that children’s health has declined significantly since 1960 when vaccines began to be widely used. According to the National Health Interview Survey conducted annually by the National Center for Health Statistics since 1957, a shocking 31% of U.S.  children today have a chronic health problem , 18% of children require special health care or related services and 6.7% of children have a significant disability due to a chronic physical or mental condition.  Respiratory allergies, asthma and learning disabilities are the most common of these. Three controlled studies comparing vaccinated to unvaccinated children in England and New Zealand have shown that the vaccinated children have significantly more asthma, ear infections, hospitalizations and inflammatory bowel disease than their unvaccinated cohorts.

Since vaccinations have a lasting effect on the immune system, and since it is known that many vaccines shift the balance of the immune system away from its acutely-reacting "Th1" side and toward its chronically-reacting "Th2" side , it is a very plausible scenario that vaccines are contributing greatly to the large-scale and unprecedented increase in chronic conditions such as allergies, asthma, diabetes and a wide range of neurological dysfunctions including learning disabilities, attention deficit disorder, seizures and autism in U.S.  children today.

The shocking facts that 31% of U.S.  children today suffer from a chronic condition and that the rate of disability from such chronic conditions in children has seen nearly a fourfold increase since 1960 ought to seriously challenge our medical research establishment. But, far from taking a proactive approach toward these disturbing facts, our medical establishment remains curiously uninterested in children’s chronic diseases and instead continues to pursue its narrow focus of using vaccines to eradicate every possible acute childhood illness, even those like hepatitis B and chicken pox which pose no threat to 99% of children.

The idea that illnesses exist in an ecological balance like everything else in nature and that eradicating acute diseases could very likely upset the balance and cause chronic disease to increase is not seriously considered or pursued in medical science today.  Whenever any evidence pointing in this direction is published, usually in the international medical literature, it is usually dismissed out of hand by American physicians or angrily repudiated with the implication that such research is "irresponsible" because it might cause the American public to lose trust in our vaccination program.

With such a total commitment of our medical community to a policy of universal vaccination, is it any wonder that new and potentially upsetting discoveries relating to the role of vaccinations in the alarming prevalence of chronic illness in our children are never seriously considered much less pursued? When the Institute of Medicine published its Federally mandated reports on vaccine safety in 1991 and 1994, their disturbing conclusion was that there is very little data on vaccine safety because the necessary research is simply not being done.

7.  Eugene Robin, M.D., Emeritus Professor of Medicine from Stanford Medical School is one of the world’s leading experts on risk/benefit analysis in medicine.  He authored the definitive book on the subject, Matters of Life and Death: Risks vs.  Benefits of Medical Care. In a statement at the First International Public Conference on Vaccination in September, 1997, Dr.  Robin said the following:

"…The scientists who develop vaccines should be given great credit and respect for their pioneering work. But it must be recognized that once a promising vaccine is available, that should be the beginning and not the end of the process.

Accurate assessment of the risk/benefit ratio of the vaccine by means of a … controlled clinical trial should be obligatory.  An educational process involving the public should be mandatory in which the risks and uncertainties are described as well as the potential benefits. So, what can we ‘teach’ the public if we ourselves, the medical scientific community, have not done the proper and required studies? A true process of informed choice would, for example, raise grave questions about the vaccination of young children for hepatitis B.

We must be honest and admit that we do not know the impact of administering multiple, different vaccines on very young children or, indeed, on anyone."

8.  My final comments are drawn from my 27 years of experience as a general practitioner of medicine. Twenty-three of those years were in a rural farming community in upstate New York where as many as 50% of my pediatric patients were unvaccinated due to their parents’ conscientious personal choice. When I started my practice I believed, as I had been taught in medical school, that the benefits of vaccinations outweighed the risks.  I also believed that the right of parental choice in vaccinations ought to be respected.

For 23 years I had the opportunity to observe my young patients grow from infancy to young adulthood and to appraise their overall health and vitality.  It was out of this experience that my present views took shape.  I observed that my unvaccinated children were healthier, hardier and more robust than their vaccinated peers.  Allergies, asthma and pallor and behavioral and attentional disturbances were clearly more common in my young patients who were vaccinated. My unvaccinated patients, on the other hand, did not suffer from infectious diseases with any greater frequency or severity than their vaccinated peers: their immune systems generally handled these challenges very well.

Conclusion Like all science, medicine has radically changed many of its views over time.  What seems wise and prudent today may be totally repudiated a decade or two later. Vaccinations are powerful medical tools which impact human immune systems to achieve the desired effect of preventing certain infectious disease manifestations.

In the early 1900’s when diphtheria and whooping cough were life-threatening, the uncritical acceptance and implementation of vaccination was understandable and perhaps unavoidable.  Today, when far more children suffer from allergies and other chronic immune system disorders than from life-threatening infectious diseases, it is neither reasonable nor prudent to persist in presuming that the benefit of any vaccination outweighs its risk.

When the medical scientific community makes a total and one-sided commitment to any public policy, no matter how noble its intentions, then vigorous debate and fact-finding tend to be neglected. The facts on hepatitis B brought out by Dr.  Severyn and by the special 16-page report of the National Vaccine Information Center deserve our very careful consideration.  They indicate that the risk of hepatitis B vaccination outweighs its benefit for the vast majority of American children today.

When these facts are ignored, and when vital medical research on the safety and adverse effects of hepatitis B vaccine is left undone, then the truth suffers, our children suffer and we all suffer.

Yours, Philip Incao, M.D.

Vaccines expert warns studies are useless
By Lorraine Fraser, Medical Correspondent
(Filed: 27/10/2002)

Most safety studies on childhood vaccines have not been conducted thoroughly enough to tell whether the jabs cause side effects, a leading authority on vaccine research has warned. Dr Thomas Jefferson, who has been funded to investigate vaccine safety by the European Commission, said that the issue was the "Cinderella" of public health research and that Government officials had failed to make it a high priority. Dr Jefferson is the head of the vaccine division of the Cochrane Collaboration, an organisation of scientists that aims to make accurate information about the effects of treatments available worldwide and promotes high standards in research.

He is also a board member of the European Programme for Improved Vaccine Safety Surveillance, set up by the commission. He said: "There is some good research, but it is overwhelmed by the bad. The public has been let down because the proper studies have not been done." His outspoken and unprecedented comments will anger public health officials in Britain and elsewhere, who fear that any discussion will undermine parents' confidence in national vaccination programmes.

Officials at the Department of Health are already alarmed by the number of parents shunning the triple measles, mumps and rubella jab (MMR) after claims that it is linked with autism and bowel disease. Although Dr Jefferson emphasised that there was no evidence to suggest that any vaccine now in use was dangerous, he said that there was a "dearth" of sound studies on the risks and benefits.

As a result, the information available on the safety of vaccines that are routinely given to babies and toddlers was "simply inadequate". Dr Jefferson also disclosed plans for a Europe-wide electronic register of children's vaccine exposure that would allow scientists to investigate the risks and benefits of inoculations using data on thousands of participants. Pilot schemes will start soon in Sweden and Finland.

"We need such a system urgently," he said. "Governments are reluctant to accept this but in my view they owe it to future generations to back this idea." He was especially concerned, he said, because future vaccination programmes were likely to involve giving children "five, six, even seven vaccines all at once". A vaccine designed to protect children against measles, mumps, rubella and chickenpox in one shot is already under development. "For people like me, it is becoming more and more difficult to tease out what problems may be due to an individual vaccine," said Dr Jefferson. "It is almost becoming impossible to do this. We have to think very carefully about how we will monitor these vaccines.

"We have a responsibility to these children - they are our future. It is no use having a situation where someone suggests a possible harm and everyone runs around frantically trying to find bits of evidence. What is required is good-quality information that has been systematically collated and assessed."


Vaccination *Info Seminar*
Tuesday - Nov. 26th
The Politics of Vaccination:Walking the Wire to Freedom

Before you have your child or yourself injected with vaccines shouldn't you know the truth about them?

Did you know.?

- That, as of 2001, your child has had 26 vaccines injected into their blood stream by 18 months of age? - That by 16 years of age they have had a total of 40? - That at least 10,000 American babies mysteriously die each year for "unknown reasons" and are classified as Sudden Infant Death syndrome (SIDS)? - That before mass vaccinations, the term SIDS didn't exist? - That the rate of Autism grew with the initiation of mandatory MMR and DPT shots? - That besides Autism and SIDS other neurological disorders skyrocketed with the increase in mass, mandatory vaccinations, such as hyperactivity and learning disabilities (ADD/ADHD), mental retardation, encephalitis, Guillian Barre' syndrome (as per Dr Harris Coulter)? - That the only cases of polio in this country over the past 3 decades has been due to the polio vaccine? - That the drug companies are 'immune' from prosecution, by federal law? - That even though a reporting system is in place, less than 10% of actual ill effects are reported? - That any compensation for adverse reactions to vaccines are borne by the taxpayers? - That for most children the risk of a serious vaccine reaction to the Hepatitis B vaccine may be 100 times greater than the risk of the disease (Jane Orient, MD)? - That one shot of the Hepatitis B vaccine has 30 times the amount of mercury as is considered safe by the EPA? - That Hepatitis B is a disease of drug addicts and those who engage in promiscuous sex, and yet they inject it in newborns at birth?- That you can HAVE a choice to refuse mandatory vaccines?
- That they are currently trying to take away your rights to refuse?

If any of the above is unknown to you I urge you to attend this years vaccination seminar. This is a video presentation by Barbara Loe Fisher, one of the founders of NVIC (National Vaccine Information Center) and a mother of a vaccine damaged child.

If you don't know all of the facts you can't make an informed consent. It's time to learn and it's time to protect our Freedom of Choice.

Time may be running out.

If you wish to attend you must pre-register due to limited seating.(on a first come basis)

Place: The office of Dr John Mannion
Date/Time: Tuesday - Nov. 26th @ 6:00 PM SHARP
Fee: ONE new toy, which will be donated to the Needy Children Information will be handed out to those who pre-register at least one week before the seminar including info on how you can become a member of the NVIC.

If you wish more information or if you wish to register please E mail me or call the office.

(If you wish packets of information concerning vaccinations that have been compiled over the last 3 years (or so) you can pick them up in the office waiting room. Hopefully this year's packet will be ready for you by this seminar. If not all those who attend will have one mailed out to them once they are completed.)


"My own personal view is that vaccines are unsafe and worthless. I will not allow myself to be vaccinated again. .....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."-

--Dr Vernon Coleman

Her testimony before house of reps....
April 6, 2000

Mr. Chairman, Honorable Dan Burton and members of the committee;

My name is Mary Norfleet Megson. I am a board-certified pediatrician, Fellowship trained in Child Development, a member of the American Academy of Pediatrics and Assistant Professor of Pediatrics at Medical College of Virginia. I have practiced pediatrics for twenty-two years, the last fifteen years seeing only children with Developmental Disabilities, which include learning disabilities, attention deficit hyperactivity disorder, cerebral palsy, mental retardation and autism.

In 1978, I learned as a resident at Boston Floating Hospital that the incidence of autism was one in 10,000 children. Over the last ten years I have watched the incidence of autism skyrocket to 1/300-1/600 children.1 Over the last nine months, I have treated over 1,200 children in my office. Ninety percent of these children are autistic and from the Richmond area alone. The State Department of Education reports that there are only 1522 autistic students in the state of Virginia.

MHMR agencies have created local infant intervention programs, and have had a hard time keeping up with the numbers of delayed infants and toddlers. I have served as advisor to the City of Richmond and the surrounding counties as they have established entire programs for autistic children that fill multiple classes in several schools in each district. The segment of children with "regressive autism," the form where children develop normally for a period of time then lose skills and sink into autism most commonly at 18-24 months of age, is increasing at a phenomenal rate. I am seeing multiple children in the same family affected, including in the last week four cases of "autistic regression" developing in four-year-old children after their MMR and DPT vaccination. In the past, this was unheard of.

In the vast majority of these cases, one parent reports night blindness2 or other rarer disorders which are caused by a genetic defect in a G protein,3 where they join cell membrane receptors, which are activated by retinoids, neurotransmitters, hormones, secretin and other protein messengers. G proteins are cellular proteins that upgrade or downgrade signals in sensory organs that regulate touch, taste, smell, hearing and vision. They are found all over the body, in high concentration in the gut and the brain:4 and turn on or off multiple metabolic pathways including those for glucose, lipid, protein metabolism5 and cell growth and survival.6 Close to the age of "autistic regression," we add pertussis toxin, which completely disrupts G Alpha signals.7 The opposite G proteins are on without inhibition leading to:8

1. Glycogen breakdown or gluconeogenesis. Many of these children have elevated blood sugars. There is sixty-eight percent incidence of diabetes in parents and grandparents of these children.
2. Lipid breakdown which increases blood fats that lead to hyperlipidemia. One-third of families has either a parent or grandparent who died from myocardial infarction at less than 55 years of age and was diagnosed with hyperlipidemia.
3. Cell growth differentiation and survival which leads to uncontrolled cell growth. There are 62 cases of malignancies associated with ras-oncogene in 60 families of these autistic children.9 The measles antibody cross reacts with intermediate filaments which are the glue that hold cells together in the gut wall.10 The loss of cell to cell connection interrupts aproptosis or the ability of neighboring cells to kill off abnormal cells. The MMR vaccine at 15 months precedes the DPT at 18 months, which turns on uncontrolled cell growth differentiation and survival.

Most families report cancer in the parents or grandparents, the most common being colon cancer.10The genetic defect, found in 30-50% of adult cancers, is a cancer gene (ras-oncogene). It is the same defect as that for congenital stationary night blindness.11

G protein defects cause severe loss of rod function in most autistic children.12 They lose night vision, and light to dark shading on objects in the daylight. They sink into a "magic eye puzzle," seeing only color and shape in all of their visual field, except for a "box" in the middle, the only place they get the impression of the three dimensional nature of objects. Only when they look at television or a computer do they predictably hear the right language for what they see. They try to make sense of the world around them by lining up toys, sorting by color. They have to "see" objects by adding boxes together, thus "thinking in pictures." Their avoidance of eye contact is an attempt to get light to land off center in the retina where they have some rod function. Suddenly mothers touch feels like sandpaper on their skin. Common sounds become like nails scraped on a blackboard. We think they cannot abstract, but we are sinking these children into an abstract painting at 18 months of age and they are left trying to figure out if the language they are hearing is connected to what they are looking at, at the same time.

The defect for congenital stationary night blindness on the short arm of the X chromosome affects cell membrane calcium channels13 which, if not functioning, block NMDA/glutamate receptors in the hippocampus,14 where pathways connect the left and right brain with the frontal lobe. Margaret Bauman has described a lack of cell growth and differentiation in the hippocampus seen on autopsy in autistic children.15 The frontal lobe is the seat of attention, inhibition of impulse, social judgment and all executive function.

When stimulated, these NMDA receptors, through G proteins stimulate nuclear Vitamin A receptors discovered by Ron Evans, et al Dec 1998.16 When blocked, in the animal model, mice are unable to learn and remember changes in their environment. They act as if they have significant visual perceptual problems and have spatial learning deficits.17

Of concern the Hepatitis B virus protein sequence was originally isolated in the gene for a similar retinoid receptor (RAR beta),18 which is the critical receptor important for brain plasticity and retinoid signaling in the hippocampus.19 After the mercury is removed, I understand we will restart Hepatitis B vaccine at day one of life. Studies need to be done to determine if this plays an additive roll in the marked increase in autism.

I am using natural lipid soluble concentrated cis form of Vitamin A in cod liver oil to bypass blocked G protein pathways and turn on these central retinoid receptors. In a few days, most of these children regain eye contact and some say their "box" of clear vision grows. After two months on Vitamin A treatment some of these children, when given a single dose of bethanechol to stimulate pathways in the parasympathetic system in the gut, focus, laugh, concentrate, show a sense of humor, and talk after 30 minutes as if reconnected.20

This improves cognition, but they are still physically ill. When these children get the MMR vaccine, their Vitamin A stores are depleted; they can not compensate for blocked pathways. Lack of Vitamin A which has been called "the anti-infective agent," leaves them immuno-suppressed. They lack cell-mediated immunity. T cell activation, important for long term immune memory, requires 14-hydroxy retro-retinol. On cod liver oil, the only natural source of this natural substance, the children get well. The parasympathetic nervous system is blocked by the second G protein defect. These children are unable to relax, focus and digest their food. Instead, they are in sympathetic overdrive with a constant outpouring of adrenaline and stress hormones. They are anxious, pace, have dilated pupils, high blood pressure and heart rate. These and other symptoms of attention deficit hyperactivity disorder are part of this constant "fright or flight" response. These symptoms improve on bethanechol.

I live in a small middle class neighborhood with twenty-three houses. I recently counted thirty children who live in this community who are on medication for ADHD. One week ago, my oldest son who is gifted but dyslexic had twelve neighborhood friends over for dinner. As I looked around the table, all of these children, but one had dilated pupils. After two and one half months of taking vitamin A and D in cod liver oil, my son announced, "I can read now. The letters don’t jump around on the page anymore." He is able to focus and his handwriting has improved dramatically. In his high school for college bound dyslexic students, 68 of 70 teenagers report seeing headlights with starbursts, a symptom of congenital stationary night blindness.

I think we are staring a disaster in the face that has affected thousands of Americans. The children with autism or dyslexia/ADHD are lucky. There are many other children not identified, just disconnected. We must direct all of our resources and efforts to establish multidisciplinary centers to treat these children. Insurance companies should pay for evaluations, both medical and psychiatric, and treatment. These children are physically ill, immuno-suppressed with a chronic autoimmune disorder affecting multiple organ systems. Funding to look at etiology of autism, to identify children at risk prior to "autistic regression," and to prevent this disorder is imperative. Implementing vaccine policies that are safe for all children should become our first priority.

Mothers from all over the country have brought pictures of their autistic children to Washington this weekend. Most of these children were born normal and lost to "autistic regression." Look into their eyes and you will hear their silence.

Thank you

Mary N. Megson, MD


To Pampers:  In reference to your article "More Good News About Vaccines" in your last E-Newsletter: Loraine Stern, M.D. does not know her facts.  Thimerosal was not finally removed from newborn Hep B vaccines until the end of 200l, and is still in many of the boosters and other childhood vaccines.  Parents report that some pediatricians are even still using up their supplies of thimerosal-laden vaccines. Many of the children that may have been poisoned by thimerosal in their newborn vaccines will not even be diagnosed for a year or more, as mercury is a slow neurotoxin and the effects do not show up for a long time.  This, of course, is why there has not yet been a decline in the number of diagnoses of autistic disorders, nor is this decline likely to be apparent for a few more years, as many children do not actually get diagnosed until they are in school.  The thimerosal study that revealed no  "connection between vaccines and autism" was flawed and has been shown to be so by respected  research analysts. This study was done by researchers paid by companies that make vaccines.  Vaccine reform will not take place until ignorant physicians like Dr. Stern take the trouble to read the studies and understand the dynamics of mercury, an extremely insidious neurotoxin that damages the brain and gut and immune system to the point that when a triple live vaccine like measles is administered, the susceptible child's immune system is unable to cope and the child develops a full blown autoimmune disease called autism spectrum disorder.  Mercury is toxic to neurons, and as it is excreted through the stool damages the gut, which makes up 70% of the immune system; susceptible children can start getting 4-15 or more ear and other infections in their first year of life and then given multiple gut and immune system-damaging antibiotics.  It took a lot of us a long time to realize that these children had been injured at birth for lifetime disability with a vaccine that extremely few newborns need (only those with mothers with AIDS or hepatitis).

 I treat autism spectrum disorder children, many of whom are still in diapers, and am the author of "Children with Starving Brains", a medical treatment guide for autistic chidren.  I am on e-list boards with thousands of parents of these vaccine-damaged children; many parents are enraged at Proctor and Gamble and have already said they will never buy your products again.  I will be endorsing their boycott of Pampers to all my listmembers until you inform yourselves of what is really going on with the current epidemic of autism.  Jaquelyn McCandless, M.D.


From Arnold Gore:

Hi Activists & Consumers,
I recently received the message below from Dr.Jennifer Daniels,MD. Dr.Daniels was the Green party candidate for liutenant governor in New York State in 2002.She is one of the alternative medical doctors who has had her license suspended and is searching for an employnent opportunity using her excellent, medical. business and political training and experience.

In her letter Dr.Daniels does not specifically mention that the case leading to the investigation was the SUCCESSFUL treatment of a patient with diabetes using only diet and exercise. In August of 2001, Health & Human Services Secretary Thompson held a major press conference to announce the results of a very large study demonstrating that DIET & EXERCISE was MORE effective than drug therapy and he wanted to get this information out to ALL those practicing doctors.  

If you know of an employment opportunity for this versatile hard working doctor please contact me or her at

3100 S. Salina St.

Syracuse, NY 13205


To whom it may concern:

I am an African American graduate of Harvard University (Cum Laude), University of Pennsylvania School of Medicine and Wharton Business School. I was Board Certified in Family Practice, a member in good standing of the American Medical Association, American Academy of Family Practice and The American Medical Women's Association. I returned to my hometown of Syracuse with this fine education and was unable to find employment. I purchased a city block and built a medical office. Soon after I opened my medical office, I realized that the insurance companies would not pay me. I then asked the patients to pay me, and they did. In exchange, I saw them on time, researched their problems, informed them of options, and gave a $1,000 annual scholarship to assist kids in the neighborhood with college expenses. In 10 years of medical practice, I received numerous commendations; even one from Governor Pataki himself. There were no malpractice cases or complaints in those 10 years.

In 1999, the Health Department began an investigation and requested a patient's records. I gave them the records. They then said that they wanted to see the records of the 4,000 patients who had seen me over the prior 10 years because this case represented a pattern of inappropriate practice. I refused the search because it was not a pattern, only 1 case. The Health Department then changed the reason to one case of negligence or incompetence. I refused because the therapy was effective, therefore this case could not be a case of negligence or incompetence. The Health Department then changed the charges to NON-cooperation because I refused to allow them to see the charts of 4,000 patients unrelated to the initial case. I have retained numerous attorneys. The State threatened one of my attorneys and told her that they would investigate her and fine her or remove her license if she filed any legal action on my behalf. She resigned. Photographs and an eyewitness affidavit then became available indicating that the complaint was false. I was subjected to a one-day hearing and allowed no witnesses. A copy of the patient chart as well as the evidence that the complaint was false was excluded from the hearing. I was convicted of non-cooperation. The penalty by law is a letter of warning. I received a license suspension. A suspension by law should be finite. Mine is forever. The law states that the Health Department has no jurisdiction to investigate therapy that is effective; I was investigated anyway. Case law says the State may not use a false complaint as a basis for an investigation. The complaint is false, yet I was investigated. The prosecutor in my case, with the cooperation of the judge, suppressed exculpatory evidence. This is prosecutorial misconduct.

Here I am, a 45-year-old single, unemployed mother of three children aged 9,12,and 15. If I had been a teenage mother, the children would be grown by now and I would be better off. Instead, I borrowed money and spent 14 years of my youth getting an education only to practice medicine for 10 years and have my license suspended without cause.  My license was suspended 18 months ago and I was the last African American Solo Family Practice Physician in Onondaga County. My medical practice was located in a medically underserved ghetto. The medical practice received no government grants, no Medicaid and no Medicare. I paid real estate taxes of $10,000 a year, state taxes of $17,000 and federal taxes of $57,000. Now I pay no taxes and tax dollars are being spent to keep it that way.

If this situation cannot be resolved promptly, there is an obligation to inform our youth that borrowing for an education is the path to a lifetime of indentured servitude with no economic means to repay the debt.  I know you cannot solve the problems of the world. Just start by restoring my license and letting my kids eat. If you cannot restore my license, help me find a job. This matter is urgent.

I can be reached at the address above.

Rev. Dr. Jennifer Daniels, MD/MBA

As a retired physician, I can honestly say that unless you are in a serious accident, your best chance of living to a ripe old age is to avoid doctors and hospitals and learn nutrition, herbal medicine and other forms of natural medicine unless you are fortunate enough to have a naturopathic physician available. Almost all drugs are toxic and are designed only to treat symptoms and not to cure anyone. Vaccines are highly dangerous, have never been adequately studied or proven to be effective, and have a poor risk/reward ratio. Most surgery is unnecessary and most textbooks of medicine are inaccurate and deceptive. Almost every disease is said to be idiopathic (without known cause) or genetic - although this is untrue. In short, our main stream medical system is hopelessly inept and/or corrupt. The treatment of cancer and degenerative diseases is a national scandal. The sooner you learn this, the better off you will be. A.Greenberg, M.D.

Vexing Over Vaccines

Are Vaccines Causing More Disease Than They Are Curing? Copyright 1999 by Alan
Cantwell, Jr., M.D.

Vaccines help keep us safe from infectious diseases. Smallpox and polio epidemics have been wiped out by mass vaccine programs. People rush to get flu shots  every fall,   and kids are bombarded with a barrage of 22 required vaccinations before the age of six. Even pets need their shots. The manufacture of vaccines  is a giant industry and what you pay for inoculations and  doctor visits is big business for pediatricians, family practitioners  and veterinarians. So why are  more and more people worried about vaccines, especially the ones for kids?

Vaccine-induced Illness

    Barbara Loe Fisher, president  of the National Vaccine Information Center, a consumer's group based in Vienna, Virginia, claims vaccines are responsible for   the increasing numbers of children and adults who suffer  from immune system and neurologic disorders, hyperactivity, learning disabilities, asthma, chronic fatigue syndrome, lupus, rheumatoid arthritis, multiple sclerosis, and seizure disorders. She calls for studies to monitor the long-term effects of mass vaccination  and Fisher wants physicians to be absolutely sure these vaccines are safe and not harming people.    No one can deny the  dangers of vaccines. The measles, mumps, rubella (German measles)  and polio vaccines, all contain live but weakened viruses. Although  health officials tell you that polio has been wiped out in the U.S. since 1979, they often fail to mention  that all  recorded cases of polio since that time are actually caused by the polio vaccine.     Vaccine investigator Neil Z. Miller questions whether we still need need the polio vaccine when it causes every new case of polio in this country. Before mass vaccinations programs began fifty years ago,  Miller insists we didn't have cancer in epidemic numbers, that autoimmune ailments were barely known, and childhood autism did  not exist.

Vaccine Contamination

    There is also the problem of contamination that has always plagued vaccine makers. During World War II  a yellow fever vaccine manufactured with human blood serum was unknowingly contaminated with hepatitis virus and given to the military. As a result, more than 50,000 cases of serum hepatitis broke out among American troops injected with the vaccine.  In the 1960s it was discovered that polio vaccines manufactured in monkey kidney tissue between 1955 and 1963 were contaminated with a monkey virus (Simian Virus, number 40). Although this virus causes cancer in experimental animals,  health authorities insist it does not cause problems in humans. But evidence of SV40 genetic  material has been popping up  in human cancers and  normal tissue. Researchers are now connecting SV40-contaminated  polio vaccines  to an increasing number of rare cancers of the lung (mesothelioma)  and bone marrow (multiple myeloma). In a  1999 report,  SV40 DNA was detected in tissue samples from  four children born after 1982. Three were kidney transplant patients, and a fourth had a kidney tumor. Could SV40 be passed on from parents to their children? No one knows for sure.

Covert Vaccine Experiments

    Using kids as guinea pigs in potentially harmful vaccine experiments is every parents' worst nightmare. This actually happened in 1989-1991 when Kaiser Permanente of Southern California and the Centers for Disease Control (CDC) jointly conducted a measles vaccine experiment. Without proper parental disclosure,  the Yugoslavian-made "high titre" Edmonston-Zagreb measles vaccine was tested on 1,500 poor, primarily black and Latino,  inner city  children in Los Angeles. Highly recommended by the World Health Organization (WHO),  the high-potency experimental vaccine was previously injected into infants in Mexico, Haiti, and Africa. It was discontinued in these countries when it was discovered that the children were dying in large numbers.

    Unbelievably, the measles vaccine caused long-term suppression of the children's immune system for six months up to three years. As a result, the immunodepressed children died from other diseases in greater numbers than children who had never received the vaccine. Tragically, African girl babies in the experiment were given twice the dose of boys, and therefore suffered a higher death rate. The WHO  pulled the vaccine off the market  in 1992. Ironically, the E-Z measles  vaccine tested by Kaiser on minority babies was supposed to increase immunity in younger infants. Instead, the vaccine produced the opposite effect. A Los Angeles Times  editorial (June 20, 1996) assured readers   that "none of the 1,500 was injured by the unlicensed vaccine" and called upon the CDC to ensure that experiments like the E-Z  measles vaccine could  never occur again.   One wonders how many secret vaccine experiments are conducted by health authorities that never come to the attention of the public.  During the two-year measles  experiment I was employed by Kaiser and I never knew anything about it until I read  the report in The Times  five years later, in 1996.

 In the poor  inner cities across the country  the number of asthma cases is exploding and health officials don't know why. According to the CDC, 5000 asthma deaths occur annually;  and it is estimated that 17.3 million people (4.8 are children) suffer from the disease, up from 6.7 million in 1980. Asthma usually begins before age 6, and blacks are two to three times more likely to die from asthma than whites. In the Bronx and Harlem sections of New York City, the hospitalization rate for asthma is 21 times higher than in the more affluent areas of the city.

 Could the sharp rise in asthma in poor children  be connected with immunosuppression caused by by a barrage of vaccines, as well as a lack of quality medical care and insurance, poor diet,  and environmental factors?  The possible connection of immunosuppressive vaccines to diseases like asthma has never been raised by health officials .

 With vaccine experiments frequently performed in Africa and now on black Americans,  no wonder  one out  of every four African-Americans believes AIDS was developed as a genocide program by the U.S. government to exterminate the black population. But vaccine experiments in the 1990s have not been  limited to blacks. Millions of female Mexicans, Nicaraguans and Filipinos have been duped into taking tetanus vaccines, some of which contained a female hormone  that could cause miscarriage and sterilization.  In 1995, a Catholic human rights organization called Human Life International accused the WHO of promoting a Canadian-made  tetanus vaccine laced with a pregnancy hormone called human choriogonadotropic hormone (HCG). Suspicions were aroused when the tetanus vaccine was prescribed in the unusual dose of five multiple  injections over a three month period, and recommended only to women of reproductive age. When an unusual number of  women experienced vaginal bleeding and miscarriages after the shots, a  hormone additive was uncovered as the cause.

     Apparently the WHO has been developing and testing anti-fertility vaccines  for over two decades. Women receiving the laced tetanus shot not only developed antibodies to tetanus, but they also developed dangerous antibodies to the pregnancy hormone as well. Without this HCG hormone the growth of the fetus is impaired. Consequently, the laced vaccine served as a covert contraceptive device. Commissioned to analyze the vaccine, the Philippines Medical Association  found that  20 percent of the WHO  tetanus vaccines were contaminated with the hormone. Not surprisingly, the WHO has denied all accusations as "completely false and without basis," and the major media have never reported on  the controversy. For further details on this issue, consult the Human Life International website


Newly approved vaccines may also pose serious risks. In October 1999 a vaccine against "rotavirus" infection (which causes most cases of childhood diarrhea) was pulled off the market. One year after the RotaShield vaccine was inoculated into over a million infants, it was found to increase the risk of bowel obstruction. Almost 100 cases of bowel obstruction were  reported to the government, and twenty infants developed bowel obstructions within one or two weeks after receiving the vaccine.

Vaccine Manufacture and Associated Dangers

Although the public has heard about side effects of vaccines, most people are clueless about the manufacture of vaccines. Few people know that viruses used in vaccine production need to be grown on animal parts like monkey kidneys, or in chicken embryos, or in human and fetal "cell lines." Harvesting viruses in human cell-lines can be perilous because some human cell lines are derived from cancer cells.

 In AIDS & The Doctors of Death I wrote about the development of the first human "HeLa" cell line - an "immortal" cell line used extensively in cancer and vaccine research for decades. Henrietta Lacks was a young black woman from Baltimore who died from a highly malignant cervical cancer in 1951. Small pieces of her tumor were donated to a laboratory specializing in tissue cell culture. In those days most attempts to grow human cells outside the body failed. But for some unknown reason Henrietta's cancer cells grew vigorously and became known as the first successful human tissue cell line in history - the now famous HeLa cell line commemorating the legendary HEnrietta LAcks.

Henrietta's cells were kept alive by feeding them a witches' brew of beef embryo extract (the ground-up remains of a three-week-old, unborn cattle embryo); fresh chicken plasma obtained from the blood of a live chicken heart; and blood from human placentas (the placenta is the sac that nurtures the developing fetus and contains powerful hormones). It is now suspected that a sexually-transmitted papilloma virus is the cause of cervical cancer. And it is anybody's guess how many other chicken, cattle, and human viruses are incorporated into the HeLa cell line, but none of this possible viral contamination seems to bother scientists who have extensively used the cells in cancer research. What laboratory scientists did eventually discover was that HeLa cells proved so hardy that they frequently contaminated other tissue cell lines used in cancer and cancer virus research.

In the late 1960s when widespread HeLa cell contamination problems were uncovered, scientists were shocked and embarrassed to learn that millions of dollars worth of published cancer experiments were ruined. "Liver cells" and "monkey cells" that were used in cancer experiments turned out to be Henrietta's cancer cells in disguise. Benign cells which supposedly "spontaneously transformed" into malignant cells were found to be cells contaminated with cancerous HeLa cells.

The serious problem of HeLa cell contamination in cancer and vaccine research is revealed in Michael Gold's A Conspiracy of Cells: One Woman's Immortal Legacy and the Medical Scandal It Caused. Even Jonas Salk, who developed the legendary Salk polio vaccine, was fooled when HeLa cells contaminated his animal cell lines. He admitted this years later in 1978 before a stunned audience of cell biologists and vaccine makers. In experiments performed in the late 1950s on dying cancer patients, Salk tried injecting them with a cell line of monkey heart tissue - the same cell line he used to harvest polio virus for his famous vaccine. He hoped the monkey cell injections would stimulate the immune system to fight cancer. However, when abscesses developed at the site of injections Salk began to suspect that he might be injecting HeLa cells rather than monkey cells, and he stopped the experiment.

Mark Nelson-Rees, a HeLa cell expert and one of the 1978 conference attendees, offered to test Salk's line if it was still available. Salk graciously agreed and the monkey cells indeed proved to be HeLa cells which had invaded and taken over the monkey cell line. According to author Gold, Salk thought there were adequate ways to separate viruses from the tissue cell lines they were harvested in, so that it really didn't matter what kind of cells were used. Even if vaccines weren't filtered, and even if whole cancer cells were injected directly into a human, Salk believed they would be rejected by the body and cause no harm. In those days doctors didn't much believe in cancer-causing viruses. Nowadays, no researcher would dare try injecting cancer cells into a human being. But in the 1950s Salk had done it accidentally. He had injected HeLa cells into a few dozen patients and it hadn't bothered him a bit.

Is There a Vaccine Contamination Connection to AIDS?

Most people assume vaccines are "sterile" and germ free. But sterilizing a vaccine can destroy the necessary immunizing protein that makes it work. Thus, contaminating viruses or viral "particles" can sometime survive the vaccine process. Animal viruses are also contained in fetal calf serum, a blood product commonly used as a laboratory nutrient to feed various tissue cell cultures. Vaccine contamination by fetal calf serum and its possible relationship to HIV was the subject of a letter by J. Grote, published in the Journal of the Royal (London) Society of Medicine in October 1988. Bovine visna virus (which looks similar to HIV) is a known contaminant of fetal calf serum used in vaccine production and virus-like particles have been detected in vaccines certified for clinical use. Grote warns that "It seems absolutely vital that all vaccines are screened for HIV prior to use, and that bovine visna virus is further investigated as to its relationship to HIV and its possible role in progression towards AIDS ."

Could virus-contaminated vaccines lie at the root of AIDS? A few researchers, including myself, who believe HIV was "introduced" into gays during the experimental hepatitis B vaccine trails when thousands of homosexuals were injected in Los Angeles, San Francisco, and New York, during the years 1978-1981. The AIDS epidemic first erupted in gays living in those cities in 1981. In 1980, one year before, already 20% of the gays inoculated in Manhattan with the experimental vaccine were already HIV-positive. This was several years before definite AIDS cases were diagnosed in Africa. In the early 1970s the hepatitis B vaccine was developed in chimpanzees, now wildly accepted as the animal from which HIV supposedly evolved. Hepatitis B vaccine was developed to protect people from the sexual spread of the hepatitis B virus. Now the government recommends that all newborn babies be given the vaccine. Such recommendations do not make sense to many parents. And people are still fearful of the hepatitis B vaccine because of its original connection to gay men and AIDS. The original experimental vaccine was made from the pooled blood serum of hepatitis-infected homosexuals and, as mentioned, serum-based vaccines cannot be sterilized.

Another theory of AIDS is that HIV originated from polio vaccines contaminated with chimp and monkey viruses, and administered to Africans in the late 1950s. In The River: A Journey to the Source of HIV and AIDS , published in 1999, Edward Hooper details how polio vaccine was made using monkey (and possibly chimp) kidneys and how the ancestor virus of HIV  could have jumped species (via the vaccine) to produce the outbreak of AIDS in Africa. Hooper's well-researched book greatly expands the polio vaccine theory of AIDS first reportedly Tom Curtis in Rolling Stone magazine in 1992, and The River is a must-read for anyone interested in the possibleman-made origin of AIDS.

Other researchers think it more likely that the various WHO-sponsored vaccine programs (particularly the smallpox program) in Africa in the 1970s are responsible for unleashing AIDS in Africa in the 1980s. Hooper, who has worked as a United Nations official, has discounted the research pointing to AIDS as a man-made disease, as proposed by Dr. Leonard Horowitz in Emerging Viruses, and in my two books AIDS & The Doctors of Death: An Inquiry into the Origin of the AIDS Epidemic: and Queer Blood: The Secret AIDS Genocide Plot. Horowitz and I both suspect contaminated smallpox vaccines as the source  of HIV In Africa. Certainly the smallpox (vaccinia-cowpox) virus is an excellent virus to use for the genetic engineering of new, multipurpose vaccines. By splicing into the DNA genes of the vaccinia virus, scientists can add on parts of disease-producing viruses like influenza, hepatitis, and other viruses. The safety of this technique has not been fully evaluated, prompting one vaccine maker at a Vaccinia Virus Workshop in 1984 to ask if this could lead to another form of AIDS.

The Vaccine Connection to Gulf War Illness and Huntsville Mystery Illness

The cause of Gulf War Illness (GWI) is unknown. For years this debilitating illness (which now affects one-half of the Gulf War vets) has been ignored by Pentagon officials who claim the disease does not exist and that vets are simply reacting to stress. GWI is also thought to be contagious. Vets insist their disease has been passed on to spouses, other family members, and even pets.

Some people suspect multiple vaccines, particularly the experimental anthrax vaccine, are implicated in the disease. Currently, soldiers who refuse to take the mandatory anthrax vaccine are being court-martialed and dismissed from the service.

Researchers Dr. Garth Nicolson and his wife Nancy have found a tiny bacterial microbe (a "mycoplasma") in the blood of nearly half the ill vets with GWI. Amazingly, this infectious agent has a piece of HIV (the AIDS virus) attached to it. This microbe could never have occurred naturally. On the contrary, the composition of the microbe suggests a man-made and genetically-engineered biological warfare agent. Garth Nicolson's scientific credentials are impeccable. For 16 years he was a professor of medicine at the University of Texas M.D. Anderson Cancer Center in Houston, as well as professor of pathology and laboratory medicine at the University of Texas Medical School, also in Houston. Nancy Nicolson, a molecular biophysicist, was on the faculty at Baylor College of Medicine. Six months after returning home from the Gulf war, the Nicolson's daughter contracted GWI. Her mother Nancy had contracted a similar illness in 1987 when she was working with Mycoplasma incognitus in infectious disease research.  Finally suspecting that this research had biowarfare implications, Nancy Nicolson became a whistle-blower and angered officials. As a result, she believes she was deliberately infected with the mycoplasma. After partial paralysis and a long illness, she finally regained her health with the antibiotic Doxycycline.

The Nicolson's discovery of a similar mycoplasma (but without the attachment of HIV) in a mysterious illness that erupted in the Huntsville, Texas area among prison guards and their families has all the drama of a The Movie of the Week. Although the Huntsville disease broke out in the late 1980s (shortly before the Gulf War), it has many of the same signs and symptoms of GWI. Many locals are convinced the sometimes deadly disease originally spread from prisoners incarcerated in several large prisons around Huntsville.

In experiments conducted during the 1970s and 80s, the prisoners were inoculated with flu vaccines containing genetically engineered viruses and mycoplasma . It is suspected that vaccines were being covertly developed and deployed as biological warfare weapons. Nobel prize winner James Watson, world famous for his discovery of the molecular structure of DNA and a leading researcher of the still ongoing Human Genome Project, was involved in these prison experiments. The guards are convinced the Huntsville mystery illness is intimately connected to these experiments, jointly conducted by the Medical School and the military. Like GWI, health officials deny the disease exists.

The Nicolsons continue to developed antibiotic treatments, which have helped some vets. But they have paid a heavy price for their controversial research and unprecedented discoveries. Garth Nicolson was forced to resign from M.D. Anderson in 1996. His career and reputation destroyed, the Nicolsons have since moved to California and head The Institute for Molecular Medicine in Huntington Beach.

Dangerous Animal and Human Cell Lines in Vaccine Manufacture

In an effort to quell concerns about the safety of vaccines, scientists are finally taking another look at the "non-infectious" particles of bird-cancer viruses (avian leukosis virus) in the mumps/measles/rubella vaccines routinely given to kids. Could this be the reason the FDA held a meeting in September, 1999, to reconsider using human tumor cell lines (like HeLa) rather than monkey kidneys and chicken embryos which are no longer guaranteed 100% safe? Writing in Science, Gretchen Vogel admits public trust in vaccines is a bit shaky. In Wales anti-vaccine parents are holding "measles parties" to infect their children with the disease rather than vaccinate them. She cites the danger of using immortal cell lines for live vaccine production because cancer genes or other hazardous factors might be transferred to people receiving vaccines. But manufacturers also realize vaccine critics are becoming more wary of vaccines made in animal and bird tissue. And vaccine makers want to use immortal cell lines to grow their viruses because obviously viruses can't grow on their own. The big question everyone seems to avoid is: Can vaccines cause cancer? There is certainly evidence connecting contaminated vaccines to AIDS. And HIV is a cancer-causing virus. Robert Gallo, the co-discoverer of HIV in 1984, has clearly stated AIDS is an epidemic of cancer. Animal and avian viruses can contaminate vaccines and have all been studied as cancer-causing agents. And cancer and vaccine research would be much more difficult without the use of cell lines, some of which are derived from cancer.

Vaccines and Public Paranoia

Is the fear of vaccines justified? It is clear that vaccines can be dangerous. The contamination of vaccines is a reality, and vaccine experiments can be hazardous to one's health. AIDS, unknown two decades ago, is now an increasing worldwide epidemic with millions of death predicted for the next decade. Could vaccines contaminated with cancer-causing and immunosuppressive viruses unleash new plagues in the New Millennium? If so, the new plagues may be far worse than the diseases we eradicated by vaccine programs in the twentieth century.


"Anti-diarrheal vaccine for babies recalled," Los Angeles Times, October 16, 1999.
Butel JS, Arrington AS, Wong C, et al.: Molecular evidence of simian virus 40 infections in children. J Infect Dis 180:884-887, 1999.
Cantwell A: AIDS & the Doctors of Death. Aries Rising Press, Los Angeles, 1988.
Cantwell A: Queer Blood. Aries Rising Press, Los Angeles, 1993.
Gold M: A Conspiracy of Cells. State University of New York Press, Albany, 1986.
Hooper E: The River: A Journey to the Source of HIV and AIDS. Little, Brown and Company, Boston, 1999.
Horowitz L: Emerging Viruses: AIDS & Ebola. Tetrahedron, Inc, Rockport, MA,
Jaroff Leon: "Vaccine Jitters," TIME, September 13, 1999.
Likoudis P: "Gulf war illness probe to advance with new study," The Wanderer, January 21, 1999.
"Measles, government and trust " (Editorial), Los Angeles Times, June 20, 1996.
Miller NZ: Immunization: Theory vs Reality. New Atlantean Press, Santa Fe, 1996.
Miller NZ: Immunizations: The People Speak! New Atlantean Press, Santa Fe, 1996.
Quinnan GV: Vaccinia Viruses as Vectors for Vaccine Antigens. Elsevier, New York, 1985.
Stolberg SG: "Poor fight baffling surge in asthma," New York Times, October 18, 1999.

[Alan Cantwell is a physician and AIDS researcher. His book on the man-made epidemic of AIDS entitled AIDS & The Doctors of Death: An Inquiry into the Origin of the AIDS Epidemic, is available on the Internet through,
Barnes and Noble, or through Book Clearing House at 1-800-431-1579].


"For schizophrenics, the natural recovery rate is 50%. With orthomolecular medicine, the recovery rate is 90%. With drugs, it is 10%. If you use just drugs, you won't get well."
(Abram Hoffer, M.D., Ph.D.)

From Journal of the AIH, March 1983; included in R. Mendelsohn, ed.,
Dissent in Medicine, Contemporary Books, Chicago, 1985

The Case Against Immunizatons
By Richard Moskowitz, M. D.
For the past ten years or so I have felt a deep and growing compunction against giving routine immunizations to children. It began with the fundamental belief that people have the right to make that choice for themselves. Soon I found I could no longer bring myself to give the injections even when the parents asked me to.

"The attempt to eradicate entire microbial species from the biosphere must inevitably upset the balance of Nature in fundamental ways that we can barely imagine. Such concerns loom ever larger as new vaccines continue to be developed for no better reason than that we have the technical capacity to make them, and to manipulate the evolutionary process itself."

At bottom, I have always felt that the attempt to eradicate entire microbial species from the biosphere must inevitably upset the balance of Nature in fundamental ways that we can barely imagine. Such concerns loom ever larger as new vaccines continue to be developed for no better reason than that we have the technical capacity to make them, thus demonstrating our right and power as a civilization to manipulate the evolutionary process itself.

Purely from the viewpoint of our own species, even if we could be sure that the vaccines were harmless, the fact remains that they are compulsory, that all children are required to undergo them regardless of individual susceptibility, to say nothing of the wishes of the parents or the children themselves.

Most people can readily accept the fact that at times certain laws are necessary for the public good that some of us strongly disagree with, but the issue in this case involves the wholesale introduction of foreign proteins or even live viruses into the bloodstream of entire populations. For that reason alone, the public is surely entitled to convincing proof, beyond any reasonable doubt, that artificial immunization is in fact a safe and effective procedure in no way injurious to health, and that the threat of the corresponding natural disease remains sufficiently clear and urgent to warrant vaccinating everyone, even against their will if necessary.

Unfortunately, convincing proof of safety and efficacy has never been given; and, even if it could be, continuing to employ vaccines that are no longer prevalent or no longer dangerous hardly qualifies as an emergency. Finally, even if such an emergency did exist and artificial immunization could be shown to be an appropriate response to it, the decision to vaccinate would remain essentially a political one, involving issues of public health and safety that are far too important to be settled by any purely scientific or technical criteria, or indeed by any criteria less authoritative than the clearly articulated sense of the community that is about to be subjected to it.

For all of these reasons, I want to present the case against routine immunization as clearly and forcefully as I can. What I have to say is as yet not quite a formal theory capable of rigorous proof or disproof, but simply an attempt to explain my own experience, a nexus of interrelated facts, observations, reflections, and hypotheses that are more or less coherent and, taken together, make intuitive sense to me. I offer them to the public because the growing refusal of parents to vaccinate their children is seldom articulated or taken seriously. The truth is that we have been taught to accept vaccination as a kind of sacrament of our loyal participation in the unrestricted growth of scientific and industrial technology, utterly heedless of the long-term consequences to the health of  our own species, let alone to the balance of Nature as a whole. For that reason alone, the other side of the case urgently needs to be heard.

Are the Vaccines Effective?
There is widespread agreement that the time period since the common vaccines were introduced has seen a remarkable decline in the incidence and severity of the natural diseases corresponding to them. But the facile assumption that the decline is also attributable to them remains unproven, and continues to be questioned by eminent authorities in the field. With whooping cough, for instance, both the incidence and severity had already begun to decline precipitously long before the vaccine was introduced, [note 1] a fact which led the epidemiologist C. C. Dauer to remark, as far back as 1943:

If mortality [from pertussis] continues to decline at the same rate during the next fifteen years [as in the last fifteen], it will be extremely difficult to show statistically that [pertussis vaccination] had any effect in reducing mortality from whooping cough. [note 2] Much the same is true not only of diphtheria and tetanus. but of TB, cholera, typhoid, and other common scourges of a bygone era, which negan to disappear rapidly at the end of the nineteenth century, doubtless partly in response to improvements in sanitation and public health, but in any case long before antibiotics, vaccines, or any specific medical initiatives to combat them. [note 3] Similar reflections prompted the celebrated microbiologist René Dubos to observe that microbial diseases have their own natural history, with or without drugs and vaccines, in which symbiosis and asymptomatic infections are far more common than overt disease:

It is barely recognized but nevertheless true that animals and plants as well as men can live peacefully with their most notorious enemies. The world is obsessed by the fact that poliomyelitis can kill or maim several thousand unfortunate victims every year. But more extraordinary is the fact that millions upon millions of young people become infected by polio viruses yet suffer no harm from the infection. The dramatic episodes of conflict between men and microbes are what strike the mind. What is less readily apprehended is the more common fact that infection can occur without producing disease. [note 4] The principal evidence that the vaccines are effective dates from the more recent period, during which the dreaded polio epidemics of the 1940's and 1950's have never reappeared in the developed countries, and measles, mumps, and rubella, which even a generation ago were among the commonest diseases of childhood, have become far less prevalent in their classic acute forms since the MMR vaccine was introduced into common use.

But how the vaccines have accomplished these changes is not nearly as well understood as most people assume it is. The disturbing possibility that they act in some other way than by producing a genuine immunity is suggested by the fact that the diseases in question have continued to break even in highly vaccinated populations, and that in such cases the observed differences in incidence and severity have often been far less dramatic than expected, and in some cases not measurably significant at all.

In a recent British outbreak of whooping cough, for example, even fully vaccinated children contracted the disease in substantial numbers, and the rate of serious or fatal complications was reduced only slightly. [note 5] In another pertussis outbreak, 46 of the 85 fully vaccinated kids studied eventually came down with the disease. [note 6] In 1977, 34 cases of measles were reported on the campus of UCLA in a student population that was 91% "immune," according to careful serological testing. [note 7] In Pecos, New Mexico, during a period of a few months in 1981, 15 out of 20 reported cases of measles had been vaccinated, some of them quite recently. [note 8] A recent survey of sixth-graders in a fully-vaccinated urban community demonstrated that about 15% of this age group are still susceptible to rubella, a figure essentially identical with that of the pre-vaccine era. [note 9] Finallly, although the yearly incidence of measles in the U. S. has fallen sharply from about 400,000 cases in the early 1960's to about 30,000 cases by 1974-76, the death rate remained exactly the same; [note 10] and, with the peak incidence now in adolescents and young adults, the risk of pneumonia and liver enzyme abnormalities has risen to 3% and 20%, respectively. [note 11]

The usual way to explain these discrepancies is simply to concede that vaccines confer only partial or temporary immunity, which sounds reasonable enough, since they consist either of live viruses rendered less virulent by serial passage in tissue culture, or bacteria or bacterial proteins that have been killed or denatured by heat, such that they can still elicit an antibody response but no longer initiate the full-blown acute disease. Because the vaccine is therefore a "trick," simulating the true or natural immune response developed in the course of the actual disease, it is certainly plausible to expect that such artificial immunity will tend to wear off rather easily, and perhaps even require additional booster doses at intervals throughout life to maintain optimal effectiveness.

But such an explanation would itself be disturbing enough for most people. Indeed, the basic fallacy inherent in it is painfully evident in the fact that there is no way to predict how long this partial or temporary immunity will last in any given individual, or how often it will need to be restimulated, because the answers to these questions clearly depend on the same mysterious variables that would have determined whether and how severely the same person, unvaccinated, would have contracted the disease in the first place.

In any case, a number of other observations argue just as strongly that this explanation cannot be the correct one. First, it has been clearly shown that when children vaccinated against the measles again become susceptible to it, booster doses have little or no effect. [note 12] Moreover, in addition to producing pale or mild copies of the natural disease, nearly all vaccines also produce a variety of symptoms and ailments of their own, some of them more serious, involving deeper structures, more vital organs, showing less tendency to resolve spontaneously, and often more difficult to recognize as well.

"The Case Against Immunizations" by Richard Moskowitz, M.D. / part 2

"The vaccine-related ailments we are aware of represent only a small part of the problem, and many others will be identified once we look for them. But even these few make it less and less plausible to suppose that vaccines produce a natural or healthy immunity that lasts for some time but then wears off, leaving patients unharmed and unaffected by the experience."

Thus in a recent outbreak of the mumps in supposedly immune schoolchildren, several patients developed unusual symptoms such as vomiting, anorexia, and erythematous rashes without parotid involvement, and the diagnosis required extensive serological testing to exclude other diseases. [note 13] The syndrome known as "atypical measles" is just as vague and covers a sufficiently broad spectrum to be easily confused with other infections or missed altogether, [note 14] even when it is thought of, and even though the illness may be considerably worse than the wild type, with severe pain, pneumonia, clotting defects, and generalized edema. [note 15] Indeed, I have the sense that the vaccine-related ailments we are presently aware of represent only a very small part of the problem, and that many others will be identified once we take the trouble to look for them. But even the few that have been described make it less and less plausible to suppose that vaccines produce a natural or healthy immunity that lasts for some time but then "wears off," leaving patients miraculously unharmed and unaffected by the experience. Personal Experiences with Vaccine-Related Illness I would like to present a few vaccine-related cases, in part to show how varied, chronic, and difficult to trace they can be, but also to begin to address the crucial question that is so rarely asked, namely, how the vaccines actually work, and what effects they actually produce inside the human body.

In January of 1977, I saw an 8-month-old girl for recurrent fever of unknown origin, shortly after her third episode. These were brief but intense, lasting 48 hours at most, but usually reaching 105°F. During one episode she was hospitalized for tests, but her pediatrician found nothing out of the ordinary, and otherwise the child appeared to be quite well and growing and developing normally. The only peculiar thing I could learn from the mother was that all three episodes had occurred almost exactly one month apart, and, on consulting her calendar, that the first one had come just one month after the third and last of her DPT injections, which had also been given at monthly intervals. With the help of these calculations, the mother then also remembered that the child had had equally high fevers within hours of each shot, but the doctor had ignored them as common reactions to the vaccine. On the slender thread of that history with nothing else to go on, I gave the girl a single oral dose of homeopathically diluted DPT vaccine, and she never had another episode and has remained well since. This case illustrates how homeopathic remedies prepared from vaccines can be used not only to treat but also to confirm the diagnosis of vaccine-related illnesses, which, even when strongly suspected, might otherwise be very difficult to substantiate. Secondly, because fever is indeed the commonest known complication of the DPT vaccine and the child remained quite well in between the attacks, her response appeared to be a relatively healthy and vigorous one, disturbing in its recurrence, but quite simple to cure. Indeed, it mainly prompted me to wonder how the vaccine acts in those tens and hundreds of millions of children who show no obvious response to it at all.

Since then I have seen quite a few other cases of children with recurrent fevers of unknown origin associated with a variety of chronic complaints such as irritability, tantrums, and increased susceptibility to tonsillitis, sinusitis, and ear infections that were similarly traceable to the pertussis vaccine and successfully treated with the homeopathic DPT

In June of 1978, a 9-month-old girl was brought in with a fever of 105°F. and very few other symptoms. Like the first case, this child had had two such episodes in the past, but at irregular intervals. Already somewhat ambivalent about giving her any vaccines at all, the parents had belatedly consented to the first DPT, but no more, since the first episode had occurred roughly two weeks afterward. In spite of the usual acute fever remedies and other supportive measures, the temperature held at 104-105° for 48 hours, so I decided to investigate further. The only notable finding was an extremely high white-cell count of 32,000 per, of which 25% were neutrophils, many with toxic granulations,43% lymphocytes, 11% monocytes, and 21% young and immature forms. Knowing nothing else about the child, a pediatrician friend to whom I showed the slide immediately recognized it as pertussis. As before, I gave a single oral dose of the homeopathic DPT nosode, and the fever came down abruptly within an hour or so, and the child has remained well since. This case was disturbing mainly because of the high white count, which was nearing the leukemia range, the abnormal blood picture, and the absence of any cough or respiratory symptoms, which again suggest that introducing the vaccine directly into the blood may in fact promote deeper, more systemic pathology than allowing the pertussis organism to set up typical symptoms of local inflammation at the normal portal of entry.

In August of 1978, one of my teachers, a GP of over 40 years' experience, invited me to see one of his patients, a 5-year-old boywith chronic lymphocytic leukemia, which had first appeared soon after a DPT vaccination. Though he had treated the child successfully with homeopathic remedies on two previous occasions, with shrinkage of the liver and spleen back almost to normal size and a dramatic improvement in the blood picture, full relapse had occurred both times within a week or two of each successive booster. That vaccines might somehow be implicated in childhood leukemia was an idea
shocking enough in itself, but it also completed the line of reasoning opened up by the previous cases. For leukemia is precisely a cancerous process of the blood and blood-forming organs (liver, spleen, lymph nodes, bone marrow), which are also the principal sites of the immune system. Insofar as the vaccines are able to produce serious effects at all, the blood and the major immune organs are certainly the logical place to begin looking for them.  But perhaps even more shocking to me was the fact that the boy's own parents were so reluctant to make the connection, even when it was staring them in the face and literally threatening their son's life. It was this case that convinced me once and for all of the need for serious discussion of vaccine-related illness, since rigorous experimental proof of these matters will require years of painstaking investigation and a high level of public commitment to back it up that so far has not been made.

Regarding the MMR vaccine, my experience has thus far been limited to a few cases.

In December of 1980 I saw a 3-year-old boy with a month-long history of swollen glands, loss of appetite, indigestion, and stomach aches, the latter often quite severe and accompanied by belching, flatulence, and explosive diarrhea. In addition to nasal congestion and redness of the eyelids, the parents also reported unusual behavior changes, such as extreme untidiness, wild and noisy playing, and waking at 2 a. m. to get into their bed.

The only remarkable features of the physical examination were several enlarged, tender lymph nodes behind the ear and at the base of the skull, locations favored by rubella, mononucleosis, and a few other infections, and markedly swollen tonsils. This fact reminded the mother that the boy had received the MMR vaccine in October, about two weeks before the onset of his illness, with no apparent reaction to it at the time. Based on this possibility, I gave the child a single dose by mouth of the homeopathic nosode made from the rubella vaccine, and the symptoms disappeared within 48 hours and did not come back.

The following April, the parents brought him back for a mild fever and a three-week history of intermittent pain and soreness in and in front of the right ear, with stuffy nose and other vague cold symptoms. Upon examination the whole right side of the face appeared swollen and tender, especially the cheek and the angle of the jaw, and the right eye was also red and congested. Looking abit like a mild case of the mumps, he responded very well to acute remedies and has been in good health since. First, this boy is a sort of prototype of the ordinary rubella vaccine case: after two weeks, about the same interval as the normal incubation period for rubella, a nondescript illness develops and slowly becomes more severe than the natural disease in the same age group, with sore, swollen, lymph nodes or abdominal or joint pains, for example, but very little rash or fever. If the rubella component is suspected on account of the unusual pattern of lymph node involvement, the diagnosis may be confirmed by a favorable response to the rubella nosode. Even more interesting was the second illness, where parotid involvement suggests a delayed activation of the mumps vaccine component, and thus raises the frightening possibility of "mixed" or composite responses to two, three, or more combined vaccines either simultaneously or over time.

In April of 1981 I first saw a 4-year-old boy for chronic bilateral soreness and enlargement of the parotids and lymph nodes around and behind the ears, which had begun about a year earlier, when the MMR vaccine was given, and continued with no sign of improvement. Moreover, during that same period he had become much more prone to upper respiratory infections, although they were not particularly severe. Since the mother was two months pregnant and the boy not ill at the time, I was in no hurry to treat him, but not long after the birth he developed acute bronchitis, with recurrent swelling and tenderness of the nodes. After a dose of homeopathic rubella, the acute illness, cough, and swollen glands promptly subsided, but two weeks later he was back with a hard, tender nodule in the right cheek near the angle of the jaw and some pain on chewing or opening the mouth. At that
point I gave him the mumps nosode, and he has been well ever since.  As in the first case, the striking feature is the gradual or lingering pattern of the condition, with a definite tendency to become chronic and increased susceptibility to other illnesses and to weak, low-grade reactions in general, in contrast to the vigorous responses typical of acute diseases like measles and mumps when they are acquired naturally.

How Do Vaccines Work?
It is dangerously misleading and indeed the exact opposite of the truth to claim that a vaccine makes us "immune" or protects us against an acute disease, if in fact it only drives the infection deeper into the interior and causes us to harbor it chronically, with the result that our responses to it become weaker and weaker, and show less and less tendency to heal or resolve themselves spontaneously. To consider that possibility, I will examine the process of coming down with and recovering from a typical acute disease like the measles, in contrast to what we can observe after giving the measles vaccine.

As is well known, measles is primarily a virus of the respiratory tract, both because it is acquired by inhalation of infected droplets in the air, and because these droplets are produced by coughing and sneezing of patients with the disease. Once inhaled by a susceptible person, the virus then undergoes a long period of silent multiplication, first in the tonsils, adenoids, and accessory lymphoid tissues of the nasopharynx, later in the regional lymph nodes of the head and neck, and eventually, several days later, passes into the blood and enters the spleen, the liver, the thymus, and the bone marrow, the visceral organs of the immune system. [note 16] Throughout this "incubation period," lasting from 10 to 14 days, the patient usually feels quite well, and experiences few if any symptoms.
[notes 17]

By the time that the first symptoms appear, circulating antibodies are already detectable in the blood, while the height of the symptomatology coincides with the peak of the antibody response. [note 18] In other words, the illness we know as "the measles" is precisely the attempt of the immune system to eliminate the virus from the blood, mainly by sneezing and coughing, i. e., via the same route that it entered in the first place.

Moreover, the process of coming down with and recovering from an acute illness like the measles involves a general mobilization of the entire immune system, including

1) inflammation of previously sensitized tissues at the portal of entry;

2) activation of white cells and macrophages that find and destroy the foreign elements;

3) release of special serum protein fractions to expedite these operations; and numerous other mechanisms, of which the production of specific antibodies is only one, and by no means the most important.

This splendid outpouring leaves little room for doubt that acute illnesses are in fact the decisive experiences in the normal, physiological maturation of the immune system as a whole. For not only will children who recover from the measles never again be susceptible to it; [note 19] such an experience must also prepare them to respond even more promptly and effectively to whatever other infections they may acquire in the future. Indeed, the ability to mount a vigorous, acute response to organisms of this type must be reckoned among the fundamental requirements of general
health and well-being.

"When the attenuated measles virus is injected into the blood, it bypasses the normal portal of entry, producing no incubation period, no local sensitization, and no generalized response. We have introduced the virus directly into the blood and given it free access to the major organs with no way of getting rid of it."

In contrast, when the artificially attenuated measles virus is injected directly into the blood, it bypasses the normal portal of entry, producing at most a brief, mild inflammatory reaction at the injection site, but no incubation period, no local sensitization, no real possibility of eliminating it via the same route, and no generalized immune response to prime the immune system in the future. Indeed, by cheating the body in this fashion, we have accomplished precisely what the evolution of the immune system seems to have been designed to prevent: we have introduced the virus directly into the blood and given it free, immediate access to the major immune organs without any obvious way of getting rid of it.

To be sure, we have also achieved the production of specific antibodies against the virus, which can be measured in the blood, but now only as an isolated technical feat, with no massive outpouring and no general improvement in the health of the organism. Indeed, I fear, exactly the opposite is true: the exorbitant price we have to pay for these antibodies is for the maintenance of the virus in the cells of the immune system for prolonged periods of time, maybe permanently, which in turn presupposes a generalized weakening of our capacity to mount an effective response not
only to measles, but to other acute infections as well.

Far from producing a genuine immunity, then, I fear that vaccines act by suppressing or interfering with the immune response as a whole, as radiation, chemotherapy, steroids, and other anti-inflammatory drugs do. Artificial immunization isolates antibody production, a single aspect of the immune process, and allows it to stand for the whole, in somewhat the same way that chemical suppression of an elevated blood pressure is taken as a valid substitute for healing the patient whose blood pressure happens to be elevated. My suspicion is that vaccines also make it more difficult to mount a vigorous, acute response to infection in general, by substituting a much weaker chronic response with little or no tendency to heal itself spontaneously.

Moreover, adequate models already exist to predict and identify the types of chronic disease that are likely to result from viruses and other foreign proteins remaining permanently within the cells of the immune system. It has been known for decades that live viruses, for example, can remain latent for years within the host cells without continually or indeed ever provoking acute disease. In most cases, this is achieved by attaching their own genetic material as an extra particle or "episome" to that of the host cell and reproducing along with it, allowing the host cell to continue its normal functions for the most part, provided it follows encoded instructions to synthesize viral proteins at the same time. [note 20]

Latent viruses have already been implicated in three distinct kinds of chronic disease, namely,

1) recurrent acute diseases, such as herpes, shingles, warts, etc.; [note 21]

2)"slow-virus" diseases, which are subacute or chronic, usually progressive, and often fatal, such as kuru, Creuzfeldt-Jakob disease, subacute sclerosing panencephalitis (SSPE), and perhaps Guillain-Barré syndrome; [note 22] and

3) some tumors, both benign and malignant. [note 23]

In all of these forms, the latent virus survives as a foreign element within the target cell, so that the immune system must continue to make antibodies against it to the extent that it can still respond to it at all; but with the virus permanently integrated into the genetic material of the host cell, these antibodies will now have to be directed against the cell itself. The persistence of live viruses and other foreign antigens within the host thus cannot fail to provoke autoimmune phenomena, because destroying the infected cells is now the only possible way for this constant antigenic challenge to be removed from the body. Since routine vaccination introduces live viruses and other highly antigenic material into the bloodstream of virtually every living person, it is difficult to escape the conclusion that a significant harvest of autoimmune diseases must surely result.

As Sir Macfarlane Burnet observed many years ago, the various components of the immune system all work together as if designed to help the organism to distinguish "self" from "non-self," i. e., to help us recognize and tolerate our own cells while identifying and eliminating foreign substances and life forms as completely as possible. [note 24] As the most familiar examples he cites our ability not only to mount an acute response to infection, but also to reject transplanted tissues or "homografts" from others of the same species, both of which achieve complete and permanent
removal of the offending substance from the organism.

"Latent viruses, autoimmune phenomena, and cancer exemplify varying degrees of chronic immune failure, wherein it becomes equally difficult for the immune system to recognize its cells as unambiguously its own or to eliminate its parasites as unequivocally foreign."

If he is correct, then latent viruses, autoimmune phenomena, and cancer evidently represent simply different aspects of the same basic dilemma, which the immune system cannot escape or resolve. For all of them exemplify varying degrees of chronic immune failure, states in which it becomes equally difficult for the immune system to recognize its cells as unambiguously its own and to eliminate its parasites as unequivocally foreign.

In the case of the measles vaccine, for example, introducing the attenuated live virus directly into the blood may well provoke an antibody response to it for a considerable period of time, which is the whole point of giving it, after all. But once the virus becomes latent in the cell, the serum concentration of circulating antibodies is very likely to wane, because they seldom cross the cell membrane and are also powerfully immunosuppressive in their own right. [note 25] Indeed, the probable effect of circulating antibody after that would only be to keep the virus confined within cells and thus prevent any acute inflammatory response to it, until eventually, perhaps under cumulative stress or emergency circumstances, this precarious balance collapses, and antibodies are produced in large numbers against the cells, resulting in tissue destruction and other autoimmune phenomena. In this sense, latent viruses are like biological "time bombs," set to explode at an indeterminate time in the future. [note 26]

Autoimmune diseases have always seemed obscure, aberrant, and bizarre because nobody has ever proposed a valid reason why living organisms would suddenly begin to attack and destroy their own tissues. They make a lot more sense, and must indeed be reckoned as "healthy," if destroying chronically infected cells is the only way to eliminate their persistent and even more serious threat to life.

If that is true, then tumor formation could also be understood as simply another more advanced stage of chronic immune failure, as the host, weakened by the strain of attempting to make antibodies against itself, gradually becomes less and less able to withstand it, and eventually the chronically infected and genetically transformed cells, no longer unequivocally "self" or "non-self," begin to free themselves from the normal restraints of "histocompatibility" within the architecture of the surrounding tissues and to multiply more or less autonomously at their expense. Tumors might then be described as "benign" insofar as the loss of histocompatibility remains strictly limited to their cell type or tissue of origin, and "malignant" to the extent that it spreads to other cell types, tissues, and organs, and even more remotely to other areas in the body.

"If these speculations are accurate, the net effect of artificial immunization will have been to trade off the acute epidemic diseases of past centuries for the weaker, less curable chronic diseases of today, whose cumulative suffering continues to appreciate throughout life, and to introduce the new possibility of ongoing genetic recombination within the cells of the race."

In any case, if these speculations turn out to be accurate, the net effect of artificial immunization will have been merely to trade off the acute, epidemic diseases of past centuries for the weaker but far less curable chronic diseases of today, whose accumulated suffering and disability continue to appreciate through life, like a high-interest mortgage loan. In the process, we have also introduced limitless new evolutionary possibilities for the future of ongoing in vivo genetic recombination within the cells of the race.
The Individual Vaccines Reconsidered
While the foregoing was addressed to the vaccination process in general, the equation looks a bit different for each of the vaccines and diseases in question and merits separate consideration.

Currently administered as a single intramuscular injection at 15 months of age, the triple MMR vaccine is composed of attenuated, live measles, mumps, and rubella viruses. Boosters are recommended only for women of childbearing age, when the risk of congenital rubella syndrome is thought to warrant it, although the effectiveness of the repeat dose is highly questionable.

Before the vaccine era, all three diseases were contracted by most schoolchildren before the age of puberty, of whom the vast majority recovered completely, with lifelong immunity and no complications. But they were not always so harmless. Measles, in particular, can devastate a population encountering it for the first time. Carrying it with them into Mexico undoubtedly contributed to the Spaniards' conquest of the Aztec Empire, in which entire villages were decimated by epidemics of smallpox and measles, leaving only small remnants of cowed and weakened survivors to face the bearded horsemen from across the sea. [note 27] In more recent outbreaks among isolated, primitive peoples, the death rate among measles cases averaged 20 to 30%.[note 28]

In most of these "virgin-soil" epidemics, not only measles but also polio and other similar diseases exact their highest toll of death and serious complications among adolescents and young adults in the prime of life, leaving relatively unharmed the group of school-age children before the age of puberty. [note 29] This means that the evolution of a disease like measles from a dreaded killer to a routine disease of childhood is accomplished by the development of "herd" immunity in young children, such when exposed they can activate nonspecific defense mechanisms already in place, resulting in the prolonged incubation period and usually benign, self-limited course described above.

Under these circumstances, the rationale for vaccinating young children against measles is simply that a very small number of deaths and serious complications still occur, mainly pneumonia, encephalitis, and the rare but dreaded subacute sclerosing panencephalitis (SSPE), a "slow-virus" form of the disease with a reported incidence of 1 in every 100,000 cases. [note 30] Pneumonia, by far the commonest complication, is for the most part benign and self-limited, [note 31] and even bacterial pneumonia developing on top of it can be treated effectively.

Now that the death rate from the disease has become so low, the risk of serious complications so minor, and the benefit to kids recovering from it so great, the vaccine, even if it reduced these risks still further, would not be worth the high probability of autoimmune diseases, cancer, and whatever else may result from the propagation of latent measles virus in human tissue culture for life. Ironically, what it has already done is to reverse the natural evolutionary process back to its point of origin, where the disease is seen once again primarily in adolescents and young adults, [note 32] and results in more complications and a usually nastier and more disabling clinical course than it does in younger children.

As for the claim that the vaccine has helped to eliminate measles encephalitis, in my own small general practice I have already seen two children with major seizure disorders which the parents were quite certain had arisen from bad reactions to the measles vaccine, alhough they would never have been able to prove the connection in a court of law and had never even considered the possibility of compensation. Such cases are never included in the official statistics and are therefore routinely omitted from most surveys of the problem. Indeed, merely injecting the virus into the blood would naturally promote the development of visceral complications involving the lungs, liver, and brain, for all of which measles has a known affinity.

Similarly, the case for immunizing against mumps and rubella seems even more tenuous, for exactly the same reasons. When contracted by children before the age of puberty, it too is a benign, self-limiting disease, recovery from which almost always confers lifelong immunity. The principal complication is meningoencephalitis, of which mild or subclinical forms are not uncommon, but the death rate is extremely low, as is the risk of serious or permanent impairment. [note 33]

The mumps vaccine is prepared and administered in exactly the same way as the measles, usually in the same injection, and the dangers associated with it are likewise comparable. Unfortunately, as a result of vaccination it too has become largely a disease of adolescents and young adults, [note 34]
age groups which tolerate it much less well. Its commonest and most notorious complication is acute epididymoorchitis, which occurs in 30 to 40% of males affected past the age of puberty, and usually results in atrophy of the testicle on the affected side, [note 35] but the virus has shown a predisposition to attack the ovary and pancreas as well. The greatest favor we could do for our children would be to expose them to measles and mumps when they are six or seven, which would not only protect them from contracting more serious forms of these diseases when they grow older, but also assist their immunological maturation with minimal risk. It almost goes without saying that this is very close to the actual historical evolution of these illnesses before the MMR was introduced.

The same discrepancy is evident in the case of rubella, or "German measles," which in young children is an illness so mild that it often goes undetected, [note 36] while in adolescents and young adults it is more apt to be associated with arthritis, purpura, and other signs of deeper involvement. [note 37] The sole impetus for developing a vaccine was the recognition of congenital rubella syndrome, involving viral damage to the developing embryo in utero during the first three months of pregnancy, [note 38] and the peak of CRS incidence traceable to the rubella outbreak of 1964. Once again, mandatory vaccination has transformed an almost entirely benign, self-limiting illness into a considerably nastier disease among teenagers and young adults of reproductive age, precisely the group that most needs to be protected from it. By far the most effective way to prevent CRS would be simply to expose our children to rubella in grade school: reinfection does sometimes occur, but much less commonly than after vaccination. [note 39]

In the case of diphtheria and tetanus, the equation looks rather different. First, both diseases are serious and at times fatal, even with the finest treatment: this is especially true of tetanus, which still carries a mortality rate of 20 to 50%. Second, both vaccines are prepared not with living diphtheria and tetanus organisms, but only from poisonous substances elaborated by them, which remain highly antigenic even when inactivated by heat, and protect not against infection per se, but against the systemic effect of these toxins, without which both infections would be of minor significance.

It is easy to understand why parents would want to protect their children against these diseases, if safe and effective vaccines were available, and since both diphtheria and tetanus toxoid have been in use for a long time, with a very good safety record on the whole, there has never been much public outcry against them. On the other hand, both diseases are readily  controlled by good sanitation and careful attention to wound hygiene, and both have been disappearing rapidly from the developed world since long before the vaccines were introduced.

Diphtheria still occurs sporadically in the United States, often in areas with significant reservoirs of unvaccinated children, but the toxoid is not very protective once the disease actually breaks out, "susceptibles" being no more likely to come down with it than their fully immunized classmates. Thus in the Chicago outbreak of 1969, 25% of the cases had been fully immunized; 12% had received one or more doses of toxoid and serologically tested as fully immune; and 18% tested partly immune by the same criteria. [note 40] So once again we must face the probability that the toxoid has produced not a genuine immunity to the disease, but rather some sort of  chronic immune tolerance to it, by harboring highly antigenic residues somewhere within the cells of the immune system, with probable long-term suppressive effects on the immune mechanism in general. This risk is further compounded by the fact that all three of the DPT vaccines are alum-precipitated and preserved with Thiomersal, an organomercury compound, to retard their metabolic breakdown and excretion, so that the antigenic challenge they pose will continue for as long as possible. The truth is that we do not know and have never even attempted to discover what actually becomes of these foreign substances inside the human body.

Precisely the same difficulties complicate the generally favorable record of tetanus toxoid, which has clearly had at least some impact on the decline of this dreadful disease in its classic form, yet presumably also survives in the body for years or decades as a potent foreign antigen, with long-term effects on the immune system and elsewhere that as yet we can only imagine.

Like diphtheria and tetanus, whooping cough as a public health threat had already begun to decline precipitously well before the pertussis vaccine was introduced. Moreover, the latter has not been very effective, as even its proponents concede, and both the extent and the severity of its side effects have been disturbingly high. Its power to damage the central  nervous system, for example, has received increasing attention since Stewart and his colleagues reported an alarmingly high incidence of encephalopathy and serious convulsive disorders in British children that were directly traceable to the pertussis vaccine. [note 41] My own cases, of which a few were reported earlier, suggest that hematological disturbances may be equally prevalent. In any event, the complications that are known clearly represent only a small fraction of the total, and the vaccine has become controversial even in the United States, where medical opinion has remained virtually unanimous in favor of vaccines generally, while several other countries, such as West Germany, have discontinued it as a routine practice. [note 42]

Clinically, whooping cough is extremely variable in severity, ranging from asymptomatic, mild, or in apparent infections, which are quite common, to very rare and sometimes fatal cases in young infants less than 5 months old, in whom the mortality is said to approach 40%.[note 43] In children
over a year old, it is rarely fatal or even all that serious, and antibiotics have little to do with the outcome. [note 44]

Much of the pressure to immunize at present must therefore be ascribed to the higher death rate in young infants, which has led to the terrifying practice of giving this most dangerous of vaccines to babies at 2, 4, and 6 months, when their mothers' milk could have protected them from all infections about as well as it can ever be done, [note 45] and its effect on the developing blood and nervous systems could well be catastrophic. For all of these reasons, the practice of mandatory immunization against pertussis should be discontinued immediately, and studies undertaken to assess and compensate the damage that it has already done.

Poliomyelitis and the two main polio vaccines present an entirely different situation. The standard Sabin vaccine is trivalent, consisting of attenuated live polio viruses of each of the three strains associated with paralytic disease, and seems quite safe, partly because it is administered orally, the same way the infection is acquired, thus allowing recipients to develop a kind of natural immunity at the normal portal of entry, the GI tract.

On the other hand, the wild-type poliovirus elicits no symptoms of any kind in over 95% of the people exposed to it, even under epidemic conditions, [note 46] and only 1 or 2% of those who become symptomatic ever progress to the neurological picture of poliomyelitis, with its destructive lesions in
the motor tracts of the spinal cord and medulla oblongata. [note 47] Poliomyelitis thus cannot develop without a particular anatomical susceptibility in the host. Even in the full-scale epidemics of the 1950's, the attack rate of the poliovirus remained very low, and the number of cases resulting in death or permanent impairment remarkably small, in comparison with the huge number of people exposed and at risk for it. [note 48]

Since the virus was more or less ubiquitous in the pre-vaccine era, and could be found routinely in samples of city sewage wherever it was looked for, [note 49] effective natural immunity to it was already about as close to being universal as it could ever be, and it remains highly doubtful if any artificial substitute could equal or even approximate that result. Indeed, because the virulence of the wild-type virus was so low to begin with, it is difficult to see what further attenuation of it could possibly accomplish other than weaken the natural vigor of the immune response at the same time. For the fact remains that even the attenuated virus is still alive, and the people who were anatomically susceptible to the wild type are presumably still susceptible to it now, so that some of them will develop paralytic disease from the vaccine, [note 50] while others may continue to harbor the virus in latent form, perhaps within the same target cells.

Seemingly the only advantage of giving the vaccine, then, would be to introduce the virus during infancy, when its virulence would normally be lowest anyway, [note 51] a benefit more than offset by the risk of weakening the immune response, as above. In any case, even for the polio vaccine, which is about as safe as any vaccine can ever be, the whole matter is clearly one of enormous complexity, and well illustrates the hidden pitfalls and miscalculations inherent in the temptation to beat nature at her own game, by trying to eliminate a problem that can't be eliminated, namely, the susceptibility to disease itself. Perhaps the day may come when we can face the consequences of having fed live viruses to babies by the hundreds of millions, and can admit that we should have left well enough alone by addressing the art of healing the sick when we have to, instead of the technology of erasing the possibility of sickness when we don't have to and can't possibly succeed in any case.

Vaccination and the Path of Medical Technology
In conclusion, I want to go back to the essentially political aspects of the vaccine question, to our common obligation as citizens in a democratic polity to reason and deliberate together about matters of mutual concern and to reach a clear and wise decision about how we choose to live. Now
that I have stated my views on the safety and effectiveness of the usual childhood vaccines, I hope that others of differing views will come forward and do the same. That is why I am deeply troubled by the air of fanaticism in which vaccines are imposed on the public and serious discussion of them is ignored or stifled by the medical authorities as if the question had already been settled definitively and for all time. In the words of Sir Macfarlane Burnet,

It is our pride that in a civilized country the only infectious diseases that anyone is likely to suffer are either trivial or easily cured by available drugs. The diseases that killed in the past have been rendered impotent, and general principles of control have been developed that should be applicable to any unexpected outbreak in the future. [note 52]  Apart from the truth or falseness of these claims, they exemplify the smug self-righteousness of a profession that worships its power to manipulate and control Nature itself, and of a society in which, as Robert Mendelsohn has said, "we are quick to pull the trigger, but slow to examine the consequences of our actions." [note 53] Indeed, in the case of vaccines, one would have to say methodically slow. In 1978, for example, when charged by Congress to formulate guidelines for Federal compensation of "vaccine-related injuries," the American Academy of Pediatrics issued the following restrictions on eligibility:

1) Compensation should be made available to any child or young person under the age of 18 years, or a contact of such person of any age, who suffers a major reaction to a vaccine mandated for school in his or her state of residence.

2) Such a reaction should have been previously recognized as a possible consequence of the vaccine given.

3) Such a reaction should have occurred no more than 30 days following the immunization. [note 54]

These restrictions would automatically exclude all of the chronic diseases and anything other than the very few adverse reactions that have been identified and documented thus far, which clearly represent only a small fraction of the problem.

Nor can the government or medical establishment be considered ignorant of the possibility that worries every parent, that vaccines cause cancer and other chronic diseases. Precisely that spectre was raised by Prof. Robert Simpson of Rutgers in a 1976 seminar for science writers:

Immunization programs against flu, measles, mumps, polio, and so forth may actually be seeding humans with RNA to form latent proviruses in cells throughout the body. These latent proviruses could be molecules in search of diseases: when activated under proper conditions, they could cause a variety of diseases, including rheumatoid arthritis, multiple sclerosis, systemic lupus, Parkinson's disease, and perhaps cancer. [note 55] Unfortunately, this is the sort of warning that very few people are willing or able to take seriously at this point, least of all the American Cancer Society or the American Academy of Pediatrics. As René Dubos has said, we all want to believe in "the miracle," regardless of the evidence:

Faith in the magical power of drugs often blunts the critical senses and comes close to a mass hysteria at times, involving scientists and laymen alike. Men want miracles as much today as in the past. If they do not join one of the newer cults, they satisfy this need by worshipping at the altar of modern science. This faith in the magical power of drugs is not new. It has helped to give medicine the authority of a priesthood, and to recreate the glamor of ancient mysteries. [note 56]

"We worship the victory of technology over Nature as a bullfight celebrates the triumph of human intelligence over the brute beast. That is why we do not begrudge the drug companies their profits and volunteer the bodies of our children for their latest experiments. Vaccination is a sacrament of
our participation in medical science, an auto-da-fé in the name of civilization itself."

The idea of eradicating measles or polio has become attractive to us simply because the power of medical science makes it seem technically possible: we worship every victory of technology over Nature, just as the bullfight celebrates the triumph of human intelligence over the brute beast. That is why we do not begrudge the drug companies their exorbitant profits and gladly volunteer the bodies of our children for their latest experiments. Vaccination is essentially a religious sacrament of our own participation in the miracle of medical science, a veritable auto-da-fé in the name of modern civilization itself.

Nobody in their right mind would seriously entertain the idea that if we could somehow eliminate one by one measles and polio and all of the known diseases of mankind, we would really be any the healthier for it, or that other diseases at least as terrible would not quickly take their place. Still less would a rational being imagine that the illnesses from which we suffer are "entities" separable from the individuals who suffer them, or that with the appropriate chemical or surgical sacrament the separation can literally be carried out. Yet these are precisely the miracles we are taught to believe in and the idolatries to which we in fact aspire. We prefer to forget the older and simpler but more difficult truths, that the susceptibility to illness is deeply rooted in our biological nature, and that the signs and symptoms of disease are the attempt of our own life energy to overcome whatever we are trying to overcome, trying, in short, to heal ourselves.

The myth that we can find technical solutions for all human ailments looks attractive at first precisely because it bypasses the problem of healing, which is a genuine miracle in the sense that it can always fail to occur. We are all truly at risk of illness and death at every moment; no amount of technology can change that. Yet the mission of technical medicine is  precisely to try to change that, by standing always in the front line against disease, and by attacking and destroying it wherever and whenever it shows itself.

That is why, with all due respect, I cannot accept the sacraments of Merck, Sharp & Dohme or have faith in the miracles of the Centers for Disease Control. For myself, I prefer to stay with the miracle of life itself, which has given us not only illness and disease but also the arts of medicine and healing, through which we can acknowledge our pain and vulnerability and at times, with the grace of God and the help of our fellow humans, experience a sense of health and well-being that goes beyond tribe or country. That is my religion, and though I will gladly share it, I do not force it on anyone.

Postscript on Immunizations:
Directions for Future Research
In "The Case Against Immunizations," my intention was simply to understand my own experience, to develop a coherent and plausible line of reasoning that could make sense out of what I had read and thought about, and out of what my patients were telling me. [note 57] The next step is to address the issue of experimental verification, to try to sketch out how to look for valid and repeatable evidence for the safety, efficacy, and mode of action of the common vaccines.

In rereading my article, I was surprised to discover that even the more speculative ideas in it could in fact be tested quite easily, using only the standard research techniques now in common use, which naturally makes me even more curious why such studies were not carried out long ago. Moreover, as I indicated in the text, a number of investigators have already entertained these ideas and even made them public. The obvious reason why they have not been taken seriously is that they are heretical, that even taking the time to study them would require a "paradigm shift" of some magnitude. [note 58]

How Effective Are the Vaccines?
In the text I argued that, if vaccines act by suppressing the immune system's normal capacity to mount an acute response to infection, then

1) a mere drop in the incidence of the acute disease can no longer be accepted as a measure of true immunity; and

2) neither can the presence or concentration of specific antibodies, for the same reason as the diseases in question continue to break out even in serologically highly immune populations.

What would be a far more interesting and relevant measurement would be the degree to which a vaccine protects against the acute disease when it actually does break out, which could be readily ascertained by looking at its attack rate and severity among those fully or partly "immunized," as compared with their unvaccinated friends and neighbors. Although saying nothing about the possibility of immunosuppression, such a study would at least give a truer measure of the vaccine's power to do what its proponents want them to do.

I cannot resist pointing out that all research of this kind requires a sizable group of unimmunized people, courtesy of the same parents who are refusing to vaccinate their kids despite the concerted efforts of the medical and public health authorities to intimidate and punish them. The same result could of course be achieved far more efficiently simply by making the vaccines optional, as they are in West Germany, Sweden, the UK, and other developed countries, and thus allowing the experimental and control groups in effect to select themselves. Conversely, our frantic efforts to secure 100% compliance with the present mandate succeed only in making such studies impossible.

A closely related kind of study would be to measure the effectiveness of revaccination at varying intervals after the original series, giving rise in this case to two control groups:

1) the same unvaccinated group, as before, and

2) another group of children previously vaccinated whose parents decided not to give them the subsequent booster dose.

Such a study would also measure the incidence and severity of the wild-type or acute disease when it does break out, rather than merely the titer or level of circulating antibody, which is probably far less relevant. On the basis of the preliminary investigations I cited in the text, my hunch is that both the primary and booster doses of vaccine give considerably less protection in these situations than either a simple drop in incidence or a rise in antibody titer would indicate. Furthermore, both kinds of study could easily be carried out in suitable animal populations, using vaccines against important diseases peculiar to each species, like canine distemper, leptospirosis, feline leukemia, and so forth, inasmuch as our basic concern remains the efficacy and mode of action of vaccines in general.

The third possibility would be to consider the relationship between specific antibody levels and "immunity" in the larger sense, as outlined above. This could be done relatively simply by measuring baseline antibody titers at regular intervals in everybody, and then retrospectively comparing them in a subgroup of vaccinated kids who later developed the disease with another comparable subgroup who did not. Finally, both could be compared with identical subgroups among the unvaccinated, all or most of whom would presumably show no measurable titers at all prior to exposure.

How Do the Vaccines Act?
As I argued in the text, the problem with such studies is that they all systematically ignore the crucial possibility that vaccines may also act immunosuppressively and thus provoke or elicit a variety of chronic diseases more or less insidiously over long periods of time. This is precisely why the question of their effectiveness ultimately cannot be studied in isolation, without also addressing their mechanism of action in a more comprehensive fashion. Indeed, the narrow issue of "effectiveness" is itself quite misleading, since it tends to focus our attention on the classic acute disease, and to ignore the broad spectrum of biological responses associated with bacteria, viruses, and the vaccines derived from them, including latent, subclinical, and chronic infection as well. In particular, we are already well acquainted with many situations in which inability to develop acute disease represents the exact opposite of good health, i. e., a condition of chronic immune tolerance rather than true immunity.

At the most basic level, we need to study the effect of vaccines both acutely and over the long term on various paramaters of general health and illness. In the case of the pertussis vaccine, for example, careful prospective studies could measure the incidence and severity of blood and CNS abnormalities after vaccination at the usual times and at standard intervals before and after. This could be done relatively inexpensively by performing complete blood counts (CBC's), brief neurological exams, and simple behavioral and psychological assessments on self-selected groups of vaccinated and unvaccinated children.

As a supplement to the above, a number of clinical variables could also be followed at the time of "well-child" and other pediatric visits, such as the incidence and severity of important childhood illnesses like URI's, tonsil, throat, sinus, and ear infections, growth and developmental retardation, swollen glands, and the like, in vaccinated and unvaccinated kids over a period of years. The same format would also make it possible to sort out patterns of morbidity peculiar to each particular vaccine. Once again, the crucial importance of large groups of unvaccinated subjects is evident. With regard to pertussis, my clinical experience so far strongly suggests that the vaccinated group would show a much higher incidence and morbidity from chronic and recurrent infections, with significantly higher rates of complications and disability (myringotomy, hearing loss, poor school performance, etc.).

Finally, the same children could be followed through latency and adolescence to ascertain the prevalence and severity of the whole gamut of chronic ailments, including eczema and asthma, rheumatoid arthritis and systemic lupus, ulcerative colitis and Crohn's disease, MS and other degenerative diseases, hyperactivity and learning disabilities, school and behavior problems, and leukemia and other forms of cancer. I hope I'm wrong, but once again my clinical impression suggests that the vaccinated group would fare significantly worse in all of these categories.

Another more limited study could trace the effect of vaccines on the prevalence and morbidity of other acute infections to which these same children were exposed (influenza, hepatitis, mono, Lyme disease, etc.), to determine whether and to what extent the vaccination process interferes with the immune system's ability to develop an acute response to infection. In this case, there would be two control groups:

1) unvaccinated kids who were later exposed to influenza, hepatitis, mono, and the like; and

2) unvaccinated kids who contracted and recovered from vaccine-preventable diseases (measles, mumps, or whatever) prior to their exposure to influenza, mono, hepatitis, etc.

Here I could simply confess a theoretical bias that both control groups, while perhaps as likely to contract the diseases in question, would show less acute and chronic morbidity as a result of it than their vaccinated counterparts, a bias for which I would gladly substitute more accurate information.

It would also be comparatively simple to design acceptable animal studies along these same lines, to consider the possibility of vaccines acting immunosuppressively. After vaccinating or not vaccinating a given species against the diseases routinely targeted for that animal, we could then measure, for example, leucocyte and macrophage activity both in vivo and in vitro in response to various challenges, such as exposure to unrelated infections, allergens, and chemicals. Other possibilities might include comparing standard liver-function tests and the ability of the spleen and bone marrow in both vaccinated and unvaccinated animals to reject homografts or to respond to hemorrhage or blood transfusion if necessary.

Finally, on the cellular level, cytogenetic studies could also show the effect of vaccination on karyotype and chromosome morphology, beginning with "target" cells for which the vaccine has a known affinity (e. g., liver parenchymal cells in hepatitis, parotid acinar cells in mumps, etc.). With the help of electron microscopy, painstaking examination could also detect the presence of viral DNA or RNA "episomes" or particles inside these same cells, and confirm the suspicion of latency and chronic infection in the case of the live vaccines at least.

In any case, regardless of which studies are actually carried out, the point is that the technology to do them already exists. The only obstacle to their being done is our own refusal to acknowledge the likelihood that vaccines are not simply "wonder drugs" producing specific antibodies and nothing more, but complex, biological agents whose effects on the human organism are virtually unknown and urgently need to be investigated.

© 2000 by Richard Moskowitz, M. D.


Dr. Lorraine Day, an internationally acclaimed orthopedic trauma surgeon and best selling author was for 15 years on the faculty of the University of California, San Francisco, School of Medicine as Associate Professor and Vice Chairman of the Department of Orthopedics. She was also Chief of Orthopedic Surgery at San Francisco General Hospital and is recognized world-wide as an AIDS expert.

She has been invited to lecture extensively throughout the U.S. and the world and has appeared on numerous radio and television shows including 60 minutes, Nightline, CNN Crossfire, Oprah Winfrey, Larry King Live, The 700 Club, John Ankerberg Show, USA Radio Network, Art Bell Radio Show, Three Angels Broadcasting Network and Trinity Broadcasting Network.


Vaccines are injections of material that contains weakened amounts of the disease germ that they are meant to protect against. They are said to work by causing the formation of antibodies, which are proteins that defend the body from an invasion by harmful germs. Orthodox medicine contends that we can only be absolved from the peril of infection by vaccination, which involves injecting into the system infectious material which is supposed to confer lifelong immunity, hence the term "immunization."   Vaccinations are now mandatory in order for a student to enter school. Any child who is not vaccinated is not allowed into school with the reason given that that child will put all the other children at risk for disease. However, it is important to ask this question. If all the other children are vaccinated and vaccination gives immunity to the disease, how could an unvaccinated child put any of these other children at risk? Only the child himself could be at risk for the disease, and that should be the business of that particular child and his or her parents. It should be virtually impossible, if vaccinations actually work, for an unvaccinated child who may get a particular disease, to give it to other children who have been vaccinated.  But, in fact, vaccinations don't work! They are not effective! They do not give immunity! In addition, they are very dangerous!  An alarming observation comes from a London practitioner of excellent reputation and long experience. Dr. Hurbert Snow, Senior Surgeon at the Cancer Hospital of London, voiced his concern, "In recent years many men and women in the prime of life dropped dead suddenly, often after attending a feast or a banquet. I am convinced that some 80% of these deaths are caused by the vaccinations they have undergone. They are well known to cause grave and permanent disease to the heart. The coroner always hushes it up as "natural causes."  Another practitioner, Dr. W. B. Clark of Indiana, says that "Cancer was practically unknown until compulsory vaccination with cowpox vaccine began to be introduced. I have had to deal with at least two hundred cases of cancer, and I never saw a case of cancer in an unvaccinated person."  Yet the government has mandated compulsory vaccinations!   Most people trust vaccines to be safe and effective. The government is mandating children to be vaccinated at earlier and earlier ages, when they are very fragile and far more vulnerable to the introduction of foreign materials into their tiny bodies.  The public and the medical profession have been totally convinced that it was the introduction of vaccinations that caused the decrease in the incidence of polio.   Polio is virtually non-existent in the United States today. However, there is no credible scientific evidence that the vaccine caused polio to disappear. Before the Salk polio vaccine was introduced in 1953, the polio death rate in the United States had already declined by 47% on its own. It had also declined by 55% in England. Other European countries also showed a similar decline. When the vaccine did become available, many European countries questioned its effectiveness and refused to inoculate their citizens. Yet polio epidemics also ended in those countries.   The number of reported cases of polio after mass inoculations with the vaccine was significantly greater than before mass inoculations. And in many states the incidence of polio more than doubled after inoculations were introduced. In Rhode Island there was a 450 % increase, and in Massachusetts almost a 650 % increase in polio cases after the introduction of polio vaccinations.  After the vaccine was introduced, cases of polio were often reported under another name, aseptic meningitis, rather than as polio, even though they were counted as "polio" before the vaccine was introduced.  In 1976 Dr. Jonas Salk, creator of the killed virus vaccine that was used throughout the 1950s testified that the live virus vaccine produced by Dr. Sabin, and which was used almost exclusively in the United States since the early 1960s, was the "principle if not sole cause" of all reported cases of polio in the United States since 1961. According to the Centers for Disease Control figures, 87% of all cases of polio in the United States between 1973 and 1983 were caused by the vaccine. It is now admitted that since 1979 virtually every case of polio in the United States has been CAUSED by the vaccine.   The same situation holds true for nearly all other diseases including diphtheria, measles, rubella, mumps and whooping cough. In virtually all of these diseases, the incidence was dropping dramatically before the introduction of the vaccine. And since the introduction of the vaccine, close to 100% of all cases of the disease are in individuals who have been vaccinated for that particular disease, proving clearly, that vaccinations are not effective and they often cause the very disease they are supposed to prevent.  It is not a mystery as to why vaccinations are not effective. First, the natural immunity mechanism in the human body is designed to work when the disease develops in its natural way. When the normal route of immune system stimulation is bypassed by injection of the microorganism (bacteria or virus) through the skin, then effective immunity against the disease does not develop. One obvious factor proving that vaccinations are not effective is that an individual has to keep getting booster shots. If a person develops polio, measles, mumps, whooping cough or any other contagious disease, he has virtual lifelong immunity from one episode of the disease. But when an individual is vaccinated, he must keep getting "booster" shots at regular intervals. The "booster" shots are "necessary" because --- vaccinations DON'T WORK! They are not effective! And neither are the "boosters." And the individual often succumbs to the very disease that he has been vaccinated to prevent, most often as a direct result of being vaccinated.  Now how about the safety of vaccines. Vaccines are grown in the laboratory in monkey kidney cells, in human cells which may be cancerous, in chick embryo and in guinea pig cells. The cells are nourished with the blood serum from calves, which may be contaminated with numerous diseases such as bovine leukemia virus, bovine AIDS virus, or other diseases that the animals may have. Chemicals such as aluminum, formaldehyde (a human carcinogen) and M.S.G are used in processing of the vaccines, and thiomerosal, a derivative of mercury and a deadly poison, is used as a preservative. These chemicals and potential diseases are all injected into your child's body or your body as part of the vaccine.  One of the earliest vaccines introduced for general use in the United States was the pertussis vaccine for whooping cough, which was put into general use during the 1940s. Autism, a form of childhood schizophrenia, characterized by mental retardation, muteness (an inability to speak) and lack of responsiveness to human contact, was not known or described until 1943, about the same time that vaccinations were introduced.   In addition, monitors placed on infants who have been vaccinated show severe alterations in breathing patterns after the DPT (Diphtheria/Pertussis/Tetanus) shot. A precise breathing monitor called Cotwatch was used in a special study of SIDS, Sudden Infant Death Syndrome, and the children's breathing patterns were measured before and after DPT vaccination. The data clearly demonstrate that vaccination caused an extraordinary increase in episodes where breathing nearly ceased or actually stopped completely! Doctor Viera Scheibner, the author of the study, concluded that "Vaccination is the single most prevalent and most preventable cause of infant deaths."   Developmental disabilities have increased dramatically since the introduction of vaccinations. And this not a mystery since post-vaccinal encephalitis, inflammation of the brain, occurs after vaccinations and can cause serious injury to the brain and nervous system. Suppression of the immune system, causing an increased susceptibility to all diseases, is another effect of vaccination.   In the 1950's another disorder rapidly spread among school children and became prominent in medical science and health literature: Hyperactivity/Minimal Brain Dysfunction (ADD, Attention Deficit Disorder or ADHD, Attention Deficit Hyperactive Disorder). These children usually exhibit symptoms of neurological damage, frequently associated with vaccinations  Genetic mutation is also a possibility because, for example, the polio vaccine contains monkey kidney cells and calf serum. The combination of measles, mumps and rubella vaccine is prepared in chick embryo. Monkey kidney, calf serum and chick embryo are all foreign proteins to the human biological matter composed of animal cells. Because they are injected directly into the bloodstream they are able to change our genetic structure.  During the 1950s and 1960s millions of people were injected with polio vaccines that were contaminated with the SV 40 virus found in monkey kidney cells and a powerful immunosuppressor and trigger for HIV, the virus that causes AIDS.   How about flu shots? Flu vaccine is made from LAST year's flu virus so it is totally ineffective against THIS year's flu virus. No one knows what virus will be causing the flu this year, but it is almost never the same virus as last year. All of the hazards of the other vaccines are true for flu shots as well. "In 1976 more than 500 people who received their flu shots were paralyzed with Guillain Barre Syndrome, a sudden-onset paralysis that can be fatal. Thirty of these people died. During the same year, the incidence of Guillain Barre among flu-vaccinated U.S. Army personnel was 50% greater than among unvaccinated civilians ." (The Risk of Immunizations and How to Avoid Them, by Robert Mendelsohn, Ph.D.) There is also a suspicious correlation between seasonal outbreaks of Legionnaire's disease and the inoculation with flu vaccines.  Dr. John Seal of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Disease says that "Any and all flu vaccines are capable of causing Guillain Barre." I personally would NEVER get a flu shot nor would I ever advise anyone else to get one.  The bottom line is that the best way to develop natural immunity is to build a healthy immune system by the proper diet and lifestyle. Eating a diet of fruits, grains, vegetables, seeds and nuts that are preferably organically grown, preservative free and in a natural unprocessed state as close to nature as possible, with 75% of your food eaten raw, is optimum. Eliminate all refined sugar, all animal products including meat, poultry, fish, eggs and dairy products (including milk, cheese, yogurt, cottage cheese, etc.). Fresh air, exercise, plenty of rest and relief of stress by trust in God as well as all of the other steps outlined on my video "You Can't Improve On God" are essential for health. This is the only effective way to remain free from disease. It is impossible to get sick if your immune system is functioning properly. Bacteria and viruses do NOT attack a healthy body, just as insects and plant diseases do NOT attack healthy plants.  This is startling information for a population brought up to believe that vaccinations are not only safe but life-saving. They're considered by most of the population as "American" as apple pie. How we have been deluded! But there is hope. Waivers for vaccinations are still available and you can investigate them by calling your public health department or, if that is unsuccessful, educate yourself by ordering a pamphlet called "Vaccine State Laws and Vaccine Exemptions" available from New Atlantean Press. Call 505-983-1856. Here are some additional books if you are interested in learning more on this subject. An excellent primer on vaccinations is entitled Vaccines: Are they Really Safe and Effective? by Neil Z. Miller  New Atlantean Press P.O. Box 9638, Santa Fe, NM 87504 (505) 983-1856  You can also order it through your book store.  Another informative book is: Murder By Injection, by Eustace Mullens  The National Council for Medical Research P.O. Box 1105, Staunton, VA 2440l  The story of the medical conspiracy against America.   A video documenting the dangers of vaccination entitled: Dangers and Ineffectiveness of Vaccinations, Including Scientific Correlations to Sudden Infant Death Syndrome, by Viera Scheibner, Ph.D.   New Atlantean Press P.O. Box 9638-T9, Santa Fe, NM 87504 505-983-1856  Though it is somewhat difficult to follow because of the presenter's heavy accent, this two-hour video contains much astounding and well-documented information.  Vaccination, by Viera Scheibner Ph.D. (book)  New Atlantean Press P.O. Box 9638-T9, Santa Fe, NM 87504 505-983-1856  According to Viera Scheibner, Ph.D., medical preventive measures are not credible. In this book she compiles scientific studies from throughout the world showing how vaccines are often ineffective and can damage the immune system, and she gives numerous examples from 1950 to 1992. Vaccination Condemned, book one, by Elben  Better Life Research P.O. Box 42002, Los Angeles, CA 90042  The intention of this book is to present enough authentic incriminating evidence against vaccination to prove that vaccination has already condemned itself. It we wait for the medical establishment, or the vaccine labs, or health departments, schools, press or government to condemn it, the wait will be fruitless as vaccination has been killing and disabling people by the thousands for 200 years, and those in authority have not stopped it yet, and do not intend to.


I am the doctor who gave the vaccine awareness presentation written about in the Arizona City Independent. I would like to thank you for your words of support against the ignorant members of the medical profession who continue to blindly condemn those who wish only to share the truth.
  Do you know Dr. Ted Koren? He is a wonderful chiropractor who has spent more than 2 decades studying vaccine research. Dr. Koren developed the excellent power point presentation I used as the basis for my talk. If you like, Email me and I can let you know how to contact him directly.
  Eight years ago, I believed the big lie. Then my son nearly died from his second "well baby visit?" He ran a fever, was extremely lethargic, vomited often, and had a mild rash for several days. Note that these were all symptoms that pediatricians tell parents are "normal reactions to the vaccine." On day 6, he hardly stirred. His eyes began to roll back into his head. We were told not to worry.
  I am convinced that Bryan was spared only by the grace of God. I have read the heart-wrenching stories of parents describing the path where their healthy child became sick, autistic, paralyzed, or died after vaccinations. I even worked with a woman who's son had the exact same symptoms after
vaccination which led immediately to severe autism.
  Based upon research and case histories, there is a very high probability that, had we followed our pediatrician's and school nurses advice to continue vaccinating him, that he would be dead or severely disabled.   But our hearts and common sense led us down another path. Bryan has never received another vaccine. Instead, we began a course of intensive chiropractic care and have made sure he eats a healthy diet.
  Bryan responded so well to the chiropractic care which started at 7 months of age that I returned to school an emerged as a chiropractor 5 years later. The results of this decision are as follows. Bryan is now an extremely healthy 8-year-old. Bryan has no medical record since a mild case of RSV at 14 months. He has not seen a medical doctor since. He has not taken a single medication since. He has not had an ear infection. He has not had a cold. He has not had the flu. He has not missed a single day of school for health reasons in 3 years.
  Bryan's story teaches us all a valuable lesson. Health does not come from a pill, potion, or vaccine- sickness does. Health comes from the internal inborn healing power of the body. The best thing we can do for our children is to simply support the natural processes of health and healing- and not screw it up!
  We are expecting our second child this winter. As God is my witness, this child will never be assualted by the toxins and poisons contained in vaccines. I would rather go to jail than allow my child to be pointlessly injured. Fortunately, this won't be necessary.   Thank you again for your kind words of support. I look forward to further correspondence. It's time to strengthen the coalition and push for truth, justice and freedom. Our children deserve it!
  Dr. Brad Burke, D.C.

Excellent website!,0,7742625.story?c
Los Angeles Times
March 7, 2005

Doctor Contrarian
Parents fearful of vaccines flock to him; experts denounce his stance.
By Hilary E. MacGregor
Times Staff Writer

A pregnant mother from Topanga Canyon has brought her toddler son to Dr. Jay Gordon for a checkup. Her son received all the recommended vaccinations, but she wonders aloud if she should do the same for her second child, who is due in a few months.

It's a topic about which Gordon is passionate. Parents from around Southern California choose Gordon for his outspoken and controversial stance on vaccinations, driving from as far away as Santa Barbara and Long Beach. They know he will lend a sympathetic ear to their concerns about the possible adverse side effects of childhood vaccinations - even though several large scientific studies have failed to find a connection. His openness to alternative approaches has earned him an avid following. With thousands of patients, his practice is so busy that he no longer accepts new patients.

"What is normal for the first year?" asks Robyn Forman, the pregnant mother, who has been seeing Gordon since her son turned 1. "I prefer to give no vaccines or just the DPT during the first year," Gordon responds. "DPT is relevant because you can get whooping cough-diphtheria." He rattles off information: There have been no new polio cases in the U.S. for the last decade; it's highly unlikely that a young child would contract hepatitis B; there are only a few dozen cases of tetanus in this country each year.

"In my opinion, we vaccinate in an unscientific and potentially dangerous way," he says. Gordon is not anti-vaccine. He acknowledges the benefits of vaccines, but prefers to vaccinate later and slower. No one knows for sure how many other doctors take a similar stance. But it is rare for a pediatrician to be so outspoken on the subject. Gordon's views put him at odds with virtually all of his colleagues. Experts on vaccination consider his attitude socially irresponsible, unscientific and just plain wrong.

Dr. James Cherry, a pediatrician at UCLA's David Geffen School of Medicine who has conducted vaccine research since the 1960s, and who has consulted for vaccine manufacturers, puts it more bluntly: "He is endangering the lives of children." In recent years, childhood vaccinations have become a lightning rod for some parents who are concerned that their children may develop autism, epilepsy or learning disabilities from certain immunizations. While there is little or no scientific evidence to support links between these diseases and vaccines, the issue has become such a loaded topic between doctors and patients that the leading professional organization for pediatricians is preparing a formal statement - due out this spring - to provide guidance to doctors on how to deal with parents who are resistant to vaccinating.

Public health officials believe vaccinations are a matter of social responsibility. If enough doctors, and enough patients, choose not to vaccinate, it might endanger the public's health and allow deadly diseases that have been eradicated, or nearly so, to reemerge as significant threats. Gordon is steadfast in his controversial stance. He will repeat his views on vaccination to parents throughout the day. As patients pepper him with questions, he patiently answers.  "I have 15 to 20 patients from Santa Barbara," he says. "The reason is, no one will talk to them about vaccines. They need to talk."

Targeting a dozen diseases

The number of recommended vaccinations for children up to 24 months has nearly tripled since 1988, according to the national Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Currently, the CDC recommends vaccination against 12 diseases. Because some vaccines must be given more than once, a child could get as many as 23 shots by age 2. While the timing of shots may vary with different doctors, a child might receive as many as six shots during a single doctor's visit.

Beyond the inconvenience of frequent doctor visits and children's fear of needles, the biggest source of parental concern about vaccines is the claim that these shots might be linked to a rise in autism rates. Between 1987 and 2002 there has been a more than six-fold increase in autism cases in California, according to a 2003 report by the state Department of Development Services. So far, researchers have been unable to explain the reason for the increase.

Because autism begins to manifest itself during the same period when young children are receiving many of their vaccinations, some parents believe that the vaccinations may have triggered the disorder. Thousands of parents across the country have filed lawsuits in the U.S. Court of Federal Claims alleging that thimerosal, a form of mercury used as a preservative in pediatric vaccines until 2002, was responsible for their children's autism or other neurological disorders.

No major scientific study has shown any link between vaccines and autism, or any other neurological disorder. But anecdotal stories by parents of what has happened following vaccinations - often circulated on the Internet - have heightened many parents' anxiety about shots. Because some childhood diseases - polio, for example - are virtually unseen today, some parents are more frightened of the vaccines than the diseases, experts say. "Immunizations have been so good, and diseases so rare, that people have forgotten what they are, the types of damage they can do to children, including killing them," said Dr. Jay M. Lieberman, who is chief of pediatric infectious diseases at Miller Children's Hospital in Long Beach, and who has been a paid consultant to vaccine

As a result, parents have become increasingly assertive about questioning pediatricians on the need to follow the vaccine schedule. And, in some instances, parents are refusing their pediatrician's recommendation to vaccinate.

Parental concern about vaccination has become relatively common, says Dr. Jeffrey Botkin, professor of pediatrics and medical ethics at the University of Utah. Surveys have shown that a small percentage of physicians feel so strongly about the benefits of immunizations that they refuse to work with patients who will not vaccinate. "These physicians will dismiss these families from their practice," says Botkin, who is chairing an American Academy of Pediatrics bioethics committee that is preparing the statement on childhood vaccinations. The academy hopes to encourage pediatricians to be open-minded about parents' concerns, while at the same time emphasizing the importance of sticking to the vaccination schedule, Botkin says. Despite parental concerns, the number of children receiving childhood immunizations continues to rise in Los Angeles County. In 1998, 70.5% of children between 19 and 35 months had been vaccinated. By 2003, that number climbed to 80.3%, said Dr. Jonathan Fielding, Los Angeles County's public health director. One reason behind the rising rates: Public and private schools require children be vaccinated before admission.

Today, 18 states, including California, will waive the vaccination requirement if parents request a "philosophical exemption." The rate of vaccination exemptions for children enrolling in kindergarten in L.A. County remains below 1%, though the rate has inched upward during the last decade, Fielding said.

A homeopathic approach

Gordon's homey Santa Monica office on Montana Avenue, housed in a Streamline Moderne building across from a school, looks like any pediatrician's office. Toys are scattered across the waiting room floor. Pictures of beautiful children adorn the walls. After medical school at the Medical College of Wisconsin, Gordon did his residency at Childrens Hospital Los Angeles, and began his career in the office of Dr. Paul Fleiss, a Los Feliz pediatrician. It was there that Gordon first encountered patients who were interested in alternative therapies. These are themes that feature prominently in his practice today. He is an advocate of homeopathy and encourages mothers to breastfeed as long as possible and endorses the idea of parents allowing their young children to sleep with them in a "family bed."

A quotation taped to the wall by the receptionist reads: "I don't always go into details about the possible side effects of drugs. I tell them all drugs are poisons with possible beneficial side effects."
In 1980, Gordon said he was giving the standard DPT shot to his patients. "More than occasionally I would get calls from parents saying, 'Ever since that shot, my child has been a little different. I can't put my finger on it . but they are different."

Gordon's suspicions would later be confirmed. Many in the medical community now acknowledge that the old DPT vaccine caused damage to the brain in rare cases, says Dr. John Menkes, professor emeritus of neurology and pediatrics at UCLA's David Geffen School of Medicine. In 1996, a new vaccine with no side effects was introduced.

Gordon said those early experiences helped shape his beliefs about vaccines. His practice began to subtly shift. He said he started giving many fewer vaccines. Gordon acknowledges the role of vaccinations in improving public health and controlling disease. But he believes that if a child has an underlying neurological disorder, a vaccination may trigger the disorder to become active. So for certain shots - polio, hepatitis B for the first decade of life, Hib (to prevent meningitis) - the risks outweigh the benefits, he says.

In 25 years of practicing medicine, he says he has seen enough examples of strange reactions to vaccines that he cannot ignore them. Gordon isn't the only doctor who believes that parents' views about vaccinations should be carefully considered. Dr. Robert Sears in San Clemente, coauthor of the popular parenting guide "The Baby Book," says most pediatricians in south Orange County refuse to accept a child as a patient unless they follow the vaccination schedule. Sears allows patients to make their own choices.

"I think it is pretty clear that thimerosal does contribute to neurologic disorders," he says. "Whether or not that has truly contributed to autism, I leave that to the public health officials." Although Gordon says he has no set of recommendations, he discusses the risks and benefits of all vaccines with patients and prefers to vaccinate later and over a longer period. On a recent day, he advised parents to avoid vaccination during the first year - with the exception of the DPT - then reassess after the child's first birthday. If a parent chooses not to vaccinate at all, he supports that decision. He refuses to vaccinate siblings in families with an autistic child.

Gordon does not shun the spotlight. He has written five books, consulted on television scripts, appeared on "Good Morning America," and been an on-air medical correspondent for ABC's "Home Show." He cites medical studies that he says show some association between mercury and autism and is critical of doctors who say there is no link whatsoever between the two. "They could say there is a tenuous connection, or an improbable connection," but to say there is no connection is inaccurate, he asserts. Gordon's theories are considered heretical by many who study vaccines and infectious disease.

"There is not a single scientific, medical, or public health group that would endorse such a policy," says Dr. Joel I. Ward, director of UCLA's Center for Vaccine Research, who has performed several studies with vaccine manufacturers. "It is unorthodox, unsanctioned, and in my view, irresponsible. For those who are not experts in this field to customize the vaccine schedule is dangerous medicine." Other vaccine experts say doctors such as Gordon - and his patients who decide not to adhere to the vaccination schedule - benefit from the fact that most parents do follow the rules.

"Many of his patients will be fine with that schedule," says Lieberman, of Miller Children's Hospital in Long Beach. "The reason is, they are relying on the goodwill of others. So when unvaccinated children are in school, they are still less likely to get the disease because their classmates have been vaccinated."

How we vaccinate should be based on science, not theories or anecdotes, says Lieberman.

"Science tells us how safe vaccines are. There are 4 million infants getting vaccines each year. Why should it surprise anybody that some of those children develop colds, or fevers, or have seizures, or even die of SIDS [Sudden Infant Death Syndrome]. But the fact that those events happen following vaccinations in no way means that vaccines cause that." Whatever the professional opinion, Gordon inspires intense devotion from his patients. "There is nobody like him," says Allyson Sanger, a mother of three daughters, ages 18 months, 4 and 6, who drives from Hollywood to see Gordon. "The information out there is just so frightening; I couldn't read it any more." Carly Rodriguez, a mother of a 22-month-old who lives in the South Bay, said she wanted to be able to discuss her vaccine concerns with a doctor and be taken seriously. She said she was frightened by information she read on , a website produced by the National Vaccine Information Center, an organization led by parents who advocate reforming the vaccination system, and stories in Mothering magazine.

"I can't imagine the feeling of horror that a parent must feel after they take a child for a vaccination and the child begins to exhibit a reaction like that," she says. Gordon's way of practicing medicine carries risks. By not following the recommended vaccination schedule he is going against his profession's standard of care - and leaving himself open to malpractice claims. He acknowledges that his support of delayed vaccinations could end up harming, perhaps fatally, one of his young patients if they contract a preventable disease. But he believes the risks of vaccinating can sometimes outweigh the benefits.

"I would feel horrible," he says, when asked about the possibility that one of his patients would become seriously ill or die from a preventable disease. "And yet I would recognize that both they and I long ago accepted responsibility for the statistical possibility that these diseases still exist and children can get them." Between patients, a nurse hands Gordon the laboratory results for a family that has come to his office. Two of their children have tested positive for whooping cough. And the mother is now coughing. This is a family that has decided against all vaccinations.

"Anybody could hold me liable," Gordon says, before calling the family. "I can say, 'I told you [there were risks],' and they could tell me, 'No you didn't. You didn't tell us how bad it was. You didn't tell us that I would be missing two weeks of work. You didn't tell us about the anxiety involved.' " Gordon makes the call. The parents do not blame him. He breathes a sigh of relief, then heads off to see his next patient.
2002 article

Who Is Protecting The Public Health?
by Meryl Nass

In 1982, as a newly qualified doctor, I spent a lot of time in the library reading review articles about my patients’ diseases. Twenty years later, my time in the library is too often spent reading about problems and conflicts of interest within the medical establishment. Here are a few examples: Industry-funded research results in a much higher proportion of studies showing positive results for new drugs, compared to publicly funded research. Flawed regulatory oversight resulted in licensing, then withdrawal, of many dangerous drugs in the past five years. Established protections for human subjects in medical research, which did not prevent the deaths of several subjects in high-profile cases recently, are being undermined.

A recent Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA) reported that a full nine out of ten doctors on committees that develop clinical guidelines had financial ties to the industry whose products they recommend. Six of ten doctors had financial ties to companies whose drugs were considered in the guidelines they wrote. Pharmaceutical companies paid for the
development of 25% of the guidelines.

If medical research is being done properly, with good controls and enough subjects for statistical validity, why do so many studies yield answers that are in direct opposition to each other?

It was widely reported recently that mammograms do not save lives; the studies that had claimed they did, were fatally flawed when they were (finally) carefully examined. There is no question that use of mammograms leads to earlier diagnosis of breast cancer than not using mammograms. But this does not result in improved life expectancy. Does it mean that we should stop seeking early detection for breast cancer—that breast cancer is in some way different from all other cancers?

Are we even asking the right question? Is the problem the mammogram or is the problem that aggressive treatment of breast cancer could actually decrease life expectancy in many cases, so that overall there is no treatment benefit in this disease? Is anybody performing solid research to answer the question?

Because there exists a multi-billion dollar establishment that deals with breast cancer in a fairly monolithic way, one is limited as to what questions are allowed to be asked. You can ask, but who will fund your research? Research funded by the federal government is generally constrained to stay within the existing boundaries of disease management, despite its public funding. It will often mirror corporate-sponsored research.

When you don’t ask the right questions in clinical research, you can obtain answers that result in worse patient care. Corporate sponsors of research are not going to spend millions for a trial that could produce an answer in conflict with their goals, if they can avoid it.

Institutional Protections?

Over the last decade there has been a shift backward by regulatory agencies charged with protecting the public health. Although the shift at FDA has been blamed on the 1992 Prescription Drug User Fee charged to the manufacturer to review new drugs and to expedite drug approval, the problems seem to be much more profound. Years ago, a new treatment had to be proven safe before it could be used; during the past eight to ten years, unless there was significant evidence of danger, new drugs were assumed to be safe. In a 1998 survey, FDA’s medical officers reported that standards for drug approval had declined. Last May, Richard Horton, editor of the Lancet,  described the FDA’s process for the re-licensing of a drug that had earlier been taken off the market. He explained, step by step, how the FDA had a “two track process, one official and transparent, one unofficial and covert.” The FDA controlled the composition of its advisory committee and its agenda, so the committee would not overturn the agreement already made between senior FDA staff and industry executives. Clearly, there is a big problem at FDA.

A move to weaken human subject protections in clinical research has occurred parallel to this weakening of drug oversight. The Center for Disease Control (CDC) recently sponsored a trial of post-exposure anthrax vaccine use. The FDA approved the trial. The study’s consent form acknowledged that preliminary data showed anthrax vaccine could cause birth defects. Since, for the preceding two months, antibiotic treatment had been 100% successful at preventing anthrax in those exposed, it was not at all obvious that vaccination offered any additional benefit. Yet pregnant women were invited to enroll as subjects.

But that wasn’t the end of it. The FDA approved the license for anthrax vaccine and approved a new anthrax vaccine label, which became public five weeks after the CDC study began. The new label clearly states that no animal experiments have ever been performed to determine the vaccine’s effect on pregnancy.

What logic led both the CDC and the FDA to experiment on human fetuses in the complete absence of animal fertility data? These agencies have lost sight of their mandate to protect public health. Their lack of ethics might have been influenced by the Defense Department’s contribution to their budgets, which amounted to $2.5 billion last year for the CDC.

Additional moves are afoot to weaken the protections for children in clinical research. The Jesse Gelsinger case, in which a teenager died from participation in a gene therapy experiment from which no personal benefit was expected, demonstrated that fully informed consent is often missing in clinical trials. Informed consent is presented to potential participants by the researcher, who has a vested interest in signing up subjects. Its oversight by institutional review boards tends to be cursory. In the Gelsinger case, the principal investigator, along with the University of Pennsylvania, had a large financial stake in the outcome of the experiment.

Perhaps half the drugs used in children have never been licensed for pediatric use. They are prescribed “off-label” by clinicians. For many drugs, such as antibiotics, which have demonstrated safety and efficacy over many millions of doses, this is not a problem. Both patients and doctors are perfectly satisfied using such drugs in the pediatric population, on or off label.

But in the case of other drugs, such as psychotropic medications, many doctors are loathe to prescribe for children without adequate pediatric testing. Drugs that are given indefinitely are better moneymakers than antibiotics, which are only used for ten days at a time. So expanding approvals for chronic drug use into the pediatric age group could yield handsome rewards.

Perhaps as a result, the rules for using children in clinical research are being undermined. No longer would a child need to clearly demonstrate potential benefit from a new treatment before being enrolled in a trial; proposed rules would allow a child who is “at risk of” the condition to be used as a subject. But most of us are “at risk of” most diseases.

Furthermore, new consent forms have been developed that allow adolescents to provide a modicum of “informed consent.” (They were used in CDC’s recent anthrax vaccine trial.)

Using Bioterrorism Fears

You cannot compel people to become experimental subjects: that is the legacy of Nuremberg. If a drug or vaccine is not fully licensed, it cannot be forced on anyone.  But it is desirable to have drugs ready to counteract a chemical or biological attack. If the illnesses anticipated from an attack do not occur naturally in the population, one cannot test the new drugs for effectiveness. It would be unethical to expose people to a chemical or disease just to test whether the new drug is truly protective.

That results in a conundrum: if you have to prove effectiveness in human trials to license a drug, but you can’t do the trial, then you can’t license the drug. If the drug is not licensed, it can be used with informed consent, but you cannot force people to take it. The Defense Department was not satisfied with that. There is no provision for informed consent on the
battlefield and a soldier who refuses an experimental treatment could endanger the lives of his colleagues, so they said.

President Clinton issued Presidential Order 13139 to deal with this situation. It allowed the president, in consultation with the Secretary of Defense and the FDA Commissioner, to require that troops take experimental drugs or vaccines in special circumstances.

That should have been adequate to take care of the situation, but the federal authorities were still not satisfied. The National Research Council (of the National Academies of Science) was contracted to report on protecting troops from bioterroism. “How can we ensure safety of troops if we have to go through an onerous two or five years of certification [for new drug approval]?” asked Robert Love, the study director. His June 2001report recommended that the Army seek exemptions from some regulatory approval processes to speed up the development of new medical treatments.

CDC did its part by contracting with Laurence Gostin, a law professor at Georgetown University and professor of public health at Johns Hopkins University, to create a Model Law that the states would be encouraged to use. It would give state officials the authority to involuntarily quarantine and vaccinate citizens, among other things. Does it seem odd that Health and Human Services is giving the states a blueprint to consolidate control over their citizens in the event of bioattack?

The FDA had already embraced the new regulatory culture. How better to both speed up drug approvals and save the president the political cost of contravening the Nuremberg Convention than by weakening the current requirements for drug licensing?

After acknowledging that the effectiveness of bioterrorism drugs could not be tested in humans, and therefore animal efficacy tests should be used instead, FDA prepared to throw out the baby with the bathwater. In 1999, hints that human safety testing would be jettisoned as a requirement for licensure began to appear.  The 1999 Annual Report for FDA’s Center for Biologics said: “A research program to produce vaccines, therapeutics and drugs to treat [bioterrorism] outbreaks faces the challenge of not being able to proceed with Phase III efficacy clinical trials. Given ethical and safety concerns that would rule out infecting human subjects with a deadly organism in order to test a vaccine or therapeutic for efficacy, trials with humans cannot be undertaken. Therefore, the regulatory process for approval of treatments must be modified to permit the emergency use of antibiotics, therapeutics and vaccines that have been shown to be safe and effective in animal models.”

Wait just one minute. Nobody needs to be infected with anything to test drug or vaccine safety. All you do is administer the drug or vaccine and watch the recipient for possible adverse effects. Could this leap of faith in animal models have been a mistake? After all, it is universally acknowledged that human adverse effects cannot be extrapolated from animal
tests. Each species responds uniquely to a drug or vaccine. Vaccines that are safe in some species can be fatal in other species and this cannot be accurately predicted ahead of time.

Unfortunately, it looks like there is no mistake. The director of FDA’s Center for Biologics, Kathryn Zoon, published a paper in “Emerging Infectious Diseases” in which she reiterated the call to fully license drugs for bioterrorism in the absence of any human testing. She said that once licensed, the safety of the drugs can be assessed. It is hard to reconcile this philosophy with Zoon’s role as a federal regulator charged with protecting the public health.

The latest episode in this saga concerns Congress’s role in bioterrorism prevention. A bill designed to fund federal bioterrorism efforts, called the Public Health Security and Bioterrorism Response Act of 2001 was passed in December by both the House (HR 3448) and the Senate (Senate Amendment 2692) on the same day it was introduced.Both the House and Senate versions of the bill contain a provision mandating that FDA finalize and implement a 1999 Notice of Proposed Rulemaking. This action would allow animal efficacy tests to be sufficient to fully license drugs and vaccines intended for bioterrorism. Although safety testing is not explicitly addressed in the bill, given the statements made by FDA above, it appears that safety testing in humans may be waived as well, as a requirement for licensure. 

Another way to look at this bill’s provision is as a way of getting around the absolute requirement for informed consent. As was pointed out earlier, people are allowed to use experimental drugs and vaccines, as long as the FDA has approved the experimental use and the patient or subject has provided informed consent. By licensing what would previously have remained an experimental drug, one opens up the possibility of forced use, with no need for informed consent. The Nuremberg Convention, first nibbled at by mandating use of experimental drugs in the Gulf War, looks like it is about to be completely overturned.

This bill is now in conference committee. Congress should be informed that despite having undergone human safety and efficacy tests to be licensed, many drugs and vaccines have still had to be withdrawn from use due to severe side effects, including death. These side effects were usually not discovered until the drugs were given to large numbers of people.

In the case of drugs and vaccines for bioterrorism, it is likely that, following an attack, the entire country will receive a drug or vaccine in a crash program, over days or weeks. This leaves no time to assess the adverse event profile of the drug in smaller numbers of people, before it is given to the entire population. If the Model Law is used, forced acceptance of drugs or vaccines that have never been tested in a single human could be demanded of the entire U.S. population. One poor choice of a drug or vaccine that is later found to be dangerous could have a dire effect on a very large number of people.
Human safety testing is not something we should allow to go by the board.