ABC NEWS Commentary on Vaccine Debate
By Nicholas Regush

The vaccine debate continues its breakthrough into the mainstream media. I hope the latest congressional hearing on childhood vaccines doesn't turn out to be yet another flash-in-the-pan noisemaker that fizzles into a lame, embarrassing (and to some communities, X-rated) genuflection to the status quo. These lawmaker health issue "hearings" typically end up pimping to the interests of high-flyer doctors and scientists and the pharmaceutical industry that adores and nurses them.

I'm sure the goal - exploring the vaccine safety issue - was well intentioned. Rep. Dan Burton, R-Indiana, the chairman of the House Government Reform Committee, became concerned after two of his grandchildren developed side effects and a child known to his family died following vaccination. Skeptical that the three events could simply be coincidence, Burton wondered how often this actually occurs.

Dig Deep, Dan. So along comes U.S. Surgeon General David Satcher to inform the committee about the benefits of mass childhood vaccination, in particular that vaccines have protected us from once rampaging diseases such as polio, measles, tetanus and meningitis. Sure, serious side effects can occur, Satcher said, but they're rare, and the benefits far outweigh any risks. In fact, vaccines are thought by the many to be safest, most effective medicines we have. Well, maybe so. I'm sure it would feel terrific to be as hopeful as Satcher about the risk-benefit ratio. But I trust Burton is not moved by knee-jerk propaganda any more than I am and is interested in real science. The problem, if he checks, is he'll probably end up asking, "What science?"

And that's when he should get some serious hearings in gear. I know, it's tough to brush up against motherhood and apple pie, but if he's truly interested in digging into vaccine safety, then I suggest he buy himself a very big, strong shovel. If Burton really wants to know how many vaccine side effects occur in this country, he will be hard-pressed to arrive at a satisfying answer. Studies to monitor reactions to new vaccines are very short-term, sometimes lasting only weeks after vaccination. And then it's up to doctors to report reactions to the FDA, which they do, of course, but this is voluntary and assumes physicians can actually make the connection between an illness and a vaccine.

Each year, the FDA handles about 12,000 vaccine-related reports, but readily admits that this represents only a fraction of actual side effects. Burton would also be strapped to find much research exploring how multiple vaccinations might affect the body's immune system, possibly leading to a variety of diseases, including diabetes and asthma. Where are the long-term clinical trials and laboratory research to probe this potentially hellish connection?

I presume Burton is aware that often when researchers suggest a link between vaccines and disease, they are attacked as less than scientific and portrayed as mavericks that are only frightening the public. Take the situation of Bart Classen, a Maryland physician who published data showing that diabetes rates rose significantly in New Zealand following a massive hepatitis B vaccine campaign in young children, and that diabetes rates also went up sharply in Finland after three new childhood vaccines were introduced. Classen took a poke from a vaccine advocacy group who put the word out to some of us at ABCNEWS that he was a lone wolf who had misinterpreted the data. Classen would be the first to recommend more research. But why bother promoting further research or debating the science when it's easier to protect your interests by smearing someone?

And then there were the British doctors who published data on 12 children showing a possible link between a measles, mumps and rubella vaccine and two illnesses, a new bowel disease and autism. They took nasty hits from both sides of the Atlantic from vaccine researchers who claimed they were needlessly frightening the public with information that was only preliminary. This happened despite the fact that the British researchers made it clear that they had not proven an association between the diseases and the vaccine, but that they felt it was important to raise a red flag and generate more research. I hope Burton also digs deeply enough with to find out how vaccine science and policy are orchestrated in this country - and by whom. It's not pretty.

ABC World News Tonight Reporter Questions Vaccines
By Nicholas Regush ABCNEWS.com

Beware old files.

They may hold the ingredients for gastrointestinal upset. The file that I just had to stick my nose in was slugged, “Vaccine advocates with ties to vaccine makers.” I like to keep tabs on what might be considered conflicts of interest in medicine. At the least, it diminishes the chance that I’ll embarrass myself by putting someone on a national TV network news show who is involved in public health policy but whose voice, eyes, ears and perhaps other anatomical components are leased, if not wholly owned, by industry.

Flipping through the contents of the file, I noticed a letter that had been sent to ABCNEWS from a well-known vaccine advocate. It partly had to do with a story I had produced for World News Tonight. The story was a rather soft warning, based on preliminary scientific information, that certain vaccines given in infancy could potentially cause long-term harm, primarily because the body’s immune function could be altered in some way.

As far as news stories go, it was fairly low-key and in no way condemned vaccines, but rather suggested that more research on long- term effects was imperative. In fact, the story made clear that vaccines have contributed enormously to warding off many diseases, a view I continue to hold strongly today.

Inexpert Analysis?

What caused a burning sensation in my gut in reviewing the letter was the writer’s criticism of Barbara Loe Fisher, who, as co-founder and president of the nonprofit National Vaccine Information Center, has spoken out on vaccine issues affecting health-care professionals and tens of thousands of families affected by vaccine-related side effects. The letter-writer suggested that since she wasn’t an “immunization authority,” Fisher shouldn’t have appeared in the World News Tonight story.

In any case, we had checked out Fisher’s credentials, as we do with others. She had served on the National Vaccine Advisory Committee, chaired the Subcommittee on Adverse Vaccine Events and written a highly touted book on vaccine safety issues, particularly those surrounding the whole cell pertussis or whooping cough vaccine. But what really caught our attention at World News Tonight, and what separated Fisher from the pool of academics, including the letter- writer, who advocates vaccine policy, is that she had a history of asking straightforward, pertinent questions about safety.

Questions such as:

Why are there no studies on the long-term effects of vaccination?

Why are there so few studies that have examined what happens in the body at a cellular/molecular level after vaccination?

Why are we vaccinating children in a vacuum of scientific knowledge?

Why are there no long-term studies to assess illness and deaths related to vaccination?

These are the kind of fundamental questions that anyone involved in vaccine policy should be addressing, but that is hardly the case. People like Fisher are badly needed on TV and radio news programs and in newspaper stories to raise these questions again and again — until the academics wake up and do some real research. These days, children can get as many as 21 vaccines before they start first grade. There are about 200 more vaccines in the pipeline. Scenarios for the future even include consuming vaccines in nose sprays, ointments and fruits and vegetables.

I call it vaccine mania. It has gone beyond what anyone can possibly defend on scientific grounds. Pumping more vaccines into the body without understanding such basics as how they’ll affect immune system function over time borders on the criminal.

It’s OK to Ask Questions, Right?

What it all boils down to is that the vaccine makers, their advocates and the government institutions that promote vaccines, such as the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, have long ago abdicated their responsibilities to the public. They aren’t even bothering to acknowledge the types of questions Fisher routinely raises. And when someone like Fisher goes on television for a few seconds to raise fundamental questions about vaccine safety, one of the good soldiers of the vaccine movement tries to turn off a little heat by stabbing her in the back. I had planned this week to list some people and institutions heavily tied to the vaccine industry but I first had to get this piece of foul history out of my gut. Tune in next week.

Auto Immune or Viral Disease? Consider Vaccine Contamination
Taken From Dr. Mercola's "Health News You Can Use"

Chronic Fatigue, Fibromyalgia, Arthritis, Asthma, Lupus, Lymes, Depression, Colitis and Diabetes. Chances are good that you, or some one in your family may be suffering from one of these diseases. The incidence of chronic and degenerative disorders has been steadily on the increase in this country over the last several decades. Our society has been somewhat complacent, accepting these conditions as the inevitable consequence of progress and the resulting pollution of our environment.

"Clinical Management" has taken priority in efforts to treat these diseases, with little or no importance placed on finding the cause. Instead, medical Specialists have segregated various groups of symptoms into a wide array of seemingly distinct clinical entities. Each becoming a separate disease and the exclusive territory of the specialist that treats it. There has been growing evidence, however, in the last number of years implicating chronic viral infections as a root cause for many neuropsychiatric and inflammatory diseases. This evidence however continues to be viewed an “unconvincing” by the Center for Disease Control.

Dr. John Martin, currently at the University of Southern California School of Medicine, detected a herpesvirus-related DNA sequence in several people suffering from Chronic Fatigue syndrome. Electron micrographs of these viruses suggested a type of herpesvirus, but the growth characteristics and reactivity pattern were not those of any known herpesvirus. He named this virus "stealth" virus, because of its apparent ability to occur in the absence of inflammation. By 1994, Martin advanced the idea of a spectrum of neurological illness potentially attributed to stealth virus. He had isolated the virus from patients suffering from, depression, dementia, fibromyalgia, multiple sclerosis, schizophrenia, and autism.

In 1994, a group of over forty patients in Trinity County California, previously diagnosed with a wide range of inflammatory or autoimmune diseases, were all found to test positive for Parvo, a virus known to be devastating to dogs, but considered benign in humans, making this one of the largest groups of patients with seemingly unrelated diseases to be identified as having a common underlying viral infection. This group led by a Sharre Tommisc, made pleas to the state and the CDC for further study of this virus and were met with disbelief, resistance and out-right criticism from the medical hierarchy. Frustrated and disgusted, Tommisc continued to study the virus on her own, finding what appeared to be a limitless number of patients that fit the criteria. Many, already diagnosed with any number of “autoimmune” or “inflammatory” diseases were receiving chemotherapy and steroids as treatment. Tommisc too, began to suspect that the growing number of  “autoimmune” diseases could in fact be attributed to an underlying viral infection. That many new forms of viruses often go unrecognized, because of this country's history of rejecting the notion that animals and humans may share the same virus via parasites or soil.

Martin points the finger at contaminated vaccine lots found in early years of the Polio vaccination programs and suggest that animal viruses may have been inadvertently introduced into humans. “If a vaccine program were to be initiated today,” says Dr. Martin  “One surely would not import wild monkeys from Africa, create short term primary kidney cultures, add a human virus and administer the crude batch derived from virally infected cells to virtually every child in the country.” Monkey kidney cells are used for Polio and Adeno vaccines, while dog and duck kidney cells have been used for rubella vaccines and chicken cells used for measles and mumps vaccines. Martin and Tommisc both suspect these animals viruses, possibly now co-mingled with human herpes-virus, to be the cause of many of the diseases they are seeing today.

There is growing sense of frustration with the federal public health system and its limited response to increasing evidence of unrecognized viral infections, and with what appears to be a resistance on the part of those in authority, to face the issue of prior, if not present, vaccine contamination and the possibility that animal viruses have been introduced into human beings. This paper was written to assist the patient suffering from chronic neurological, degenerative or inflammatory disease. It is our hope that you will be tested for an underlying causative agent, and in doing so will be able to avoid inappropriate treatment that may result in further complications of the disease. The broad range of symptoms are limited only by the complexities of the body.

What your doctor will tell you: Your doctor may tell you what you have may have started with a virus but now it has become something else. That the virus set off an autoimmune response evidenced by autoantibodies that are now attacking your body. They may tell you that you are suffering from the aftermath of a viral infection that will eventually go away. They may tell you that you have a genetic predisposition or weakness, or you have allergies to your environment. They may tell you the only way to control this “new” disease is with chemotherapy and prednisone.

What the people in Trinity County Found: In 1994-95, over one hundred adults and juveniles in a small town in Trinity County, California were identified as testing positive for Parvo virus. Most of the people in the group had been previously diagnosed with the following diseases; Lupus, Lymes, Wegener's granulomatosis, encephalitis, Bell's palsy, Chronic fatigue, arthritis, fibromyalgia, thyroiditis, vasculitis, heart disease, pneumonia, carpel tunnel, asthma, depression, hepatitis, colitis, Crohn's, menopause, pneumonia, migraines, gall stones, and more.

What you may be experiencing and why: Most symptoms find their origin in the epithelium. The broad range of symptoms is only limited by the complex capabilities of these cells. This means if the fastest growing cells in your body are affected, whether by damage or inflammation, the resulting array of symptoms remains the same. These fast growing cells are the very life of your body. They line your arteries, your stomach, and your joints. They create the barriers that keep pressures and balances in your body and help protect from outside infection. >From your skin to your heart valves, the production and health of these cells is vastly important to the condition of your body.

The following is a list of symptoms experienced by the Trinity group. Some attempt has been made to give a small amount of order to the vast number of possible symptoms. The following are the most common, suffered by the largest number of people.

Initial symptoms can include: a flat rash on the legs and or arms that comes and goes with exposure to heat, followed by a moderate to severe bronchial infection. Within a week, you may begin to experience joint pains. Some people experience chronic moderate pains that can last for many months. For some, the pain so acute, getting out of bed seems an impossible task. The most difficult movements are sitting down or standing up. The pain in the hips and knees can be so excruciating that help is required. The pain is described as sharp stabbing pain attacking your joints. Your feet may feel bruised and it can be very painful to walk on them. Even the small joints of the fingers can be affected. Shoulders, particularly the left shoulder, can also be very painful. Severe headaches that may have your doctor treating you for migraines, Encephalitis, or even ruptured discs in the neck, have been experienced. People have reported that it is sometime difficult to focus or read. Many experience sleep problems. Memory loss, difficulty putting thoughts together, or executing simple problem solving, are common complaints. Few people can clearly remember the acute period of the disease. They appear to be stupid and listless. They may begin having anxiety attacks, and/or depression can be severe. Coupled with the overwhelming level of fatigue and pain, a person can be reduced to not caring whether they live or die.

Other issues include digestive problems, bloating and tenderness of the abdomen, making it difficult, if not impossible, to button pants or skirts. Vomiting, nausea, and chronic diarrhea have been reported and a person may appear to have many new food allergies. Numbness has been reported in the eyelids, cheeks, lips, fingers, thighs, and lower arms, along with shaking, weakness and faintness. Swelling, or water retention is most commonly seen in the ankles, feet, fingers, eyelids, and lips. Many can no longer fit into their shoes and anklebones disappear. It can be difficult to clench your fist in the morning from the swelling of the fingers. Extreme changes in blood pressure have been experienced, also several case of increased cerebral pressure. As the truly acute phase of the disease begins to pass, petechiae (small blood spots) may appear around the joints most severely affected. They have also been found around the cuticles and on the soles of the feet. Anemia may begin at this time and may be anywhere from mild to severe and may last indefinitely. Bleeding into the lungs, bladder, intestine, and stomach has been reported along with spontaneous bruising, change in menstrual cycle, or onset of menopause. Significant weight gain or loss, at the onset of the infection may result from inflammation of the thyroid.

Thinning of the hair, changes in skin texture, heart murmur and palpitations. Pneumonia. Asthma, fibroid lesions, lung infiltrates and chronic bronchitis. Symptoms may shift from one group to another over a period of time, with each new group the risk of misdiagnosis increases. Chronic infections can last from months to years. If animal viruses have been inadvertently introduced in humans, the sooner we find out, the better

Congressional Vaccine Testimony
By Philip Incao, M.D.

Dear Representative Van Vyven:

Kristine M. Severyn has asked me 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 September 1997.

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 that 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 with extreme regret, 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 that had been commissioned by federal law. Of five possible and plausible adverse effects of the hepatitis B vaccination that 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 federal law to permit a more accurate assessment of the risks of vaccination created the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting system, 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 that 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.

More On Anthrax Vaccines
Taken From Dr. Mercola's "Health News You Can Use"

Anthrax disease inoculations have already given about 320,000 troops in fear of future biological warfare from enemies like Iraq, known to possess the bioweapon. Scores of pilots and Marines have already been court-martialed or mustered out for refusing to take the shots, which opponents say are highly reactive.  The anthrax shots don't work against the inhaled version of the disease that enemies would likely spread by aerosol devices. - The shots don't work against at least four genetically engineered strains of anthrax developed by Russian scientists who are thought to have provided the new strains to several potential enemies of the United States.  The Defense Department stockpiled vials of anthrax vaccine that are likely adulterated or unsafe because the military is still using vaccine produced before the Food and Drug Administration suspended production at the Lansing, Mich., plant in 1996 for safety violations. - Chronic illness reactions are much higher among the troops than the government admits. The adverse event rate is much higher than previously indicated and the Pentagon knows it.  The Defense Department insists the anthrax shots are safe and effective.

COMMENT: The insanity continues. I really admire the courage of those in the military who have stood up to this and received a court-martial rather than take this dangerous and ineffective vaccine.

Universal Childhood Immunization 

Mass immunization programs have been seriously questioned on both developmental and scientific grounds. It will be the purpose of this report to proceed with a detailed examination of the issues of controversy, draw some conclusions, and make appropriate recommendations. The critique of these issues stems from a careful review and evaluation of wide ranging biomedical literature sources of relevance to the subject. This work has been carried out in the spirit of honest inquiry, thus affording a fresh and critical analyses of the fundamental issues.

Although the conclusions as reached visibly sustain "one side" of what is largely a hidden and professionalist dominated debate on immunization, the reader should note that this is done in order to provide a long neglected and constructive counterbalance to the predominating supportive declarations of the establishment, and in turn the parroted promotion of the same view by the popular media.

It must further be appreciated that past and ongoing investments in the drive for universal immunization extend well beyond the mere allocation of substantial government and publicly donated funds (which translates into biennial expenditures of a billion US dollars, 63 percent of which comes from Developing World countries themselves) to include: extensive public and private sector commitment to meeting the infrastructural, service, product and marketing requirements of the worldwide medico-industrial complex which employs tens of thousands of people in drug companies, private laboratories, universities, governmental health departments, hospitals etc. (furthermore it is estimated that there are 25,000 professional national and international staff who directly oversee hundreds of thousands of field workers involved in the annual vaccination of 60 million children); related domestic and international legislation and politics; and massive public educational indoctrination initiatives that are largely predicated on promoting the unquestioned effectiveness and relative safety of immunization, and which by design engender an impelling fear in those "unprotected."

In the Developing World immunization has reached 50 percent for DPT vaccine and 40 percent for measles, and is now saving over 1.3 million lives annually." Everyone is encouraged--bordering on religious fervor--to get on the bandwagon. UNICEF.. calls for a 'Grand Alliance' of all possible resources teachers, and religious leaders, mass media and government agencies, voluntary organizations and people's movements, business leaders and labor unions, women's groups and health services to create an informed public demand for. . . the methods which could now bring about 'a revolution' in child survival and development.

Immunization's high acceptance and apparent success relate to a number of factors: A technological package that is easily understood and readily available . . . the fact that vaccination does not require substantial behavioral change; the relative ease of measuring coverage and its offer of an opportunity for political leadership at all levels to be visibly involved. It is accepted wisdom among medical professionals and in turn the public, that millions of children now enjoy improved health and freedom from various life-threatening diseases because of safe and effective vaccines. In the words of Fulginiti, "morbidity and deaths secondary to the contagious diseases have either been eradicated, measles greatly reduced in occurrence, and rubella, mumps, pertussis, and other diseases significantly lessened in terms of their impact."

VACCINE SCHEDULING

It is instructive to consider the experience of Japan in this regard. Delay of DPT immunization until 2 years of age in Japan has resulted in a dramatic decline in adverse side effects. In the period of 1970-1974, when DPT vaccination was begun at 3 to 5 months of age, the Japanese national compensation system paid out claims for 57 permanent severe damage vaccine cases, and 37 deaths. During the ensuing six year period 1975-1980, when DPT injections were delayed to 24 months of age, severe reactions from the vaccine were reduced to a total of eight with three deaths. This represents an 85 to 90 percent reduction in severe cases of damage and death. 21 Although it is obvious that conditions in Japan remain distinctive from that of most Developing World countries, it must be noted that insofar as susceptibility to infectious disease remains greater in lesser developed countries, it clearly follows that susceptibility to vaccine damage will also be proportionally greater. Thus the lesson from Japan carries a valid message relative to the prevention of vaccine damage in the Developing World.

IMMUNIZATION'S IMPACT IN THE DECLENSION OF INFECTIOUS DISEASES

There has been a general failure since the inception of the first vaccine programs to establish genuinely verifiable evidence for their long term effectiveness, and safety. The general nature of this problem in Selective Primary Health Care activities is well expressed by prominent Medical Sociologist J. Williamson, when he says there has been a failure to "assess explicitly the degree of validity and sufficiency of the evidence linking care structures (facilities, personnel), and processes to outcomes of care in general and to health outcomes in particular."

Epidemiological science is largely predicated on the reality that changes in morbidity and mortality in populations are necessarily linked to a whole series of contributive factors." (Noted authority George Dick states that: "Many infectious diseases can be prevented without immunization, because once the natural history of the disease is understood, the source may be eliminated or transmission prevented [e.g.,] . . . . When it was discovered that cholera and typhoid epidemics were regularly transmitted by fecal contamination of water, the provision of clean water supplies nearly eradicated these diseases from many countries without recourse to immunization.")

It is widely acknowledged that factors such as: nutrition, sanitation, potable water; the natural and social environments (e.g., agricultural practices, food supply, education and income), all play vital roles in determining the onset, severity, and eradication of both infectious and degenerative diseases. Diseases such as cholera and typhoid, have been strongly linked to water and sanitation, whereas evidence continues to accumulate that nutrition remains likely the most critical determinant factor in the full range of infectious and degenerative human diseases.

INCOMPLETE STATISTICAL REPORTING

Selectively slanted and incomplete reporting of the true statistical picture is not an infrequent problem in the promotive oriented reporting. The following comment is made with respect to the expansion of the measles vaccination program, ". . . the immunization coverage for measles has increased from 6 percent in 1984 to 63 percent in 1988, leading to a reduction in measles prevalence from 93.7/100,000 in 1984 to 37.1/100,000 in 1986." What the report fails to indicate though is that although the 1986 immunization coverage of 44% had increased by 1987 to 60%, the measles infection rate in the same period actually more than doubled, with an increase from 37.1 to 87.1 per 100,000.

It is also noteworthy that the culminating maximum immunization coverage of 63% achieved in 1988, correlates with a 1988 infection report rate of 59.1 /100,000--which in fact poses higher level of measles infection than the 1982 reported infection rate of 57.1 /100,000, which was a time when measles immunization was not being provided in Thailand. (The higher per capita infection rate--after five years of expanding coverage--obviously reflects very negatively on the assumed efficacy of the vaccine, and may have been deliberately obfuscated in the reporting. No evidence was seen to suggest that the post-immunization increases in disease rates were attributable to case reporting improvements.)

IS IMMUNIZATION EFFECTIVENESS A CERTAINTY?

It can well be said that real "ignorance is not knowing, but knowing what isn't so." The question of whether vaccines in fact protect recipients from the diseases for which they are given, might seem absurd on the face of it. As already noted, when we closer examine the question of statistical evidence for immunization's effectiveness, there remain significant epidemiological uncertainties. The literature further reveals some critical problems in data gathering, interpretation and reporting practices.

These basic concerns are succinctly summarized by Professor Gordon Stewart, recent head of the Department of Community Medicine at Glasgow University: What kind of immunization is this for which success is being claimed?... What kind of epidemiology is this which advocates immunization b excluding, consideration of factors other than immunization? . . . "at kind of editorial policy is this which publishes incomplete data and promotes far reaching claims about the efficacy of immunization, but refuses to publish collateral data questioning this efficacy?

We are thus confronted with an unenviable situation where in the general absence of verifiable multifactored and controlled studies, immunization remains today--scientifically speaking--as a basically unproven program intervention. In fact, there is a substantive and growing body of data that call into serious question the soundness and effectiveness of mass immunization programs. This data not only calls into question immunization's effectiveness, but further details adverse side effects and potential long term dangers of this widely implemented medical intervention.

EARLY THEORETICAL FOUNDATIONS RE-EXAMINED

In order to better grasp the issue of vaccine effectiveness, it would prove helpful for us to go back to the early theoretical foundation upon which current vaccination and disease theories originated. In simplest terms, the theory of artificial immunization postulates that by giving a person a mild form of a disease, via the use of specific foreign proteins, attenuated viruses, etc., the body will react by producing a lasting protective response e.g., antibodies, to protect the body if or when the real disease comes along.

This primal theory of disease prevention originated by Paul Ehrlich--from the time of its inception--has been subject to increasing abandonment by scientists of no small stature. For example not long after the Ehrlich theory came into vogue, W.H. Manwaring, then Professor of Bacteriology and Experimental Pathology at Leland Stanford University observed: I believe that there is hardly an element of truth in a single one of the basic hypothesis embodied in this theory. My conviction that there was something radically wrong with it arose from a consideration of the almost universal failure of therapeutic methods based on it . . . Twelve years of study with immuno-physical tests have yielded a mass of experimental evidence contrary to, and irreconcilable with the Ehrlich theory, and have convinced me that his conception of the origin, nature, and physiological role of the specific 'antibodies' is erroneous.

To afford us with a continuing historical perspective of events since Manwaring's time, we can next turn to the classic work on auto-immunity and disease by Sir MacFarlane Burnett, which indicates that since the middle of this century the place of antibodies at the center stage of immunity to disease has undergone "a striking demotion." For example, it had become well known that children with agammaglobulinaemia--who consequently have no capacity to produce antibody--after contracting measles, (or other zymotic diseases) nonetheless recover with long-lasting immunity. In his view it was clear "that a variety of other immunological mechanisms are functioning effectively without benefit of actively produced antibody."

The kind of research which led to this a broader perspective on the body's immunological mechanisms included a mid-century British investigation on the relationship of the incidence of diphtheria to the presence of antibodies. The study concluded that there was no observable correlation between the antibody count and the incidence of the disease." "The researchers found people who were highly resistant with extremely low antibody count, and people who developed the disease who had high antibody counts. (According to Don de Savingy of IDRC, the significance of the role of multiple immunological factors and mechanisms has gained wide recognition in scientific thinking. [For example, it is now generally held that vaccines operate by stimulating non-humeral mechanisms, with antibody serving only as an indicator that a vaccine was given, or that a person was exposed to a particular infectious agent.])

In the early 70's we find an article in the Australian Journal of Medical Technology by medical virologist B. Allen (of the Australian Laboratory of Microbiology and Pathology, Brisbane) which reported that although a group of recruits were immunized for Rubella, and uniformly demonstrated antibodies, 80 percent of the recruits contracted the disease when later exposed to it. Similar results were demonstrated in a consecutive study conducted at an institution for the mentally disabled. Allen--in commenting on her research at a University of Melbourne seminar--stated that "one must wonder whether the . . . decision to rely on herd immunity might not have to be rethought.

As we proceed to the early 80s, we find that upon investigating unexpected and unexplainable outbreaks of acute infection among "immunized" persons, mainstream scientists have begun to seriously question whether their understanding of what constitutes reliable immunity is in fact valid. For example, a team of scientist writing in the New England Journal of Medicine provide evidence for the position that immunity to disease is a broader bio-ecological question then the factors of artificial immunization or serology. They summarily concluded: "It is important to stress that immunity (or its absence) cannot be determined reliable on the basis of history of the disease, history of immunization, or even history of prior serologic determination.

Despite these significant shifts in scientific thinking, there has unfortunately been little actual progress made in terms of undertaking systematically broad research on the multiple factors which undergird human immunity to disease, and in turn building a system of prevention that is squarely based upon such findings. It seems ironic that as late as 1988 James must still raise the following basic questions. "Why doesn't medical research focus on what factors in our environment and in our lives weaken the immune system? Is this too simple? too ordinary? too undramatic? Or does it threaten too many vested interests . . ?"

ARTIFICIALLY INDUCED IMMUNITY--REALITY OR DELUSION?

Physiologist, S.K. Claunch raises an reasonable postulate when he suggests that the body's capacity to initiate a "vigorous reaction" (i.e., the acute processes of elimination associated with viral and infectious diseases) hinges essentially on its level of vitality, and thus such reactions are most commonly found in children. In contrast, it is generally acknowledged that the very feeble and or chronically diseased--who have significantly lower vital energy levels--tend to remain relatively free from such acute reactions.

This observation in turn lead him to express the concept that: If any child has its vitality lowered and its health impaired to the degree that it is no longer strong enough to develop an acute disease, it is, for the time being, at least "immune." This is the exact clinical picture one observes when serums, vaccines and "biologicals" are shot into a child . . . its vitality is so lowered that it is no longer healthy enough to protest or react against them. So long as its vitality stays down, it will be "immune."

A number of detractors have legitimately raised the question of how the injection of foreign disease matter into the human system can constitute a legitimate approach to the sustenance of human health. After all, we don't seek warmth of icebergs, is there thus any more logic in seeking health from substances which are intimately associated with disease and death? The articulate view of physiologist H.M. Shelton is that: To interfere with the all-important composition of the blood in the haphazard manner serologists do, results in incalculable disturbance of its physiological equilibrium . . . health depends, not upon killing bacteria [& viruses] but upon building up the soundness . . . integrity [and] functional vigor . . . of our own tissues and organs. . . . Normal resistance can be achieved only by use of the same means by which it was originally built and maintained. Nature makes no mistakes and violates no laws. She is uniformly governed by fixed principles and all her actions harmonize with ... [nature's governing] laws . . . The best, indeed the only method of promoting public health is to teach people the laws of nature and.. how to preserve health. Immunization programs are futile, and are based on the delusion that the law of cause and effect can be annulled Vaccines and serums are employed as substitutes for right living; they are intended to supplant obedience to the laws of life. Such programs are slaps in the face of law and order."

AN HISTORIC OVERVIEW OF THE BACTERIAL/VIRAL THEORY OF DISEASE CAUSATION

In order to provide some further background to the reader, this section will briefly recount some of the most significant observations of earlier scientists on the broader question of what is the actual role bacteria and viruses play in human infectious disease. The debate on this issue--although an old one remains highly relevant and timely in that the whole edifice of Western selective medicine, both preventive and therapeutic, hinges upon a correct perspective on and resolution of the question.

Indeed, it remains remarkable that whether we go to recent or more distant history, we find that fundamentally critical scientific discoveries and observations which serve to clarify these issues, and point in a more appropriate direction, continue--at least in practice--to be largely unknown and or ignored. (Some researchers would suggest that this failure arises because such discoveries--if genuinely applied--would significantly curb what amounts to annual income totaling multiple billions of dollars in the exploitation of human disease.)

However, it is apparent that the factors underlying this failure are in reality much broader and more complex. Due to the need for brevity, only two cases of historic significance will be considered. Earlier in this century, C.E. Rosenow of the Mayo Biological Laboratories began a series of experiments in which he took distinctive bacterial strains from a number of different disease sources and placed them in one culture of uniform media. In time the distinctive strains all became one class. By repeatedly changing cultures, he could individually modify bacterial strains making them some harmless or "pathogenic" and in turn reverse the process. He concluded that the critical factor allowing demonstration of the polymorphic nature of bacteria was their environment and the food they lived upon. These discoveries were first published in the year 1914 in the Journal of Infectious Disease."

Rosenow's work was corroborated and expanded upon about two decades later by R.R. Rife, developer of the Universal Microscope which was developed concurrent with RCA's initial marketing of the electron microscope. Rife's alternative was a 5,682 component, 150,000 power (60,000 diameters of magnification) instrument which made live bacteria visibly "clear as a cat on your lap." This microscope was a light transmitting instrument with a resolution of 31,000 diameters (traditionally electron microscopes had resolutions of up to 25,000 diameters) which overcame the chief weakness of the electron scope, i.e., the inability to view living cells structures and bacterial and viral organisms in their unaltered living state. (An alternative was required, as living matter when viewed under the electron scope, becomes altered and distorted due to bombardment by a virtual hailstorm of electrons, with such distortions increasing proportionally with the intensity of magnification. Consequently, the extremely high magnification levels found in the latest electron microscopes actually serve to exacerbate this major flaw.)

Modern microscopy texts suggest that with light microscopes it is impossible to obtain extremely high magnifications of objects and still retain visual clarity. For example Novikoff and Holtzman affirm that in such instruments a point is reached after which the image is "increasingly blurred and nothing is gained by further magnification. Thus, light microscopes are rarely used at magnifications greater than . . . 1500 X." However, Rife's invention with its 14 separate crystal quartz lenses and prisms, was able to bend and to polarize light in such a way that a specimen could be illuminated by extremely narrow portions of the spectra, and even by a single light frequency. This combined with the shortening of projection distance between prisms, and other innovative technical features permitted high resolutions without distortion at extremely high magnifications, never before or since attained in light microscopy.

Rife showed that by altering the environment and food supply, friendly bacteria such as colon bacillus could be converted into varied "pathogenic" bacteria. For example, Rife also observed that bacillus coli could in time be modified into the viral agent associated with certain forms of cancer, and the process actually reversed. In Rife's words: In reality, it is not the bacteria themselves that produce the disease, but we believe it is . . . the unbalanced cell metabolism of the human body that in actuality produce the of disease. We also believe if the metabolism of the human body is perfectly balanced . . . it is susceptible to no disease.

This observation closely parallels Alexis Carrel's earlier research at the Rockefeller Institute where he was able to control the rates and levels of infectious disease mortality among mice. Beginning with the standard diet he observed a corresponding death rate of 52 percent. By making specific dietary improvements he was able to reduce mortality rates downward to 32 percent, then 14 percent, and finally to a rate of 0.45

Not too long after Rife's and Carrel's reported observations, scientist Rene Dubos (also at the Rockefeller Institute) reaffirmed their open and direct challenge to the conventional thinking and practice of the scientific community at large. He suggested that the presumed relationship between microbes and the onset of human disease has been "so oversimplified that it rarely fits the facts of disease. Indeed it corresponds almost to a cult . . . undisturbed by inconsistencies and not too exacting about evidence."

He expanded upon this view in suggesting that we need to objectively account for the fact that extremely virulent: . . . pathogenic agents [i.e., bacterial and viral micro-organisms] sometimes can persist in the tissues without causing disease, and at other times can cause disease even in the presence of specific antibodies. We need also to explain why microbes supposed to be non-pathogenic often start proliferating in an unrestrained manner if the body's normal physiology is upset. . . . During the first phase of the germ theory the property was regarded as lying solely within the microbes themselves. Now virulence is coming to be thought of as ecological . . . This ecological concept is not merely an intellectual game; it is essential to a proper formulation of the problem of microbial diseases and even to their control "

Indeed, Dubos--in time--came to voice the conclusion that "Viruses and bacteria are not the cause of disease, there is something else." In his classic work Mirage of Health, he states "The world is obsessed by the fact that poliomyelitis can kill and maim . . . unfortunate victims every year. But more extraordinary is the fact that millions upon millions of young children become infected by polio virus, yet suffer no harm from the infection."

This view closely corresponds to the oft quoted conclusion arrived at in later life by R. Virchow (popularly reputed as father of the "germ theory") when he stated, "If I could live my life over again, I would devote it to proving that germs seek their natural habitat, diseased tissues, rather than being the cause of disease." Since Dubos' time, researchers have estimated that the quantity of symptom free exposure to viruses outnumber clinical illnesses by at least one hundred-fold. This conclusion is based on the "high proportion of adults who have virus-neutralizing substances in their serum and the number who, during an epidemic, excrete virus without becoming ill.

HIV Corroborative Evidence

Further corroborative conclusions have been recently reached by some prominent scientists in their critical examination of the popular view that Human Immuno-deficiency Virus (HIV) is the key, if not the singular cause of the Acquired Immuno-deficiency Syndrome (AIDS). Evidence is in that the popularized view that HIV causes AIDS is far more a political necessity, than a genuine scientific conclusion. (Although the observed action and effects of viruses, and retroviruses--such as HIV--do in fact significantly differ, what is being called into question is the validity of labeling microbes--of whatever form--as the key and or sole "cause" for disease, or as in this case of acquired immunodeficiency.)

Peter Duesberg (Professor of Molecular Biology at the University of Calif.- Berkeley; considered by many to be the world's leading expert on retroviruses; and Nobel Prize candidate for his work in discovering oncogenes in viruses) provides compelling evidence that lifestyle based factors serve as the primal determinants in the evolution of the 20 plus neoplastic and degenerative diseases that are now associated with AIDS. Employing his own research--complemented by 196 cited references--an article entitled "HIV and AlDs: Correlation but not causation," was published in 1989 in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences USA.

This article indicates that "Free" HIV virus (Free meaning that the retrovirus is already part of the genome) is not detectable in most cases of AIDS;" "Pure HIV does not cause AIDS upon experimental infection of chimpanzees or accidental infection of healthy humans;" and "Epidemiological surveys indicate that the annual incidence of AIDS [to be understood as a condition symptomized by various secondary infections for which natural immunity has been lost] depends critically on non-viral [related] risk factors . . . defined by lifestyle, health, and country of residence."

In an interview published nearly five years later Dr. Duesberg is more convinced than ever that the HIV retrovirus is not the cause of AIDS, or of the mortality associated with AIDS. Some of the key points he makes in this important interview follow: There are roughly seven and a half million people world wide who are known carriers of HIV, and who continue to remain free of the immune deficiency symptoms associated with AIDS, and there's not one authenticated case "where you get infected today and get a disease. . . years later . . . infectious agents work immediately or never." HIV has been found to be totally absent in the system of over 4,600 persons diagnosed with AIDS, so to save political face the US Centers for Disease Control have been forced of late to give such cases a new name i.e., "idiopathic CD 4 Iymphocytopenia."

There are a million Americans with HIV and their T cells are normal, indeed, "HIV is one of the most harmless viruses you could possibly have. It never claims more than one in 1,000 cells every other day" during which time your body replaces "at least 30 out of 1,000" cells. AIDS is not an infectious disease, but rather arises from "party swinger lifestyles" that includes: the widespread and abundant use of various immune- depleting drugs both legal and illegal such as cocaine, alcohol, marijuana, amphetamines, aphrodisiacs, amyl or butyl nitrites (poppers), combined with correlated conditions of malnutrition, inadequate sleep, and poor hygiene.

Another key cause of AIDS and the mortality arising from it is medical treatment in itself, viz. AZT has become "AIDS by prescription" and design. In other words in the US alone 200,000 persons (most of whom have normal health) who've tested positive for HIV antibodies, are given 250 mg of AZT every six hours. This highly toxic drug destroys bone marrow, as well as red blood cells thus precipitating cellular oxygen starvation destroys white blood cells; causes anemia, weight loss, muscle loss, nausea, and worsening immune system deficiency coupled with the ensuing infectious diseases commonly associated with AIDS, and finally death. (The very same sequence of rapid physiological deterioration, immune deficiency and infections has been documented in healthy persons who were tested positive for HIV, and quickly submitted to medical treatment, but were later confirmed as false positives.)

Bio medical scientist and AIDS researcher Joseph Sonnabend speaks of ". . . the failure of our scientific and medical institutions to have provided an even rudimentary understanding of the pathogenesis of this disease in the eight years since its first description, let alone to have developed interventions...that might significantly alter its course." His well researched conclusions include the view that "The association of HIV seropositivity with AIDS could . . . derive from the possibility that the expression of HIV (and consequent seroconversion) is an effect, rather than a cause of AIDS. . ."

In summary, if we return to Robert Koch's 19th century postulates of the "Germ Theory," viz. in order to cause disease particular "bacterium:" a) must be found in every case of the disease; b) must never be found apart from the disease; and c) must consistently produce the same disease as that manifested by the body from which the disease related germs were taken; we find that in reality each postulate has been disproved time and again by varied experience and experimental data. Nonetheless, it appears that to this day there remains only a marginal acknowledgment or practical recognition that it is the condition of the body-mind complex and its internal and external environments, which are the principal determinants of the nature, prevalence and role of bacteria, viruses, and even retroviruses.

THE BACTERIAL/VIRALVERSUS THE CELLULAR/ECOLOGICALTHEORY OF INFECTIOUS DISEASE

As a result of the re discovery of many of these earlier scientific investigations, as well as more recent observations in molecular biology, there has arisen among more independent scientists and primary health practitioners a new concept that has been coined as the cellular theory of infectious disease. This seemingly more logical and updated view, poses a serious challenge to the present unquestioned emphasis on supporting mass selective medicine approaches (including artificial immunization) in the Developing World. The traditional Bacterial--Viral and the emerging Cellular--Ecological theories of disease are contrasted in the table which follows. The practical acceptance of the cellular theory as delineated would entail a substantive shift away from both preventive and therapeutic interventions which are heavily predicated on Western selective medicine, i.e., vaccines and drugs, and toward fundamental health improvement measures such as sound nutrition, potable water, sanitation and overall enhancement of the human physical and social environments. Considerable experimental, historical and epidemiological evidence supports the cellular ecological theory.

In that major declines in infectious disease took place before the advent of specific vaccines and antibiotics, scientists and or physicians such as Dubos, Dettman, Illich, McCormick, Taylor, Buttram, and Hoffman agree that the overall eradication of varied infectious diseases were due to basic improvements in nutrition, sanitation, housing, education and related socioeconomic conditions. For example, Canadian physician W.J. McConnick was able to make this telling observation at midpoint in the present century.

The usual explanation offered for this changed trend in infectious diseases has been the forward March of medicine in prophylaxis and therapy; but, from a study of the literature, it is evident that these changes in incidence and mortality have been neither synchronous with nor proportionate to such measures . . . . . . . the decline in diphtheria, whooping cough and typhoid fever began fully fifty years prior to the inception of artificial immunization and followed an almost even grade before and after the adoption of these control measures. In the case of scarlet fever, mumps, measles and rheumatic fever there has been no specific innovation in control measures, yet these also have followed the same general pattern in incidence decline.

IMMUNIZATION EFFECTIVENESS DATA

Robert Mendelsohn (Assoc. Prof. of Preventive Medicine and Community Health, University of Illinois) reports "that children who have been immunized [for diphtheria] fare no better than those who have not." He went on to describe an outbreak of diphtheria in which "fourteen of twenty-three carriers had been fully immunized." This means that just over 60 percent of the carriers who were presumed to be protected by the toxoid, contracted the disease. In his words "Episodes such as these shatter the argument that immunization can be credited with eliminating diphtheria or any of the other . . . childhood diseases."

The following conclusion is extracted from the Minutes of the 15th Session (November 20-21, 1975) of the Panel of Review of Bacterial Vaccines and Toxoids with Standards and Potency (data presented by the US Bureau of Biologics, and the Food and Drug Administration). For several reasons, diphtheria toxoid, fluid or absorbed, is not as effective an immunizing agent as might be anticipated. Clinical (symptomatic) diphtheria may occur . . . in immunized individuals--even those whose immunization is reported as complete by recommended regimes . . . the permanence of immunity induced by the toxoid . . . is open to question.

Earlier historical data on protective toxoiding efforts in N. America clearly verify not only the FDA's conclusion, but the fact that the toxoid actually exacerbated the seriousness of the disease. North American data on various diphtheria outbreaks in the early 40's, reveal the following facts. In the Halifax Canada epidemic, of the cases admitted for hospital treatment, 66 had previously received one or more doses of diphtheria toxoid or antitoxin, or were found Shick negative. In fact, of this number five cases had been immunized within the preceding two month period.

In the Ottawa Canada epidemic, of 99 cases (all under the age of 15), 36 were found to have previously received all three doses of the toxoid. In the Baltimore USA epidemic, 63 percent of all cases had a record or history of prior immunization with toxoid. Among the fatal and more serious "Bull-neck" cases, 77.8 percent had previously been toxoided. During roughly the same historic period, we find in various European countries a gripping picture suggesting that the use of Diphtheria toxoid in fact precipitated epidemics of the disease.77 Throughout 1941 to 1944 "The Ministry and Dept. of Health, Scotland, admitted almost 23,000 cases of diphtheria in immunized children," with 180 fatalities.

By the year 1941, the majority of children in France had been inoculated for diphtheria, the case rate standing at 13,795 by the end of that year. Mass immunization efforts continued, and "by 1943, the diphtheria cases were more than tripled to 46,750."79 Diphtheria increased by 55 percent in Hungary and tripled in Geneva, Switzerland after the introduction of compulsory immunization laws. In Germany, with compulsory mass immunization "introduced in 1940, the number of cases increased from 40,000 per year to 250,000 by 1945, virtually all among immunized children." Norway, during the same time frame--just noted--remained unvaccinated, and had only 50 recorded cases of diphtheria. "In Sweden, diphtheria virtually disappeared without any immunization." According to Coumoyer's research, official US Military records show that enlisted men and women who are thoroughly vaccinated--manifest a morbidity and mortality rate from diphtheria four times higher, than that of unvaccinated civilians.

Data on Measles

The University of Alberta initiated special research on the question of measles immunity, as a result of a measles epidemic which "swept" the University campus in 1987, despite a "98 percent immunization rate." The research team's head immunologist R. Marusyk (who is also affiliated with the Alberta Provincial Public Health Laboratory) has subsequently confirmed that it is an invalid assumption that vaccination programs for measles--which are normally administered at 9 to 12 months, and a later childhood booster shot--confers lifelong immunity.

One of their findings indicated that 93 percent of infants "who were studied" showed no immunity by the age of six months. The mothers of the 120 babies had all been vaccinated. Normally, antibodies that have been transferred at birth from the mother to the child remain present for a year." (According to D. de Saving at IDRC, this transfer and retention of antibodies apparently occurs when the mother has had an actual measles infection, and not just vaccination.)

Similar to the experience at the University of Alberta, the National Geographic in its January 1991 issue article "The Disease Detectives," refers to a 1988 measles epidemic at Fort Lewis College, Durango, Colorado USA in these words: "Surprisingly most who fell ill had been vaccinated. CDC (US Center for Disease Control) investigators rushed to the campus during the 1988 outbreak to trace what had gone wrong." There are repeated reports of measles epidemics occurring in fully vaccinated populations. These failures have occurred repeatedly since the vaccines introduction.

Other documented research findings follow: A survey conducted in 1978--covering 30 states in the US--revealed that "more than half of the children who contracted measles had been adequately vaccinated;" Moskowitz et al. found that in those states with comprehensive (k-grade 12) immunization requirements, between 61 and 90 percent of measles cases occur in persons who received the recommended vaccines; and A review of 1,600 cases of measles in Quebec, Canada in the period of January to May of 1989, revealed that 5 8 percent of school-age cases had been previously vaccinated.

According to an unpublished WHO research study comparing what would be defined as a "measles susceptible" group of children, to a control group that had been immunized for measles, it was observed that the non-immunized group manifested a normal contraction rate of 2.4 percent, whereas the immunized group exhibited a 33.5 percent contraction level. This implies a 15 times greater likelihood of infection by the immunized. In spite of high measles immunization coverages, measles epidemics are often reported, not only in the less developed regions but also in those developed countries with measles elimination targets.

Data on Polio

An article in a major consumer journal titled "Twentieth-century Miracle-maker," in extolling the value of Salk's polio vaccine, indicated that in 1953, there were 15,600 cases of paralytic polio in the United States; by 1957, due to the vaccine, this number dropped to 2,499." Since this popular conception persists to this day as an important demonstration of the effectiveness of vaccination procedures in general, and the polio vaccine in particular, it bears some re-examination.

Bernard Greenberg (late Dean--School of Public Health, University of N. Carolina) who--during the polio epidemics of the 50's--chaired the Committee on Evaluation and Standards for the American Public Health Association, submitted testimony to the Congressional Hearings on polio vaccines (HR0541, 1962). His evidence respecting diagnostic modifications and statistical manipulation, seriously challenged the popularly promoted view that the epidemics subsided as a result of vaccine intervention. In his words "As a result of . . . changes in both diagnosis and diagnostic methods, the rates of paralytic poliomyelitis plummeted from the early 1950's to a low in 1957."

This involved: redefinition of what constitutes an epidemic redefinition of the disease; and mislabelling, and later reclassification (prior to 1954 "large numbers" of presumed "paralytic polio" cases were actually "Coxsackie . . . and aseptic meningitis," statistical reclassification of "polio" cases (not leading to permanent paralysis) in the ensuing 4 year period became the norm in virtually all regions of the country. It is of further interest that Greenberg testified that after the introduction of much more intensive and frequently compulsory immunization programs--beginning in 1957--there was a correspondingly substantial increase in polio cases (which were presumably paralytic, due to the aforenoted reclassification process).

In the period of 1957-1958 there was a 50 percent increase, and 1958-1959 an 80 percent increase in such cases. He also indicated that during this period statistics were manipulated and statements made by the US Public Health service, to give an opposite impression.

A distinguished interdisciplinary medical panel moderated at the 120th Annual Meeting of the Illinois State Medical Society, confirmed that in the year 1959, roughly 1,000 cases of paralytic polio occurred in persons who had previously received multiple doses of the Salk vaccine. As a panel member, B. Greenberg contributed the following observation: One of the most obvious pieces of misinformation . . . is that the 50 percent rise in paralytic poliomyelitis in 1958, and the real accelerated increase in 1959 have been caused by persons failing to be vaccinated This represents . . . an unwillingness to face facts and to evaluate the true effectiveness of the Salk vaccine. . . . A scientific examination of the data and the manner in which the data were manipulated, will reveal that the true effectiveness of the present Salk vaccine is unknown and greatly overrated.

When pediatrician R. Mendelsohn, was asked whether polio would return if vaccinations were stopped, he replied "Doctors admit that forty percent of our population is not immunized against polio. So where is polio? Diseases are like fashions, they come and go . . ." Later on US National television he referred to epidemiological records which revealed the disappearance of polio in Europe during the 40's and 50's, without benefit of immunizations.

Speaking at an international health convention in 1978, A. Burton reported that statistical data compiled by the University of New South Wales in Australia revealed that polio immunization programs had no measurable impact in reversing what was a recent epidemic in that country. He expressed the view that polio comes in cycles anyway, and when it does subside, it is inadvertently considered "conquered" by vaccines.

This naturally occurring cycle in polio epidemics was well illustrated in Great Britain where polio peaked in 1950, and had declined by 82 percent by the year 1956, at which time the vaccine was first introduced. Returning to the earlier cited US Congressional Hearings (HR 1054), we find that the nation of Israel experienced a major "type I" polio epidemic in 1958. Mass polio immunization had already been enforced and there was no appreciable difference in contraction levels between the vaccinated and unvaccinated. Additionally, 3 years later in 1961, the state of Massachusetts experienced a "type II" polio outbreak in which "there were more paralytic cases in the triple vaccinates than in the unvaccinated".

It is noteworthy that in one of the few double blind trials that have been conducted on a vaccine, was for the Salk polio vaccine, in which trial over 200 individuals who received the vaccine went on to contract polio, whereas no observed polio cases developed amongst the controls. This trial was reported by Mendelsohn who in the same 1984 article wrote: The evidence points to mass inoculation against polio as the cause of most remaining cases of the disease . . . there is an ongoing debate among the immunologists regarding the . . . killed virus vs. live virus vaccine. Supporters of the killed virus vaccine maintain that it is the presence of live virus organisms in the other product that is responsible for thepolio cases that . . . appear. Supporters of the live virus type argue that the killed virus vaccine offers inadequate protection and actually increases the susceptibility (to polio) of those vaccinated. . . . I believe that both factions are right, and that use of either of the vaccines will increase not diminish the possibility that your child will contract the disease.

Thirteen scientists recently concluded that: vaccine failures in the major Oman polio epidemic could not be explained by failures in the cold chain, nor on suboptimum vaccine potency; the efficacy of OPV in inducing "humoral immunity" was lower than expected; and primary reliance on routine polio immunization may be "inadequate" to achieve the goal of eradicating polio by the year 2000. (They also noted similar paralytic polio epidemics in other highly vaccinated populations, e.g., the Gambia, Brazil, and Taiwan.)

Data on Pertussis (Whooping Cough)

V. Fulginiti, Chairman of the American Academy of Pediatrics Committee on Infectious Diseases made this incisive observation: Despite more than 30 years of experience with pertussis immunization, the reasons for recovery from the acute infection and subsequent immunity, are still uncertain. It is known that second attacks are rare following natural disease.

It is also known that 45-95% of recipients of pertussis vaccine are susceptible to pertussis up to 12 years later . . . we do not understand the immunologic mechanisms involved in resistance to infection after natural disease or immunization. Is pertussis vaccine effective? . . . prior to the widespread use of pertussis vaccine, both the incidence of pertussis and the case-fatality ratio declined. A 50-fold reduction in incidence and an 84% reduction in case-fatality were recorded in Great Britain in the years between 1947 and 1972. . . . In England, protection provided by vaccines prior to 1968 was meager; no greater than 20% protection was noted. . . .

Britain is in the position of advocating use of a vaccine for which there are not hard data. G.T. Stewart's observations as published in the British Medical Journal indicated that "of 8,092 cases of whooping cough, 2,940 (36%) were fully immunized, while only 2,424 (30%) were definitely not immunized." A Medical Tribune Report (January 10, 1979) details an outbreak of whooping cough in which 46 out of 85 fully immunized children contracted the disease.102 (the reason that the other 39 did not contract the disease could have been related to any number of predisposing factors). Ekanem's earlier noted research, reveals an increase of 21 percent in the number whooping cough cases by the end of the three year period following implementation of an Expanded Program of Immunization in Nigeria.

Data on Tetanus Toxoid and Immune Globulin

Neustaedter indicates that "Tetanus seems to be nearly eliminated from the United States, primarily because of good hygiene and proper wound management." His research suggests that in the period of 1982-1984 in the US, there were a total of nine tetanus cases among both children and adolescents, in which there were no deaths. Whereas Coumoyer's research points to "contaminated umbilical stump infections" as a principal cause of tetanus in the Developing World.

Such infections can be effectively rectified through providing appropriate information and training to traditional birth attendants. Both Cournoyer and Johnson indicate that there have been some reports of lock jaw death in properly inoculated individuals.106 & 107 Additionally Cournoyer suggests that "Evidence in support of the (tetanus toxoid) vaccine comes from epidemiologic studies which are by nature controversial, and which do not satisfy the criteria for scientific proof.

WHO SMALLPOX ERADICATION SUCCESS RECONSIDERED

Although smallpox is apparently now accorded to the history books, it will be necessary to re-examine the issue of this disease having been universally eradicated, with particular reference to the WHO eradication campaign. An honest look at this question is of considerable importance, as the current worldwide UCI-EPI program gains much of its legitimacy and inspiration from this widely acclaimed success story.

A strong challenge to this now popular view, is reflected in the post-campaign findings of medical researchers like Buttram and Hoffman: Most people probably credit the smallpox vaccine with playing the major role in recent eradication of smallpox throughout the world, but let us examine the facts. In the article 'Vaccines a Future in Question,' statistics showed that less than 10 percent of children in developing countries have received vaccines. They went on to comment that with this level of coverage, the WHO campaign was not a real factor in the eradication. Data obtained in their broad based research also led them to conclude that "mass smallpox vaccination was not necessary for the eradication of smallpox.

In further examining this question from a longer historical perspective, it became readily apparent that the WHO claim did not at all square with the earlier data, i.e., historical smallpox eradication efforts. If we go back as far as the last century, we discover that Creighton's independent research findings as published in the Ninth Edition of the Encyclopedia Britannica, strongly contradict the effectiveness of mass smallpox immunization programs.

A few revealing excerpts follow: . . . in Bavaria in 1871 of 30,742 cases 29,429 were in vaccinated persons, or 95.7 percent. Notwithstanding the fact that Prussia was the best re-vaccinated country in Europe, its mortality from smallpox in the epidemic of 1871 was higher (69,839) than any other Northern state. According to a competent statistician (A. Vogt), the death-rate from smallpox in the German army, in which all recruits are re-vaccinated, was 60 percent more than among the civil population of the same age . . . although re-vaccination is not obligatory among the latter.

It is often alleged that the unvaccinated are so much inflammable material in the midst of the community, and that smallpox begins among them and gathers force so that it sweeps even the vaccinated before it. Inquiry into the facts has shown that at Cologne in 1870 the first unvaccinated person attacked by smallpox was the 174th in order of time, at Bonn the same year the 42d, and at Liegnitz in 1871 the 225th.

As we move on into the earlier part of this century we find the same dismal picture of increased susceptibility correlated with increased vaccination coverage. Dettman and Kalokerinos describe a visit they paid to the Philippines about 15 years ago: . . . We were fortunate enough to address their own medical (and) health officials where we reminded them of the incidence of smallpox in formerly "immunized" Filipinos. We invited them to consult their own medical records and asked them to correct us if our own facts and figures disagreed. No such correction has been forthcoming, and we can only conclude that between 1918-1919 there were 112,549 cases of smallpox notified, with 60,855 deaths. Systematic (mass) vaccination started in 1905, and since its introduction case mortality increased alarmingly. Their own records comment that "The mortality is hardly explainable."

Speaking at a 1973 environmental conference in Brussels, Professor George Dick admitted that in recent decades, 75 percent of those that have contracted smallpox in Britain, have had prior a history of vaccination. In that "only 40%" of children were vaccinated (and at most 10 percent of adults), such figures clearly indicate that the vaccinated--as in the much earlier historical record--continue to show a higher tendency to contract the disease. Dick also admitted that smallpox had been eradicated in certain tropical countries without mass vaccination.

A. Hutchison writing in the Journal of the Royal Society in 1974, referred to the smallpox vaccines "lack of potency" and the inadequacies of other measures for containment, in his words, "I have given details of the various outbreaks of smallpox in Britain and where they were diagnosed. These clearly indicate that the (preventive) measures are most ineffective. An article in the New Scientist indicates that "The smallpox family of viruses is genetically unstable," and that new viral strains which threaten the "WHO smallpox eradication programme, could emerge anywhere.

It is thus of interest that in a 1980 article in the Australasian Nurses Journal, Dettman and Kalokerinos pointed out that electron-microscopy cannot distinguish between the various "poxviruses. (According to D, de Saving of IDRC, as of 1990 DNA sequencing can make the distinquishingment. What is not known though, is whether this has any beating on the reporting of the various "pox" diseases worldwide.)

This fact led them to raise a vitally significant question "as to whether smallpox may be declared conquered, (it's estimated that only 10 percent of the world population actually received the vaccine) with the possibility of it masquerading under the guise of a similar pox." Their line of evidence and reasoning is summarily stated: . . . we claim that if the evidence is honestly evaluated that smallpox has actually been prolonged and that the so called protective vaccinations actually put the recipient at risk from . . . the disease itself.

Authorities now realize this and the 'top world' countries are making vociferous protests about third world countries continuing use of smallpox vaccination because (a) suddenly it has become recognized that it is an extremely dangerous procedure, (To give some idea of the vaccine's dangers, it was reported--in the late sixties--that annually, roughly 3,000 children were experiencing varying degrees of brain damage due to the smallpox vaccine; and according to G. Kiftel in 1967, smallpox vaccination damaged the hearing of 3,296 children in West Germany, of which 71 became totally deaf) and (b) it has now been conquered.

In turning to recognized textbooks on human virology and vertebrate viruses we find that attention has been given since 1970 to a disease called "monkeypox," which is said to be "clinically indistinguishable from smallpox." Cases of this disease have been found in Zaire, Cameroon, Nigeria, Ivory Coast, Liberia, and Sierra Leone (by May 1983, 101 cases have been reported). It is observed that " . . . the existence of a virus that can cause clinical smallpox is disturbing, and the situation is being closely monitored." (For a highly detailed account of the history of this disease and efforts to eradicate it, which further corroborates these observations, see, Razzell P., The Conquest of Smallpox, Caliban Books, United Kingdom, 1977.)

VACCINE ASSOCIATED DANGERS--GENERAL OBSERVATIONS

Another basic issue that has never been raised in the programming, or evaluation contexts of Official Development Assistance supported mass immunization, is the requirement for effective monitoring and research on potential vaccinal adverse effects. The issue of vaccine dangers and damage is obviously a rather unpleasant subject that no one really enjoys thinking or talking about. In fact it appears to have been totally ignored in both the planning and execution phases of Canada's International Immunization Programme(CIIP).

Furthermore, the recently completed Qperational Review of CIIP 1986--1991, which according to its sub-title was supposed to address inter alia ". . . lessons learned in the first three years," failed to even raise the two very fundamental issues of vaccine effectiveness, and vaccine damage. In special PHC-EPI research conducted for the CIDA Evaluation Division, the conclusion was reached that the extensive literature written on the subject of immunization, adverse reactions and contra indications, points clearly to the reality that "massive immunization programs carry with them a number of very real risks and hazards.

In recognition of potential vaccine dangers, David Karzon of the Vanderbilt University School of Medicine raises important policy considerations with respect to mass immunization programs in the Editorials section of the New England Journal of Medicine. . . . there are two compelling reasons for re-inspection of the process offormulating and implementing our immunization program: the emergence of new societal considerations and responsibilities; and the need for a fuller public disclosure of the costs of disease prevention . . . we as a society have not recognized and accepted all the costs . . . costs measured not only in dollars spent or saved, but also as adverse biologic reactions. Literally no drug or procedure used in medicine is risk free. Immunizing antigens, originating from complex biological materials or arising as genetically attenuated live agents, have their own peculiar endogenous hazards, Complications . . . are particularly apt to be visible in mass immunization campaigns. . . . The quality of the data base for national decisions is critical because any vaccine recommendation carries such a vast Potentialfor harm or good.

A relatively recent report suggests that vaccine damage is likely more pervasive a problem than is generally acknowledged or believed. In fact, it appears that chronic under-reporting of vaccine-induced morbidity, disability, and mortality appears to be the norm. Probably the most erudite scholar who has thoroughly investigated the issue of vaccine hazards, is Sir Graham Wilson. As Honorary Lecturer in the Department of Bacteriology at the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, the following observations are excerpted from an earlier lecture series delivered at that school.

The risks attendant in use of vaccines and sera are not as well recognized as they should be. Indeed our knowledge of them is still too small, and the incomplete knowledge we have is not widely disseminated.. a very small proportion [of the actual numbers of vaccine accidents] . . . have been described in the medical literature of the world. . . . a large number of accidents--I suspect the majority--have never been reported in print, either through fear of compensation claims, or of giving a weapon to anti-vaccinationists . . . I have come to the conclusion that no vaccine or antiserum can be regarded as completely safe . . . no vaccine or antiserum that has yet been used has been free from complications or accidents . . . [with respect to assessing the "degree of possible danger" he indicates that]

Unless both the numerator and the denominator are known, quantitative assessments may fall wide of the true mark. Moreover, the risk, even for a single vaccine, is not uniform. It varies, among other things, with the immunological status of the population concerned.. The inherent danger of all vaccination procedures should be a deterrent to their unnecessary or unjustifiable use. Vaccination is far too often employed, especially in the developing countries . . . and should not be used as an [instead] excuse from applying the well tried standard methods for the prevention of infectious disease. Most important is it to realize the potential dangers of mass immunization. In such an operation time does not permit an inquiry into the suitability of each individual subject for vaccination.

A strong echo of Wilson's conclusion that vaccine damage is chronically under reported, is found in the official minutes of the 15th session of the US Panel of Review of Bacterial Vaccines and Toxoids with Standards and Potency. Many physicians are not cognizant of the importance of reporting untoward reactions, or may be unaware of their clinical features. Further, both physicians and manufacturers have been held liable for damage suits by patients who may suffer adverse effects from established vaccines. All of these factors undoubtedly discourage reporting; without some other form of surveillance, definition of the rates and significance of untoward reactions to current and future vaccines cannot be ascertained.

H.S. Martland, former Chief Medical Examiner for Essex County New York, describes how the above unawareness actually translates into practice: Deaths from brain and spinal cord diseases (poliomyelitis, encephalitis, and meningitis) resulting from . . . immunizations sometimes are attributed to other causes, because doctors are not sufficiently alerted to the connection between immunizations and the deaths. . . .

Neustadter maintains that the research on vaccine side effects by the pharmaceutical industry remains seriously marginalized due to a significant number of vaccine reactions going unreported, and the fact that it is often difficult to attribute delayed effects with a vaccine. He further suggests that the reason that the medico-pharmaceutical industry has consistently failed to address the unanswered question of the long term effects of vaccines, stems largely from their overriding interest in the active promotion, and rapid marketing of vaccines. Investigation of their adverse side effects generally remains a non-priority issue, insofar as such efforts may undermine the public's acceptance of their products.

On the other hand, Snead suggests that when laboratories go public to the media and confirm that "no known problems" exist, this does not mean that scientists have researched to the limits of their knowledge and found no side effects, but rather that no research has actually been done. Although there is compelling evidence that vaccine induced damage remains chronically under-reported, it is of interest that B. Bloom of the Albert Einstein College of Medicine, openly admits that there is today an emerging reluctance on the part of medico-pharrnaceutical industry to further develop vaccines, for both the developed and Developing Worlds.

According to Bloom, this reluctance stems from the fact that financial losses due to the "liability" of established vaccines, actually exceed the "profits" derived from them. In this vein, Mendelsohn indicates that vaccine costs have "skyrocketed" as a consequence of multiple jury awards to damaged children. In his words: As more and more parents begin to recognize the link between vaccines and their child's condition--epilepsy, convulsions, mental retardation, cerebral palsy, Sudden Infant Death, etc.--lawsuits have become commonplace. As drug companies exit the vaccine field, public health authorities worry about vaccine shortages.

OF WHAT DO VACCINE PRODUCTS CONSIST?

It would be instructive to consider the range of substances--additional to the attenuated virus etc. normally found in vaccine products. Specific viruses and bacteria are grown in the following substances, with their foreign proteins (antigens) including those derived from: pig or horse blood; rabbit brain tissue; dog and monkey kidney tissue; chicken and duck egg; and calf serum. (It is generally acknowledged that any foreign substances including proteins--which have not been filtered through the body's normal digestive assimilative, and excretory processes, can be highly toxic when freely ranging in the lymphatic and blood systems.)

Other foreign additives normally found in various vaccines include: formaldehyde--(a known carcinogen) thimerosal--(an organomercurial antiseptic--49% mercury--although the mercury is "closely bound," it nonetheless is a toxic metal difficult for the system to eliminate) aluminum potassium sulphate (toxic) aluminum phosphate--(a toxic substance commonly used in deodorants) lactalbumin hydrolysate phenol (carbolic acid)--(extremely toxic, not permitted in anti-toxins) acetone--(volatile, and can easily cross the placental barrier) glycerin--(tri-atomic alcohol derived from decomposed fats which can damage kidney, liver, lungs, local tissue; cause dieresis and possible death.)

Commenting on the inclusion of such substances in vaccine products, R. Moskowitz indicates that "the fact is that we do not know and have never attempted to discover what actually becomes of these foreign substances, once they are inside of the body."133 Although there are "rigid" precautions in licensing the use and quantity of these common stabilizers and preservative, it certainly seems self-evident that there should be further research to better determine what relationship--if any--exists between such poisons, and various adverse reactions.

SOME OBSERVED AND POTENTIAL ADVERSE EFFECTS OF SPECIFIC VACCINES AND TOXOIDS--DIAGNOSABLE IN THE SHORT TERM

By principally focusing on stimulating the production of antibody--which increasing evidence suggests is only one marginal indicative factor among many in immunity to disease--while ignoring the basic multiple determinants of natural immunity (health), viruses, foreign antigens and proteins are placed directly into the body tissues and are in turn carried throughout the circulatory system (without censoring by the liver) giving them direct accessibility to all of the body's vital organs and systems. Furthermore, it is a strategy that this short-circuiting of the body's natural defense system is imposed at an extremely vulnerable time of life.

The stage has thus been set for the advent of a wide range of adverse complications and sequelae. What follows is a simple listing of observed side effects of specific vaccines, or when noted toxoids. Practically all of the conditions listed are commonly reported in the medical literature as linked to the prior administration of the particular vaccine or toxoid noted. A few conditions listed--such as the sudden infant death syndrome linked to the pertussis vaccine--are not admitted by mainstream medicine as an adverse effect of that particular vaccine, however the research as referenced is reputable and points otherwise. (The vaccines covered in this section have been confined to those prescribed in the Universal Childhood Immunization program.)

MEASLES

atypical measles (a more serious form of measles) encephalopathy (irreversible brain damage) subacute sclerosing panencephalitis (progressive brain damage which can lead to death) ataxia (incoordination in voluntary muscular movements) mental retardation aseptic meningitis (inflammation of the membranes of spinal cord or brain) seizure disorders encephalitis (inflammation of the brain) hemiparesis (half-body paralysis) retinopathy and blindness secondary complications can include: juvenile-onset diabetes Reye's syndrome multiplesclerosis (degeneration of the central nervous system)

PERTUSSIS (WHOOPING COUGH)

hyperactivity anaphylaxis (hyper-reaction which can include convulsions, unconsciousness and or death) epileptic type convulsions learning disorders (including IQ reduction) encephalopathy febrile seizures invasive bacterial infections hay fever asthma encephalitis sudden infant death (SIDS)1

DIPHTHERIA

(The following has occurred with combined diphtheria-tetanus vaccination, and could be associated with either.) altered electroencephalogram readings seizures

TETANUS TOXOID

brachial plexus neuropathy (disease affecting nerves which serve the arm, forearm and hand) anaphylaxis encephalitis recurrent abscesses (at injection site) abdominal pain debility

POLIO (OPV--ORAL LIVE-VIRUS)

paralytic polio congenital brain tumors (transmitted by mothers who received vaccine during pregnancy)

EXTENT AND NATURE OF OBSERVABLE VACCINE DAMAGE

There is a considerable range in estimates given as to the frequency of damage being produced by particular vaccines. A case in point is the American manufactured DPT vaccine, for which the claim is made that only 1 in 300,000 vaccinates exhibit permanent neurologic damage, whereas other researchers suggest that permanent damage levels can reach as high as 1 in 300. Coumoyer's research findings fall between these two extremes for permanent neurologic or brain damage.

Her conclusions indicate that the following varied rate reactions occur in vaccinates, per number of children vaccinated: Persistent crying--1 in 20 High fever--1 in 66 High pitched screaming--1 in 180 Convulsions--1 in 350 Shock like condition or collapse--1 in 350 Acute brain disorder--1 in 22,000 Permanent brain damage--1 in 62,000 Death--1 in 71,600.

Again to illustrate the great variation in estimates, a relatively recent study at UCLA that as many as one in every 13 children exhibited persistent high pitched crying after receiving the DPT vaccine. In reference to this specific reaction, physician B. Young states that "This may be indicative of brain damage in the recipient child."

According to data researched by Coulter and Fisher, of the 3.3 million children vaccinated yearly in the US: 16,038 have high pitched (encephalitic) screaming (which is considered by many neurologists as indicative of central nervous system irritation); 8,484 have convulsions; and 8,484 undergo collapse; "for an annual total of 33,006 cases of acute neurological reactions within 48 hours of a DPT shot." The authors further suggest that there is a strong basis for concern with respect to the long term reaction to the DPT vaccine. Severe neurologic sequelae may . . . occur after vaccination in the absence of an acute reaction. When the baby reacts to a DPT shot with "a slight fever and fussiness for a few days" this may be, and often is, a case of encephalitis which is quite capable of causing even quite severe long-term neurologic consequences . . . . They further suggest that any who would dismiss this possibility, must first establish a basis for distinguishing between post-vaccinal encephalitis and encephalitis arising from other causes.

As a final observation on the issue of short term vaccine dangers, is the postulated linkage of immunization with the "mysterious" problem of sudden infant death (SIDS) in which infants can die "suddenly and quietly" in their cribs. Australian microbiologist Glen Dettman explains that when large amounts of an antigen are given the body responds by a massive release of adrenal products including: cortisol, adrenalin, and an excessive level of endorphins, actually "as much as a thousand times more than is normally released by the brain." He goes on to observe that: The endorphins will suppress respiration and cardiac function. Thus if a child with malnutrition, or an immune problem, is given a load of antigen larger than it can handle--and this antigen may be an immunization--endorphins may result in respiratory or cardiac failure and death.

Torch's research indicates that two-thirds of 103 infants who were victims of the sudden death syndrome had been immunized with DPT vaccine within the 3 week period preceding death, with many dying within a day of receiving the vaccine. In a widely debated occurrence of SIDS in Tennessee (USA), in which eleven infant deaths occurred within eight days of a DPT vaccination, (nine from the same lot), and five within 24 hours of vaccination (four from the same lot). Mortimer reported that the probability of this being mere chance or coincidental to be between 2 and 5 in 1,000;148 whereas Shannon reported a much lower chance association of 4 and 5 in 10,000.

LONG TERM (DELAYED) POTENTIAL ADVERSE EFFECTS OF IMMUNIZATION

Leaving the continuing controversies that exist over the extent and nature of observable adverse reactions to vaccines, we go on to the equally serious spectre of delayed reactions and the larger unanswered questions which surround the long term consequences of immunization. (The material in both this and the following section on "Immunization and Immune Malfunction" is afforded not necessarily as definitive and factual conclusions, but rather as preliminary research observations on vital--albeit controversial--issues and questions which undoubtedly merit further examination, research and analyses.)

We began the exploration of this issue by reviewing some basic concepts and concerns relative to the strongly suspected linkage between live viral vaccines and the enormous escalation of varied auto-immune disorders. Joshua Lederberg, a Stanford University School of Medicine geneticist and Nobel Prize winner, was perhaps the first to raise the warning that the use of live virus vaccines in mass immunization campaigns represents "biological engineering on a rather large scale."

He goes on to comment: While these [vaccines] are thought to be of indubitable value for preventing serious diseases, their global impact on the development of human beings of a side range of genotypes is hard to assess at our present stage of wisdom. . . . Live viruses are themselves genetic messages used for the purpose of programming human cells for the synthesis of immunogenic virus antigens.

Researchers such as Buttram postulate that the use of live viral vaccines in mass immunization programs introduces foreign genetic material into the human system, which has precipitated an unprecedented escalation of various auto-immune disorders in recent decades. These are disorders wherein antibodies or immune cells indiscriminately attack the tissues of one's own body-mind complex.

Harvard graduate and physician, R. Moskowitz, explains how the live viruses in vaccines can, in the long term, lead to such auto-immune disease conditions. Vaccinal attenuated viruses attach their own genetic "episome" to the genome (half set of chromosomes and their genes) of the host cell, and are thus capable of surviving or remaining latent within the host cells for years. The presence of this foreign antigenic material within the host cell sets the stage for their unpredictable provocation of various auto-immune phenomena such as herpes, shingles, warts, tumors--both benign and malignant--and diseases of the central nervous system, such as varied forms of paralysis and inflammation of the brain.

Markowitz further poses the caution that vaccines do not act by merely producing pale or mild copies of the original disease, but all of them commonly produce a variety of symptoms of their very own. In some cases "these illnesses may be considerably more serious than the original disease, involving deeper structures, more vital organs, and less of a tendency to resolve spontaneously. Even more worrisome is the fact that they are almost always more difficult to recognize."

A British Medical Journal article by Miller et al, reports that "Various German authors have described the apparent provocation of multiple sclerosis by--vaccination against smallpox, typhoid, tetanus, polio, and tuberculosis." No less disconcerting is the warning raised by Rutgers University Professor R. Simpson when he addressed science writers at a seminar sponsored by the American Cancer Society: 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, including rheumatoid arthritis, multiple sclerosis, systemic lupus erythematosus, Parkinson's disease, and perhaps cancer.

As if echoing Simpson, Dettman also raises the caution: that "some of the attenuated strains of vaccines that we advocate may be implicated with . . . a number of degenerative diseases including rheumatoid arthritis, leukemia, diabetes and multiple sclerosis."156 A study in Science reported a notable similarity between certain different viruses (including measles and influenza) and the protein structure of the brains protective myelin sheaths. This being the case, antibodies induced by live viral vaccines could well be cross reacting and attacking brain cells.

Medical historian Harris Coulter has developed a systematic and comprehensive thesis that childhood immunizations frequently result in a demyelinating encephalitis.(As already noted, encephalitis [inflammation of the brain] has been associated with the pertussis, tetanus, and measles vaccines.) This condition prevents the normal development of the protective myelin sheaths of the brain and nerve cells during infancy and early childhood. Such adverse pathologic changes may, on a visible level, lead to a range of learning disabilities and behavioral problems, (As many as one in five elementary school children are now considered to have some form of minimal brain damage."

It is also estimated that in the US over one million children are medicated with powerful amphetamine drugs.) which are now being encountered in the West with increasing frequency. Bruce Rabin, a professor of pathology and psychiatry at Western Psychiatric Institute, Pittsburgh has found evidence that approximately one-third of all cases of schizophrenia are auto-immune in nature, with immune bodies attacking the brain cells. When we consider the alarming increase in the numbers of schizophrenic cases, and the now credible "viral hypothesis of mental disorders," childhood vaccine programs can be considered as highly suspect in playing a causative role.

Medical Professor, R. Mendelsohn summarily comments that: While the myriad short-term hazards of most immunizations are known (but rarely explained), no one knows the long-term consequences of injecting foreign proteins into the body . . . . Even more shocking is the fact that no one is making any structured effort to find out. There is growing suspicion that immunization against . . . childhood diseases may be responsible for the dramatic increase in auto-immune diseases since mass inoculations were introduced. These are fearful diseases such as cancer, leukemia, rheumatoid arthritis, multiple sclerosis, Lou Gehrig's disease, lupus erythematosus, and the Guillain-Barré syndrome. . . . Have we traded mumps and measles for cancer and leukemia?

Noted Russian specialist in neuro-pathology, A.D. Speransky, concurs with the foregoing premonitory insights when he warns that post-vaccinal diseases might occur long after the operation has been forgotten. He raises the disquieting observation that ". . . it is conceivable that by these methods we may be crippling humanity."

Whether considering the short or longer term dangers of immunization programs, it is further unsettling when we consider the evidence that the public cannot really place much confidence in organized medicine to conduct itself in an honest and forthright fashion. For example, in 1982 the Forum of the American Academy of Paediatrics (AAP) rejected a proposed resolution which would have ensured that the: AAP make available in clear, concise language information which a reasonable parent would want to know about the benefits and risks of routine immunizations, the risks of vaccine preventable diseases and the management of common adverse reactions to immunizations.

EVIDENCES FOR IMMUNIZATION INDUCED IMMUNE MALFUNCTION

There is a growing body of evidence that vaccinations damage the immune system itself. For example, during a placebo controlled trial of acellular pertussis vaccines, a cluster of invasive bacterial infections with fatal outcome occurred among vaccinated children, as compared with unvaccinated children of the same birth grouping. A review of the trial data led to the conclusion that "The hypothesis of an immunosuppresive effect of the vaccines, which would explain the deaths . . . could not be refuted by the data."

It is the studied conclusion of H. Buttram and J. Hoffman (Harold Buffram M.D., a graduate of Oklahoma Medical School, with a post internship in internal medicine, has over 30 years of medical practice in the State of Pennsylvania. John Hoffman Ph.D., is a Cell Biologist and when interviewed was serving as a biomedical researcher in the Department of Molecular Biology at the University of Wyoming), that early childhood vaccination "cannot help but have adverse effects on the immunologic system of the child, possibly leaving this system crippled in its ability to protect the child throughout life . . . . opening the way for other diseases as a result of immunologic dysfunction."

In reviewing their hypothesis of vaccine induced immune malfunction the evidence they present is substantive (citing numerous references, including four recognized textbooks on pediatrics and immunology), and their line of reasoning convincing. The following observations are made: "For many years immunologists have been aware of a state of energy (immunological unresponsiveness) following certain vaccinations"

A US Center for Disease Control examination of 700 Peace Corps volunteers who had undergone a set of multiple vaccine injections in the US before departure, exhibited an extremely weakened immune system response to the vaccine (HDCV) administered after their arrival overseas Vaccination against one disease seems to provoke another (on this point, a physician's report of 15 case histories, over a five year period, where diphtheria-pertussis vaccination lead to paralytic polio is described, and Sir Graham Wilson is quoted [this doc. ref 7], "when a vaccine is injected . . . a latent infection that might have given rise to no illness is converted into a clinical attack.")

Vaccines have been implicated by numerous investigators as playing a "causative or contributory role" to various auto-immune and degenerative diseases, and suggests that their role in the onset of allergies or their worsening, and lowered resistance to infections needs to be further investigated Given the one cell--one antibody rule, once an immune body (plasma cell or lymphocyte) becomes committed to a given antigen, it becomes inert and incapable of responding to other antigens or challenges to the immune system.

It is estimated that up 7 percent of the body's overall immune capacity is committed in the natural immunological response to the usual childhood diseases, whereas a child who undergoes the course of routine childhood vaccines could be realizing a committal level of up 70 percent The consequences of this significantly higher committal could result in increased susceptibility to other infections, allergies, and auto-immune diseases. (This particular observation is based upon sophisticated research carried out by the Arthur Research Corporation, based in Tucson, Arizona.)

Evidence indicates that maternal immunization "may remove (abrogate) immune defense from the level of the mucosa, thus potentially weakening mucosal resistance" (immunologists have long recognized that the mucosal surface serves as a "first line of defense" against infection) Abnormal drops in the ratio of helper-to-suppresser T--lymphocyte cell subpopulations in healthy subjects (a condition now associated with AIDS, and possibly linked to transient hypogammaglobulinemia), observed after tetanus booster immunization

Circumstantial evidence indicates that "cross-cultural" mass immunization programs may be predisposing the onset of acquired immune deficiency syndrome in "virgin soil" populations as found in the Developing World, "which have not historically been subjected to the common diseases of Western civilization" There remains a great need to conduct careful studies on the potential "immunosuppressive effects of vaccines," particularly with respect to "cross-cultural immunizations where exaggerated adverse responses would more likely be detected" Where there is already advanced impairment in a child's general immune system, the injection of multiple antigens (vaccination), can weaken it further to the point of precipitating death in the vaccinate

Before public endorsement is accorded to the extensive usage of vaccines, certain preconditions should be addressed which include: a comprehensive evaluation of the multiple factors which constitute the etiologic basis of infectious disease; and the full range of factors and influences which determine natural resistance to infection and disease; with a full public disclosure of such research data.

Despite the fact that immune malfunction is "often delayed, indirect, and masked, (and) its true nature is seldom recognized," there is now sufficient evidence to suggest that growing disclosure of both the short and longer term dangers of current vaccination programs will serve to precipitate public demand for research to examine danger-free alternative methods for the prevention of infectious diseases.

J.E. Craighead, in summarizing the results of a workshop on "Disease Accentuation after Immunization with Inactivated Microbial Vaccines," sponsored by the US National Institutes of Health, indicated that the process of: . . . immuno-prophylaxis can be carried out safely only when the natural history and pathogenesis of a disease is understood. In each of the conditions considered at the workshop, this detailed knowledge was lacking when vaccine trials were initiated in man. Had the vaccines induced lasting solid immunity, prolonged protection might have resulted, although this conclusion is far from certain.

Moreover, production of circulating antibodies or induction of cellular immunity (or both) may be hazardous when local immune mechanisms of the mucosa are not operative. Accentuation of disease was an unexpected complication of immunization in each of the conditions. Disease was accentuated when the subject (vaccinate) was exposed again, experimentally or under natural circumstances, weeks or even years after completion of the immunization regimen. Prolonged, intensive surveillance of immunization subjects apparently is a requirement. . . . One can only wonder whether or not recipients of currently licensed vaccines . . . that provide variable and transient immunity are being followed adequately . . . . Accumulating evidence strongly suggests that susceptibility to infection and disease is affected by still undefined constitutional influences.

It is evident that Craighead's key question of what constitutes the still undefined "influences" will be effectively resolved only when the focus of selective medicine is able to make a radical shift towards displacing its present adventitious arsenal of vaccines and toxic drugs, with the normal and natural requisites of life and health. This is stated because the historical record, and common sense point to the latter approach as constituting the only sound basis for ensuring--not undermining--immune functionality, thus effectively resolving the actual underlying causes of both infectious and degenerative disease in man.

THE ETHICS OF UNIVERSAL CHILDHOOD IMMUNIZATION

There is indeed more than sufficient evidence to warrant far greater caution and questioning, than is now evident in the public drumbeating, idealism, and unqualified affirmations promoting the safety and effectiveness of Universal Childhood Immunization Programs. In fairness, it can be noted that some cautions have been raised on this issue from within medical circles.

In summarizing an article on whether prevention of post-immunization adverse effects is possible, the editor(s) of Postgraduate Medicine recommend that: Parents must be informed of the rare possibility of serious adverse effects, including seizure and allergic reaction. Every physician who administers vaccine therefore needs to become familiar with the reactions that may occur with each immunologic agent used. The best safeguard against litigation, when and if a serious reaction follows vaccination, is the indication that these considerations were discussed and that an informed choice was made.

Nonetheless, we find that immunisation programs as they have been generally conceived and executed represent two major departures from the time honored ethics and traditions of medicine. These are: that all forms of treatment should be individualized, particularly when prescribing or injecting substances which carry the potential for disease, disablement, and death; and the objectively informed patient (or parent) should always have absolute freedom to accept or reject any given measure or therapy, and have reasonable opportunity to consider alternatives.

Just as environmentalists rightly challenge the appropriateness and right of big business interests to pollute our fragile natural environment with man-made chemicals, there arises the more personal, urgent and serious matter of protecting the precious body-mind complex from foreign and complex biological products that may well be touted as safe today, but condemned as dangerous tomorrow. Indeed scientists and physicians now openly admit that they have only a limited knowledge of the short term, and even less understanding of the long term consequences of challenging the bio-immune systems of children with a myriad of manufactured vaccines and related toxins. This in turn poses the more basic question of whether medical and political authorities have the actual right--by reason and moral justice--to compel and expose unnumbered children the world over to undertake what are in fact unnecessary and potentially dangerous risks to their life and long term health.

It is reprehensible that such actions continue to be enforced by authorities, while parents and local health workers are not accorded any practical knowledge of the known dangers involved, and the extent to which there prevails a general ignorance of the longer term consequences. It goes without saying that monopolization is just as dangerous in public health as is it is in the field of general business. The human experience has demonstrated time and again that monopoly and compulsion in any field inevitably brings stagnation, whereas freedom of choice and the opportunity to explore alternatives brings genuine progress.

BANE OR BOON? SELECTIVE MEDICINE IN PRIMARY HEALTH CARE

Given the fact that UCI stands at the forefront as a centerpiece in the "selective medicine primary health care model" (around which has grown a powerful multi-billion dollar pharmaceutical industry), we must reconsider its overall relevance to human health. In selective medicine the relationship becomes one where the professional alone holds the authorized enlightenment and skills, while the community and its people come to represent the baser qualities of ignorance and subservient faith. This dynamic engenders in the community an unhealthful respect for officially authorized solutions, even when their effectiveness is in fact illusory. The Aboriginal peoples of N. America have now reached the unenviable distinction of being not only the most thoroughly immunized and medically drugged, but also the sickest group on the continent (e.g., by the late 1970s, the Canadian Aboriginal infant mortality rate was double that of the general population, with life expectancy at 36 years compared with 62 years among Canadians generally.)

Furthermore, alarming evidence suggests that in many Aboriginal communities there is a continuing escalation in degenerative diseases and social malaise. Both paleopathological and historical data convincingly indicate that when living a way of life closely predicated upon natural law, and free of adventitious medical interventions, North American Aboriginals were distinguished as being one of the healthiest of world peoples.

A more recent, albeit equally instructive picture can be fund among the Maori (Polynesian) people, who likewise have been especially earmarked by their national government (New Zealand) to receive the benefits of selective medical intervention. A study covering the period of 1968 to 1971 found that when compared with their racial counterparts who live in the remote island nations of the Pacific, the New Zealand Maoris appeared more inclined to suffer from infectious disease, rheumatic fever, and tuberculosis.

They also seemed considerably more prone to develop degenerative conditions such as heart disease and diabetes, afflictions which were then virtually foreign to the remote island peoples. (In fact, among Maori women in the age grouping of 35 to 55, coronary heart disease was four to five times as frequent as among women of the same age group living on the atolls of the central Pacific.)

In the final analysis, disquieting evidence--much of which is not cited in this research--suggests the overall irrelevance of selective Western medicine to effecting longevity and ensuring general freedom from a range of infectious and degenerative diseases. Furthermore, as a system, it continues to significantly contribute to human morbidity and mortality" (e.g., it has been shown in the USA, Holland, Israel and other developed nations that when physicians engage in a complete strike, within a week to 10 days death rates actually plummet, in some cases by as much as 60 percent).

It would be appropriate here to quote Illich's unambiguous observation that "Society can have no quantitative standards by which to add up the negative value of illusion, social control, prolonged suffering, loneliness, genetic deterioration and frustration produced by medical treatment."

In reference to selective medicine's central focus on absolving mankind from giving due respect to the natural laws of cause and effect, Mahatma Gandhi shares the following perspective. I was at one time a great lover of the medical profession. . . . I no longer hold that opinion. . . . Doctors have almost unhinged us. . . . I regard the present system as black magic. . . . Hospitals are institutions for propagating sin. Men take less care of their bodies and immorality increases. . . . ignoring the soul, the profession puts men at its mercy and contributes to the diminution of human dignity and self control. . . . I have endeavored to show that there is no real service of humanity in the profession, and that it is injurious to mankind. . . . I believe that a multiplicity of hospitals is not test of civilization. It is rather a symptom of decay.

Evidence suggests that Western medicine's over specialization and singular focus on pathology has literally obfuscated its perception and undermined its faith in the preventive and restorative power of the normal requisites of health. To a great extent it thus remains as an inexact and ever shifting system of trial and error, apparently more interested in maintaining its monopolistic pecuniary interests and professionalist pride, than in opening itself to new avenues of thinking and practice. With all seriousness then we must raise the question as to whether we can realistically expect the self-same medico-industrial system that has for so long offered humankind little more than palliative and pathological inducing vaccines and drugs, to offer us anything better.

Vaccine Compensation Fund May Be Cut
The following articles are quoted from Dr. Mercola's "Health News You Can Use" August 15, 1999

The nation's top health officials are contemplating gutting a federal trust fund that compensates the families of children who are injured or killed by reactions to vaccines, a House committee was told August 10. Surgeon General David Satcher revealed that Health and Human Services Secretary Donna Shalala may recommend to the White House that a large portion of the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program's $1.4 billion trust be turned over to vaccine research. She also is contemplating reducing how much is paid into the fund by cutting the current 75 cent-per-dose assessments on vaccines - a premium used to build up the compensation fund - to 25 cents. Parents usually end up paying most of the surcharge.

Satcher's revelation came during a hearing before the House Government Reform Committee, whose chairman said mandatory anthrax vaccinations of U.S. military personnel should be halted. Vaccine safety advocates vehemently oppose the plan to cut the vaccine trust fund and shift some of its dollars to another use. They say the money eventually might end up back in the hands of the pharmaceutical companies they blame for reactive vaccines in the first place. Barbara Fisher, president of the National Vaccine Information Center, a private advocacy group for parents of vaccine-injured children, said in written testimony that the federal compensation system, which started out as “simple justice for children” has turned into “a cruel joke.” Fisher said the program has grown fat because it reimburses only one-quarter of the families that apply for damages. “There is more than $1 billion languishing in the trust fund because HHS and the Justice Department pay expert witnesses and lawyers to fight every vaccine injury claim,” she said.

The government has 17 full-time, veteran Justice Department lawyers on staff to fight claims and that only 1,300 families of the 5,300-plus petitioners have been awarded about $920 million so far.

COMMENT:  Please reread the above sentence three times as it is a wonderful summary of this federal nightmare. I do not believe I have EVER been so angry about any news article as this one, once I started to reflect on its significance and history. I am so angry that I am having a difficult time putting my thoughts together on this one. My guess is that once you fully appreciate the significance of what I am about to describe, your blood may also be boiling. First of all, the government essentially forces everyone to get these ineffective and harmful vaccines by threats of not letting children into school without them. Few people understand that in 48 of the 50 states a religious exemption is allowed and one can enter school if the appropriate forms are completed. (These forms are in the article section on my web site at www.mercola.com).  Secondly, the government forces parents to pay a tax on these vaccines, which is supposed to provide a trust fund to pay for injuries to the vaccine. The doctors pay the tax initially when they purchase the vaccines, but this is passed right down to the parents of the child. PLEASE recognize that once this program was instituted the drug companies that make the vaccines are not liable for ANY DAMAGES that result from their vaccines. Then to add insult to injury, OVER 80% of the injured children who apply for vaccine compensation are turned down.  The government employs 17 FULL TIME lawyers to defend these cases. I imagine out of the 5300 cases that have applied there MIGHT be a handful of people who would not qualify, but my guess is that nearly each and every one of them deserves compensation for their injuries.  My guess is that there really should be much closer to 530,000 children who should apply to this program for appropriate compensation. NOW, the government wants to deny the 18% of children who make it through the Justice Department attorneys and win their case and fund the trust fund money back straight to the vaccine manufacturers.  We really need to seriously consider renaming that division of our government to the Department of Injustice.  I would encourage you to pass this information on to those who may not be aware of this desperately unjust state of affairs.

Vaccine Induced Autism
By Rick Rollens

Rick Rollens is a parent advocate who presented this testimony last week in Washington D.C. to a packed hearing room.  The immediate reaction in the room at the end of his speech was stunned silence, reports Rick. 

Mr. Chairman and Members:  

My name is Rick Rollens.  I currently reside in Granite Bay, California which is located 30 miles east of Sacramento with my wife of 23 years, Janna, and my two sons, Matthew, 13 and Russell, 8.  Thank you for inviting me to testify today.  For me, this is somewhat of a homecoming.  In 1973, I had the privilege of serving on the Washington staff of former Representative Jerome Waldie of California.  Following my service in the House, I embarked upon a 23-year career of public service with the California State Senate.  Working through the ranks, I was elected by the Members of the Senate to serve as the Secretary of the Senate until I chose to resign my position in 1996, in order to dedicate myself to the pursuit of effective treatments and a cure for my son, Russell.

I am here today to share with you the story of my son's case of vaccine induced autism, and to report on the growing autism epidemic in California, and the pandemic of autism sweeping across this country.  Russell began his life as a normal, healthy, and robust child, meeting all his age appropriate milestones.   At seven months old, within 72 hours after receiving his third DPT and his first HIB vaccinations, Russell developed a high fever and shrieked with a high wailing scream for days. After these vaccinations, he started losing eye contact, smiling less, losing interest in people, developed constant croup and was chronically sick.  At seven months old, Russell's life had begun to change along with the lives of all who know and love him.   Within days after his first MMR vaccination at 18 months old, Russell began his final journey into the abyss of what my wife and I now know as autism -- losing most of his remaining skills, developing severe sleep irregularities, chronic gastrointestinal problems, and expressing constant pain exhibited by harrowing days of endless crying.

Russell was officially diagnosed at two and a half years old with autism.  After many months of medical investigation of Russell's condition, including state-of-the-art brain scans, immunological, neurological and genetic work-ups, we consulted a noted pediatric neurologist who thoroughly examined Russell and reviewed all of Russell's medical history.  He advised us that, in part, Russell's brain dysfunction had very likely occurred as a result of some form of encephalitis, resulting in bilateral damage to the temporal lobes of his brain.  Based on the facts that we have absolutely no family history of autism or any other type of brain disorders in our family, that he was born a normal, healthy child. That there exists the strong temporal relationship between the timing of the DPT vaccination he received at seven months and the onset of his autistic condition, his classic DPT vaccine reactions, coupled with the 18 month old hit from the MMR and the subsequent deterioration of his condition, as well as the scientific evidence that one of the many serious adverse effects of DPT vaccine is encephalitis and brain damage, I believe that Russell is a victim of vaccine-induced autism. 

My story is far from unique.  Mr. Chairman and members, next week when you return home to your districts, talk to your constituents, many of whom are among the growing number of parents who have children with autism.   I can assure you that you will hear first-hand accounts from those parents about their normally developing children, about the introduction and reaction to a vaccine or multiple complications that accompany the acquired autistic condition.  The first rule of medicine is to listen to the patient.  A child born today in California will have received his first vaccination between six to eight hours old.  By the time that child is 6 months old he will have received 15 doses of vaccines and by the age of five years old, 33 doses of vaccines. 

Vaccine contains numerous active agents such as live viruses, killed bacteria and toxic chemicals including aluminum, mercury and formaldehyde. Where are the safety studies on the short or long term effects of the interaction of these numerous multiple vaccines and their agents on the developing brain and immune systems of our children? Where is the science? Many safety studies of individual vaccines only include a few days follow-up period for reactions, but the CDC tells parents and the news media that the onset of autism after vaccination could only be an "unrelated chance occurrence." Show me - CDC - the science.  Show me the studies Dr. Satchir.

Is it appropriate to continue to entrust the CDC and the indemnified vaccine manufacturers with the responsibility of guaranteeing parents of this country that these vaccines do not cause autism or other brain disorders when these same groups are the most aggressive promoters of vaccine use?  The situation can easily be likened to charging the tobacco industry to undertake independent scientific studies to find out if there is any relationship between lung cancer and smoking.    This science on the safety of vaccines and their relationship to the development of autism is not there.   Not there because the pleas of parents have been ignored.   I suffered the ultimate betrayal of trust by blindly allowing my child to be injected with a multitude of vaccines . . .trusting my government had made sure that my child would not become autistic after his vaccinations.

Responding to the outcry of parents, professionals, and educators over the concern of the rapidly increasing number of children with autism and autism spectrum disorders, the California Legislature and two Governors of different political parties responded within the past 12 months by requiring a study on whether autism was increasing in the State and, after finding that there was a huge, unexpected increase, appropriated several million dollars for independent research as well as an independent follow-up study into the real factors causing the increase.  Under the leadership of former State Senator, now U.S. Representative Mike Thompson, last year the Legislature required the Department of Development Services to report on the increase of autism in California from 1987-1998.  The report was released earlier this year and documents a very conservative 237% increase in the number of new children with autism entering the developmental services system; 1685 new children last year alone when incidence projection would have predicted 105 - 263 new children. 

The report led the Los Angeles Times to declare that the state has an epidemic of autistic children.  We all know there is no such thing as a genetic disease epidemic, so clearly other factors are involved. According to the Department, from January 6 to July 7 of this year, 1,027 new children were added to the system; which means that California alone added on average six new autistic children a day, seven days a week . . .or one new child every four hours! Besides the immeasurable human cost on child and family, the thousands of autistic children already in our system along with these 1,027 new children are, according to the Department, going to cost the taxpayers of California and the country a minimum of $2 million each for their lifetime of care.  Surely any intelligent, thoughtful person cannot with a straight face suggest that the huge increase in one of the most easily recognizable of all childhood disorders is all due to genetics, better recognition, or to minor changes in the diagnostic criteria that occurred 10 years after the massive increase in autism had already begun over two decades ago. 

Earlier this year, the national and local news media extensively covered the story of the observations by parents in Brick Township, New Jersey that there were a lot of kids with autism in their community.  In fact, the CDC publicly announced that they had discovered a cluster of autism in Brick was 1 in 150 children.  1 in 150 children with autism represents a prevalence rate 12 times higher than the published prevalence rate.  My family and I reside in a community approximately three thousand miles from Brick Township, a community that is almost in every way as different from Brick as two communities in America can be.  Where we live, our children are served by a single public elementary school district. The prevalence of autism in our elementary school district is 1 in 132 children.  Mr. Chairman and Members, Brick Township, New Jersey and Granite Bay California are not "clusters" of autism, but snapshots of what is occurring everywhere. 

Numerous parent organizations around the world, including the Autism Research Institute, the National Vaccine Information Center, Families for Early Autism Treatment (FEAT), Autoimmunity Research Project, Cure Autism Now, and Allergy Induced Autism are all constantly hearing from scores of parents reporting vaccine-related autism.  You will find these children throughout the neighborhoods of your own districts.  Vaccine policy has always been a cost-benefit proposition.  I am here to tell you today that the once numerically rare sacrificial lambs that society has been willing to tolerate for the good of the whole could now, very likely before our eyes, be turning into herds of casualties of the most precious resource we have - our children and grandchildren.  We must act quickly, by investing in good, independent research and science to pursue the truth about the link between vaccines and autism.  If we don't discover all the causes, we will never find a cure.  Thank you. 

Rick Rollens RRollens@aol.com

Vaccine Safety Study Request
Taken From Dr. Mercola's "Health News You Can Use"

A House committee chairman says too many American children are experiencing reactions to vaccines for the problem to be ignored by the government. Rep. Dan Burton, R-Ind., chairman of the House committee on government reform, said at a hearing Tuesday that his grandchildren are among those who have suffered. He said there were reports last year of more than 11,000 cases of children getting sick after inoculations. Many of their ailments were minor, yet some required hospitalization, he said. Burton said most American children are required to get 22 shots by the time they start school and "some have described the current mandating of an increasing number of vaccines to children to be a good intention gone too far." Burton said his granddaughter had to be hospitalized within hours of receiving a Hepatitis B vaccine, and his grandson became autistic after getting the shots. "You can call that a coincidence, but I think it is more," said Burton.

Mississippi and West Virginia are the only two states where children are absolutely required to get vaccinations before school. The other 48 states, allow exemptions for religious or philosophical reasons. However, less than 1 percent takes the religious exemption.

Vaccine Scene 2000 --- Review and Update
By Harold E. Buttram, M.D.

Science must begin with myths, and with the criticism of myths. Philosophy of Science: A Personal Report," in C. A. Mace (ed.), British Philosophy in the Mid-Century. Sir Karl Popper

In early August of last year congressional hearings were held in Washington D.C. on the question of vaccine safety. Congressman Dan Burton, Chairman of the U. S. House Government Reform Committee, called the hearings.

On the weekend of October 2-3, 1999, an autism conference was held at Cherry Hill, New Jersey, sponsored by the Autism Research Institute of San Diego, California. Over 1,000 people were in attendance, the great majority of whom were parents of autistic children. At one point in the meeting, when those parents who thought their child's autism was caused by vaccines were asked to stand, a large majority of the audience stood. With these and other indications of growing public concerns about current childhood immunization programs, it is hoped that this review will be of timely interest.

Inadequate Proof of Benefit of Vaccines

It is true that there may be situations where extreme measures may be justified, as the lesser of two evils, to preserve life and health. The basic question, therefore, is whether the benefits of current childhood vaccines outweigh the harm, or whether the reverse is true.

As to the benefits of vaccines, polio has been eliminated from the Western Hemisphere, and smallpox may have been eliminated worldwide, although there are disturbing reports it is still to be found in parts of the Far East. However, vaccine proponents would have us believe that vaccines have been largely responsible for controlling virtually all of the former epidemics of killer diseases in the U.S. With the exceptions cited above, the facts do not bear this out. According to the records of the Metropolitan Life Insurance Company, from 1911 to 1935 the four leading causes of childhood deaths from infectious diseases in the U.S. were diphtheria, pertussis (whooping cough), scarlet fever, and measles.

However, by 1945 the combined death rates from these causes had declined by 95 percent, before the implementation of mass immunization programs.(1) By far the greatest factors in this decline were sanitation through public health measures, improved nutrition, better housing with less crowded conditions and the introduction of antibiotics. Also, the virulence of microorganisms tends to become weakened or attenuated with the passage of time and serial passages through human hosts.(2)

Safety Not Proven

It should be pointed out that today's children receive 22 or more vaccines before school age, whereas today's senior citizens received only one vaccine in their youth, the smallpox vaccine. Some of these vaccines contain mercury. Although the impact of this potentially toxic metal remains unknown as concerns the vaccines.

With growing public concerns about potential adverse reactions of these heavy burdens of foreign immunologic materials on the immature immune systems of children, it is reasonable to ask ourselves what is known about these reactions.

A small but growing minority of physicians and scientists are becoming aware that safety testing for the various vaccines has been woefully inadequate. As one of many examples, a 1994 special committee of the National Academy of Sciences published a comprehensive review of the safety of the hepatitis B vaccine. When the committee, which carried the responsibility for determining the safety of vaccines by congressional mandate, investigated five possible and plausible adverse effects, they were unable to come to a conclusion for four of them because they found that relevant research had not been done.(3)

The clear implication of this and other revelations(4) concerning a general deficiency of safety testing in the vaccine field, especially as concerns possible long-term side effects, is that adverse reactions may be taking place on a large scale without being recognized as to their true nature.

There is a school of thought that the so-called minor childhood illnesses of former times, including measles, mumps, rubella [German measles] and chickenpox, which entered the body through the mucous membranes, served a necessary and positive purpose in challenging and strengthening the immune system of these membranes.(5) In contrast, so the theory goes, the respective vaccines of these diseases are injected by needle directly into the system of the child, thereby bypassing the mucosal immune system. As a result, mucosal immunity remains relatively weak and stunted in many children, complications of which may be the rapid increase in asthma and eczema now being seen, both in terms of frequency and severity.(6)

This concept tends to be confirmed by four controlled studies, widely separated geographically, in which vaccinated children were found to have significantly more atopic disorders than controls.(7-10) In commenting on the increased incidence of asthma and other atopic disorders in the United Kingdom in the article, "Measles and atopy in Guinea-Bissau," cited above, the authors made the following comment:

The rise of allergic disease among children in the UK over the past 30 years remains unexplained. One hypothesis is that infections in early childhood prevent allergic sensitization, and that successive generations of children have lost his protection as their exposure to infectious disease in early life has declined. Consequently the prevalence of atopy and concomitant allergic disease has risen.

Threat of Brain Damage From the Vaccines

Perhaps the greatest concern with vaccines today rests with their possible causal relation to the growing epidemic of childhood autism, developmental delay, and attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD). Regarding the latter, recent news item stated that ADHD has increased from 900,000 in 1991 to nearly 5 million today.(11) Parenthetically, statistics may be open to question, but one cannot question the observations of veteran elementary school teachers who, in our experience, unanimously and emphatically report a marked increase in this disorder in recent years. Regarding autism, a recent survey mandated by the California state legislature found an increase of 273 percent in California in the past eleven years.(12) Reports from education departments of several states and reports to the U.S. Congress on the rapidly increasing needs of classrooms for developmentally delayed children reflect comparable changes throughout the nation.(13)

At present primary suspicion for this epidemic of neurobehavioral disorders rests with the MMR (measles-mumps-rubella) vaccine. Although scientific evidence has not yet reached the standards of scientific proof, one pioneer researcher in this area, Dr. Vijendra Singh, during his tenure with the Department of Pharmacology, University of Michigan, published the report of a study in which he found that a large majority (84%) of autistic children tested had antibodies to brain tissue in the form of antibodies to myelin basic protein. He also found a strong correlation between myelin basic protein antibodies and antibodies to the MMR vaccine. Using an immunoblotting technique, MMR antibody was found in 16 out of 27 (59%) autistic sera in contrast to 2 out of 20 (10%) normal sera, which represents a 6-fold higher incidence of MMR antibody in autistic children.(14)*

Working from another approach, Dr. Andrew Wakefield and coworkers of the Royal Free Hospital in London found a possible link between MMR vaccine, Crohn's disease of the bowel, and autism.(16)

If the MMR vaccine is causing an autoimmune reaction involving the brains of autistic children, what would be the mechanism? It has already been pointed out that one of the differences between the vaccine and the respective wild virus infections is that of entry into the body (injections versus mucosal entry). There is another difference: whereas with the wild viruses there is serial passage through human hosts, in the case of the vaccine, the measles virus is incubated in animal culture tissue (chick embryo). Are these fundamental differences responsible for the rapidly increasing incidence of childhood autism and possibly other autoimmune disorders now being seen?

Although research in this area is in its infancy, we do know some things. As purely genetic material, viruses are highly susceptible to the process of "jumping genes," in which they may incorporate genetic material from tissue in which they are cultured.(17) The process may be further affected by the fact that protein sequences in the measles virus have been found to be similar to those found in brain tissues.(18) With the exception of the pioneering work of Dr. Singh, these are questions which remain unexplored and unanswered.

Stealth Virus

A similar process may have taken place with the oral (Sabin) polio vaccine, which is cultured in monkey kidney tissue. Years ago, Dr. John Martin, then serving as director of the viral oncology branch within the U.S. Food and Drug Administration, found foreign DNA in contemporary polio vaccines. He later learned that a simian (monkey) cytomegalic virus had been found in all of the eleven African green monkeys imported for production of the polio vaccine.(19)

After leaving the FDA, Dr. Martin took a position as professor of pathology with the University of Southern California. There he tested blood samples from patients with chronic fatigue syndrome, autism and other nervous system disorders. This work led to his discovery of unique cell-destroying viruses that were not recognized by the immune system. Termed "stealth viruses," some of which he thought had clearly originated from the simian cytomegalic virus, these viruses were missing specific genes, which, if expressed, would induce immune responses from the host.(20,21) It should be admitted that this work is preliminary, and no definitive conclusions can be drawn from it, but the need for further intensive investigation should be apparent.

VACCINES AND MEDULLOBLASTOMA

August 12^th, 1999

Congressman Dan Burton

Chairman
Government Reform Committee
US House of Representatives
2157 Rayburn House Office Building
Washington, DC  20515

Dear Congressman Burton,

This letter is in support of your Government Reform Committee on Vaccines; Finding the Balance Between Public Safety and Personal Choice.  After speaking with your staff member, Mrs. Beth Clay, I had to forward you the appalling story regarding the death of our son, Alexander.  I have also included some of the facts that my husband and I have uncovered since our son’s death that link vaccination with brain cancer.

On August 10^th, 1998 our only child, Alexander, was diagnosed with the most common pediatric brain cancer, medulloblastoma.  He was two years old.  Our lives were shattered.  The next six months became a race against time to try to understand the disease, find the appropriate treatment, and save Alexander. 

After two brain operations Alexander recovered quickly. We wanted to give our son the most effective cancer therapy possible.  After weeks of research, many conversations with parents who had children with brain cancer, and conversations with doctors from all over the world, we selected the Burzynski Clinic in Houston, Texas.  We arrived there and incredibly we were turned away.  Dr. Burzynski said he was not allowed to accept Alexander.  I’ll never forget Wit.  We sat in an examining room.  Alexander was smiling at the doctor.

Why can’t you take Alexander?” I asked Burzynski.

 “The FDA dictates who I can and can’t accept,” Burzynski said.

Burzynski explained to us that the FDA would only allow him to accept children who had suffered through chemotherapy and/or radiation and still had “measurable tumor” left in their brains.  Alexander hadn’t had either of these “world class treatments” but already endured two brain operations (16 hours of surgery in total) and was tumor free for the moment.  He had paid a dear price to be tumor free.  His optic nerves had been injured so that his big brown eyes were stuck pointing in opposite directions, he lost the ability to cry and laugh and he temporarily lost the ability to walk. 

“Please accept my son.  He’s only two years old.  His whole life is in front of him.  I know your treatment works.  I’ve spoken to several parents whose children are here.  They had malignant brain tumors like Alexander but now they’re alive and well.  You have to treat my son,” I begged.

Dr. Burzynski said simply, “I am sorry but I can’t.”  Burzynski was saddened but he was powerless.  The FDA had made him turn away many children just like Alexander.

Chemotherapy was started soon after and Alexander died in my arms three months later. 

Because of the FDA, Dr. Burzynski has to turn away over 90% of the cancer victims who come to him, many of them children.  Burzynski’s cancer therapy is non-poisonous to the body and light years ahead of the crude poisonous treatments - chemotherapy or radiation - offered by conventional medicine.  If Burzynski could accept Alexander and other children like him his cure rate would increase.  It’s a clever ploy on the part of the FDA to only allow Dr. Burzynski to accept children who have already had chemotherapy and/or radiation and whose cancer has returned.  Then nothing can save those children.  When Alexander’s cancer returned while he was on chemotherapy, he died within two weeks.  

Who is the FDA really protecting?   Why would the FDA not want Dr. Burzynski to have a high cure rate?  Dr. Burzynski’s therapy is a better product - it is not toxic to the body and it is much more effective against cancer. But every year, chemotherapy and radiation gross tens of billions of dollars for the drug companies and the medical establishment.  If Dr. Burzynski’s treatment was allowed to be accessible, imagine the market share it would take from chemo and radiation.  Imagine the money it would cost the drug companies and the cancer doctors.  It could literally cost them billions.

Alexander was originally diagnosed with medulloblastoma.  The cancer that took his life was called leptomeningeal sarcoma.  How did one cancer turn into another?  By the carcinogenic (by definition the “DNA changing”) effects of chemotherapy.  In fact, nearly all chemotherapy drugs are listed as “Class I - Known Human Carcinogens” with the FDA.  Yet every day hundreds of children are injected with these deadly chemicals. 

Alexander’s immune system was completely destroyed by the chemo and he had no strength to fight the new cancer.

Whether we are talking about childhood vaccinations, therapy for cancer, treatments for cardiovascular diseases or any of the other big money makers, the interests, motives and actions of the federal government are completely inseparable with the motives and goals of the drug producers and the AMA leadership.  After all, we are talking about the exact same people.  The same doctors who work for the major drug companies and own stock in those corporations take a rotation through the FDA.  They will work at this governmental “regulatory” body for a few years, make decisions that protect their investments and careers, and then return to the drug companies for reportedly bigger salaries and stock options.  Over the last twenty years, the most powerful people at the FDA have been employees, grant recipients, board members or research “affiliates” of the major pharmaceutical corporations.

Why Did Alexander Get Cancer? 

The Vaccine-Related Symptoms

Why did our strong two-year-old boy have a brain tumor?  There is no cancer on either side of our families going back three generations.  Both of our paternal grandmothers lived to almost 90!  Two of Alexander’s great-grandparents are still alive today.

My husband and I started to review everything we knew about Alexander’s health.   Alexander never had been a good sleeper.  At four months old, when most babies start to sleep through the night, Alexander actually got worse.  He used to wake us up at least four times a night and yell.  We also recalled an evening when Alexander was about seven months old.  It was a couple of weeks after he had received his latest round of vaccinations shots.  He started crying very loud and long and he suddenly had convulsions that lasted about five minutes.  I held him in my arms.  He calmed down but it had made him very tired.  The next day I called his pediatrician.  I was told that little children sometimes get excited and can have spasms.  It was nothing I should worry about.  A couple months later, Alexander would have another episode of “spasms.”

After the age of one, Alexander began to have eczema outbreaks that would cover the back of his legs.  I went to the pediatrician.  He said that lots of little children have food allergies and he gave me cortisone cream.  The cream didn’t help very much.  I used vitamin E and almond oil, which seemed to help a little.

But why would Alexander get cancer?  He always had been a good eater.  He was very strong and tall for his age- in the top 95 percentile in weight and height compared to other children.  We didn’t live near a nuclear plant, I didn’t work near pesticides.  My husband worked in an office.  Since 1992, we had lived in Marina del Rey, a suburb by the beach in Los Angeles.  Of course, Los Angeles is not known for its fresh air, but none of his little friends had cancer.

We started to do research on medulloblastoma - the brain tumor that Alexander was originally diagnosed with.  The tumor had been identified in the 1920’s by two of the first neurosurgeons, Drs. Percival Bailey and Harvey Cushing.  They removed medulloblastomas and other brain tumors at the Surgical Clinic of the Peter Bent Brigham Hospital in Boston.  We read their articles and books and studied their graphs on the survival rates of children with medulloblastoma.  We learned that after “100%” of the tumor had been surgically removed it would grow back within six to twelve months (assuming no additional therapy was attempted).  This suggested to us that the original tumor took approximately that same amount of time to grow.

Alexander had been very irritable and threw up a lot in November 1997.  The pediatrician told me it was a viral infection, a stomach flu.  Alexander often had ear infections around this time.  Then in March 1998, Alexander threw up again and told me he had pain in his tummy.  I thought he had swallowed a button or little toy.  That night, the pediatrician on call told us to go to the emergency room.  There, Alexander threw up more.  The ER doctor told us that Alexander had a viral infection.  The next day, his pediatrician told me the same thing.   This was five months before he would be diagnosed with a three-inch malignant tumor growing in his brain. 

We now understand that sometime between November 1997 and March 1998 the tumor began to grow.

What had happened to Alexander at or before that time which could have led to cancer?  I opened Alexander’s “medical file” and suddenly saw all the vaccines he received within weeks or months of these symptoms.  My husband and I focused on the DPT, the IPV and OPV and Hepatitis B vaccine.  What were these vaccines all about?  What was in them? And more importantly what were the side effects on an infant’s brain?

The Vaccine Cancer Connection

After extensively researching the medical literature, we have identified six ways that vaccination may cause cancer, either directly or indirectly.  After reading this you may wonder why aren’t these subjects being actively pursued?  Childhood cancer is on the rise, why aren’t the “authorities” conducting objective research to determine the risks?  The answer is simple - money.  Nearly all the medical research in this country is funded by drug companies or the U.S. government (viz. taxpayer’s money).  Both parties have an inherent interest in, at a minimum, maintaining the status quo.  What would motivate a drug company to pay for a study that demonstrates that their products cause cancer?  Do they want to commit fiscal suicide?  Why would the federal government pay for research that presents the dangers of a program that they have ostensibly mandated? 

Orthodox Medicine Has No Idea If Vaccines Are Carcinogenic

We will begin with a very basic question - are vaccines carcinogenic?  And the answer is that nobody knows because no studies have ever been done.  The inserts that the vaccine manufacturers must place with each and every vial of vaccine state this fact.  Here’s a summary of what the vaccine manufacturers publish about their products for the eyes of physicians.  This information is taken directly from their inserts as it is published in the Physicians’ Desk Reference (PDR, 51^st edition, Medical Economics Co. Inc., 1997).  The last column is of most interest.

None of the vaccines injected into children have ever been tested for their carcinogenic (cancer causing), mutagenic (mutation causing), or teratogenic (developmental malformation causing) potential.  Not a single one.  Can these chemicals that are injected into healthy children cause cancer?  The people manufacturing the vaccines (the drug companies) and the bureaucrats mandating the drugs can’t say because no studies have ever been conducted. 

In summary, federal and state governments are mandating that infants and children swallow and be injected with substances that have never been tested for their ability to cause cancer, mutations or developmental malformations.  In the meantime, the drug companies are grossing billions of dollars on sales of these potentially carcinogenic products.

How Vaccination Can Cause or Contribute to Cancer

Vaccines contain Known Carcinogens

If you call the American Association of Pediatrics and ask them what is the safe dosage of mercury derivatives, aluminum and formaldehyde to be injected into an infant, they may suspect child abuse.  After they have calmed down, they will explain that there is no safe dosage because these are all potentially carcinogenic substances.  But mercury derivatives, aluminum and formaldehyde are ingredients in most vaccines.  How is it possible that they’re safe?  The answers depends on who is injecting them.  If you or I inject our child with mercury or formaldehyde we are going to jail.  But if a drug company and a doctor inject the same chemicals then they are perfectly safe. 

Viruses Can Be Carcinogenic

Vaccines are comprised of viruses and viruses can be carcinogenic.  According to mainstream science a number of viruses with oncogenic (cancer causing) properties have been identified over the last twenty years.  The information below comes from the chapter entitled “Etiology of Cancer: Viruses” from the 5^th edition of the book - Cancer: Principles & Practice of Oncology.  (One of the book’s editors is Dr. Vincent De Vita, Jr., former director of the National Cancer Institute.)  This chapter lists various viruses and the cancers associated with them: 

Virus                                And the Human Cancer associated with them:

Hepatitis B                                          Hepatocellular carcinoma

Hepatitis C                                          Hepatocellular carcinoma

Epstein-Barr                                        Burkitt’s lymphoma

Epstein-Barr                                        Hodgkins disease

Epstein-Barr                                        Immunoblastic lymphoma

HPV-16, HPV-18, 33, 39                    Anogenital cancers and some upper airway cancers

HPV-5, HPV-8, HPV-17             Skin cancer

BK, JC                                                Brain tumors (possible), Mesotheliomas (possible)

HTLV-I,                                              Adult T-cell leukemia/lymphoma

HTLV-II                                              Hairy cell leukemia                

Murnane Poeschla E, Wong-Staal F. Etiology of Cancer: Viruses, p.169, Cancer: Principles & Practice of Oncology; Fifth Edition, edited by V. T. DeVita Jr., S. Hellman, S. A. Rosenberg. Lippincott-Raven Publishers, Philadelphia, 1997.

The association between some viruses and some cancers is a well-accepted medical fact. Are there other viruses that may cause or lead to other cancers?  Of course.  There are literally tens of thousands of viruses, but only a small percentage has been tested for their ability to cause cancer.  In fact, some viruses use a “team approach.”  One virus by itself may be relatively benign but when it is combined with other viruses it “helps” the first one cause cancer.  These viruses are literally called “helper viruses.”  How many various combinations of different viruses can lead to cancer, no one knows.  But when you consider that:

Ø     Children are injected with bacteria (that contain viruses)

Ø     Children are injected with viruses themselves as per the vaccine

Ø     The bacteria and virus vaccines are grown on animal tissue (i.e. monkeys, eggs, etc.) that also contain their own population of viruses

There is no way of knowing what viral combinations have formed and what is in the final “soup” that will be injected into a healthy infant.  The toxicity test that vaccine manufacturers use is as crude as can be imagined.  They inject mice with the vaccines and if a given percentage still eat and put on weight than the vaccine is pronounced safe for children.  Unbelievable!

Vaccines, Brain Injury and Brain cancer

Oncologists and neurosurgeons at Children’s Hospital Los Angeles, St. Jude Children’s Research Hospital and UCLA Medical Center told us that pediatric brain cancer is on the rise?  Why?  Why are more and more children getting cancer in their brains?  Could it be due to the various types of brain injuries caused by vaccines?  

The fact that vaccines can cause temporary or permanent brain damage is an established fact.  Even the manufacturers admit it.  For example, the manufacturer of one of the DTP vaccines (Lederle), warns pediatricians on their insert that their vaccine can cause “neurological complications such as convulsions, encephalopathy, and various mono and polyneuropathies including Guillian-Barre Syndrome…Permanent neurological disability and death have been reported…”

- Physicians’ Desk Reference, 51^st edition, Medical Economics Co. Inc., 1997

There is an abundance of medical literature going back one hundred years that suggests a connection between cancer and chronic injury caused by viruses or bacteria.  It appears that cancers have a tendency to form in organs that are injured or irritated by viral or bacterial infections.  For example, it is well known that people who have various forms of hepatitis (viruses that infect the liver) are at a much higher risk for liver cancer.  This fact was presented in a recent article published in the European Journal of Cancer Prevention.  The authors wrote, “Chronic disease conditions…are well established as risk factors for cancer development.  These may be due to viruses (for example, in the case of hepatitis and liver cancer), bacterial infections, parasite infestation or physical trauma.”

- Moore, MA, Tsuda H, Chronically elevated proliferation as a risk factor for neoplasia.  European Journal of cancer Prevention 1988 October; 7(5): 353-385.

The same line of reasoning suggests that a viral infection of the brain (which vaccines are known to cause) can lead to cancer of the brain.  It’s a rational conclusion and a reasonable question to ask, but no one from the drug companies or the federal government is asking it. 

Simian Virus 40

In the 1950’s and 1960’s the polio vaccine injected into millions of children contained an unexpected guest - another virus that was growing on the same monkey kidney cells in which the vaccine was being grown.  This virus was named Simian Virus 40 (SV40) because it was the 40^th simian or monkey virus found.  Unfortunately, this virus was also found to cause cancer.  The vaccine manufacturers changed their monkeys (African green monkeys) but this wasn’t enough.  Today SV40 is found in many human cancers including many pediatric brain cancers.  Coincidence?  I don’t think so.  It turns out that SV40 can be passed horizontally (i.e. between father and mother) and vertically (i.e. between mother and child).  In fact, SV40 is often associated with medulloblastoma, the most prevalent pediatric brain tumor.  When scientists injected young hamsters with Simian Virus 40 over 80% developed brain cancers - all of which were medulloblastomas.  Here are a few of the studies that have looked at SV40 and human cancers:

Ø     In 1979, Drs. Jaqueline Farwell, George Dohrmann, Lorraine Marrett and J. Wister Meigs wrote a paper entitled: Effect of SV40 Virus-Contaminated Polio Vaccine on the Incidence and Type of CNS Neoplasms in Children: A Population-Based Study, in which they found a substantial increase in childhood brain tumors, especially medulloblastoma, when the mothers had been inoculated with vaccines containing SV40.  They wrote:

“In the late 1950’s and early 1960’s, an increase occurred in the number of central nervous system tumors diagnosed in children as recorded in the Connecticut Tumor Registry.  From 1955 to 1961, polio vaccine was used in Connecticut, which subsequently was found to contain the virus SV40.  In animal models SV40 has produced central nervous system tumors… particularly striking rises in gliomas (astrocytoma, spongiblastoma, and glioblastoma multiforme) and medulloblastomas were noted in children born during 1956-1962…Among medulloblastoma patients, 10 of 15 were exposed to SV40.  This rate of exposure is high and significantly greater than among controls (children without brain tumors)…SV40 may selectively induce malignant tumors…In summary we demonstrate a strong association between exposure to SV40 and the development of medulloblastoma…(and) the occurrence of gliomas.”

Ø     In 1987, Drs. George Roush, Theodore Holford, Maria Schymura and Colin White of the Yale University School of Medicine published a book on cancer risks.  In it they wrote:

“Infectious agents have been strongly associated with childhood brain tumors.  An excess of central nervous system malignancies occurred in a cohort (a group) of offspring (children) whose mothers were inadvertently exposed to polio vaccine contaminated by Simian Virus 40 (SV40).  Medulloblastomas bore the strongest relationship to the contaminated vaccine.”

- Roush G, Holford TR, Schymura MJ, White C, Cancer Risk and Incidence Trends: The Connecticut Perspective, Brain, Cerebral Meninges, and Cranial Nerves, Ages 0-19, Department of Epidemiology and Public Health Yale University School of Medicine; The Hemisphere Publishing Company, 1987.

Ø     In this 1995 study published in the Journal of the National Cancer Institute, SV40 was again found in various human brain tumors but not in any healthy brain tissue.  The researchers wrote:

“…we found SV40 DNA sequences in five of six choroid plexus papillomas, eight of eleven ependymomas, three of seven astrocytomas…None of the 13 normal brain tissues were positive for SV40 DNA.”

- Martini F, et. al., Human Brain Tumors and Simian Virus 40, Journal of the National Cancer Institute, September 6, Volume 87, 1995

Ø     In 1997, when researchers looked for SV40 in other human cancers such as mesotheliomas (a kind of lung cancer), and osteosarcomas (a kind of bone cancer that kills children and adults), they found them.  The doctors wrote:

“We decided to test human mesotheliomas and osteosarcomas for SV40 based on…the enormous increase in the incidence of mesotheliomas in the second half of this century which coincided with the inadvertent inoculation of millions of people with SV40 contaminated polio vaccines… SV40 or closely related DNA sequences are present in specific types of human tumors.”

- Rozzo P, et. al, Evidence for and implications of SV40-like sequences in human mesotheliomas and osteosarcomas; Conference: SV40 a Possible Human Polyomavirus National Institute of Health January 27 and 28, 1997

Ø     This paper, like the previous one, was presented at an SV40 seminar at the National Institute of Health in 1997.  In it the authors state that SV40 is found in most brain cancers and that it can spread from one generation to the next.  They also mention that more people who are vaccinated have brain tumors versus those who have not been vaccinated.  They wrote:

“SV40 amplification products were detected at high prevalence in primary human brain tumors: 83% of choroid plexus papillomas, 75% ependymomas, 47% astrocytomas, and 37% glioblastomas…35% osteosarcomas, and Ewing’s tumors…These results indicate that SV40 is associated with human brain and bone neoplasms (cancers)…SV40 infection (may be spread) by blood transfusion and sexual transmission in the human population.

“…a viral co-factor should be taken into consideration as a possible cause of… human brain and bone tumors…a higher incidence of brain neoplasms (brain cancers) was noted in cohorts (groups) of vaccinated persons.  In this as well as in other studies, a high prevalence of SV40 was detected in brain and bone tumors that affect early childhood.”

- Martini F, et. al, Simian Virus footprints in normal human tissues, brain and bone tumors of different histotypes; Conference: SV40 a Possible Human Polyomavirus - National Institute of Health January 27 and 28, 1997

Ø     And in this most recent study published in January of this year, researchers found SV40 in all the brain tumors they examined.  They wrote:

“We found SV40…sequences in all brain tumor types investigated.  High frequencies were found in low-grade astrocytomas, anaplastic astrocytomas and secondary glioblastomas (59%)…Presence of viral DNA was also found in pediatric brain tumors…” 

- Huang H, et al, Identification in human brain tumors of DNA sequences specific for SV40 large T antigen, Brain Pathology, January 9, 1999

So here’s the obvious question - Is the SV40 from the 1950’s and 1960’s back to haunt us?  Are parents passing cancer on to their children?

Vaccines & Immune Deficiency

This is a very broad subject so we will only present the highlights:

Cancer is often associated with immune deficiency.  Scientists believe that the reason one person gets cancer and another doesn’t is because the second individual has a “stronger” or “more competent” immune system.  But vaccines can cause a  child to become immune deficient.  It is known that vaccines can cause immune deficiency through various mechanisms including:

Ø     Vaccines cause commitment of T-lymphocytes to a specific antigen and T-lymphocytes posses one of the major defenses against cancer.  In other words, vaccines cause important cells in our immune system (T-cells) to commit themselves and once an immune cell becomes committed to a specific antigen, it becomes inert and incapable of responding to other challenges.

Ø     Vaccinations can cause the T-cell count to temporarily and significantly decrease to the levels found in AIDS patients.

Ø   Vaccines cause depression of lymphocyte function.

This means that vaccines can actually cause your immune system to be weaker in its response to other viruses and bacteria.  Scientists are beginning to understand that the inoculation of billions of organisms into the human body viz. vaccination is an abnormal event and causes the body to react in an abnormal way.  This reaction, even if is only the formation of antigens, requires the energy and the attention of the immune system.  If the immune system is reacting to the sudden and strange invasion of billions of vaccine organisms, it may not be able to pay the same level of attention to protecting the body against other threats such as cancer as it did before the invasion/vaccination.

In addition, according to a report by the Medical Advisory Committee of the Immune Deficiency Foundation published in 1992 (made possible by a grant from the American Red Cross) “most immune deficiencies cannot be diagnosed until a child is one year old.”  And one of the most important contraindications for childhood vaccines (a reason not to be vaccinated as stated by the vaccine manufactures) is to not administer a vaccine to “a child with impaired immune response.”  Wait a second here.  We have a contradiction.  By the time a child is one year old they have already received a number of vaccines.  Yet, we are told by the vaccine manufacturers, that we should not vaccinate an immune deficient child.  But diagnosing an immune deficient child cannot be done until the child is one year old.  I don’t know if this is circular logic, a paradox, or a “Catch-22.”  What is clear is that it is irresponsible and a potentially dangerous practice.

How often are children immune deficient?  According to the Immune Deficiency Foundation:

“The primary immonodeficiency diseases were originally thought to be quite rare.  In fact, however, some of the primary immunodeficiency diseases are relatively common… because there are so many primary immunodeficiency diseases when taken together as a group of disorders, they become a significant health problem, occurring with a frequency

comparable to leukemia and lymphoma in children and four times as frequently as cystic fibrosis.”

-  The Clinical Presentation of the Primary ImmunodeficiencyDiseases, A Primer for Physicians, Produced by the Medical Advisory Committee of the Immune Deficiency Foundation, Towson, Maryland, 1992.

So what’s the answer to this “paradox”?  The answer is that every vaccination is a game of roulette with your child’s life.

Viruses From Vaccines Can Change DNA

Scientists are learning that DNA is not a blueprint that is “carved in stone” and locked away and untouchable.  It turns out that DNA can be cut, torn and spliced and pieces can be inserted, deleted, truncated, fused, mutated and amplified.  What kind of organism can change our DNA?  Viruses.  It turns out that viruses and viral sequences (pieces of DNA from a virus) can actually be inserted into our cells and into our own DNA.  Researchers like John Martin M.D., Ph.D. of the Center for Complex Infectious Diseases in Rosemead, California, and Howard Urnovitz Ph.D. of the Chronic Illness Research Foundation in Berkeley, California are discovering that viruses especially viruses in various combinations can invade our cells, change our DNA and even hide from our immune system.  Some of these changes include turning on oncogenes (growth genes that can cause cancer).  Remember that all vaccines contain millions of viruses from the bacterium or virus itself, the tissue it was grown in, or contaminants.  These viruses may exchange sequences, pick-up animal DNA or combine in other unknown ways.  Once in the body the range of damage they may reap is only now being recognized.

Conclusions on Vaccines & Cancer

I am not suggesting that vaccination always leads to cancer.  What I am suggesting is that in the same way vaccination can lead to encephalitis (damage of brain tissue) it can also, in some cases, lead to cancer.  Why does one child become autistic from the vaccine and another gets Crohn’s disease?  Why does one child get Guillian-Barre Syndrome from a vaccination and another die of SIDS?  Why does one child get reoccurring seizures and the other cancer?  How many other viruses is that child carrying?  What other latent or hidden infections do they have?  How strong is their immune system?  How many vaccines can an infant handle before some invisible threshold has been crossed and the body becomes sick? Alexander got 16 vaccinations from the age of 2 months to 17 months old.  My grandparents got one childhood vaccine and they are both alive today.  My parents, both born in 1937, got a total of two vaccines up to 17 months old.  According to my vaccination booklet (my parents kept wonderful records) I was vaccinated only seven times before I reached 17 months.  In fact, my first vaccine came at the age of 5 months, not two months like Alexander. 

Every new childhood vaccine that is introduced means more profits for the drug companies so there is a tremendous incentive to keep adding more and more.  Alexander got vaccinated against chicken-pox, a “disease” that kept our generation at home from school for one week.  Do we really need a vaccine against chicken-pox?  The drug companies will answer “yes.”

So I will ask the question again - How many vaccines can an infant handle before some invisible threshold has been crossed and the body becomes sick?  This is not an easy question to answer but it should be asked!  Sadly for all the children who are about to be maimed and killed by the vaccines they will soon receive, the answer to this question is only being pursued by a handful of independent scientists (researchers who are not being financed by the drug companies or the government).  These scientists operate outside medical orthodoxy on “shoe-string” budgets.  Mainstream science, the “science” of the drug companies and the government is not interested in the truth.  They have no interest in knowing the real answer.  Why ask a question when the answer can only hurt you?

Dr. Howard B. Urnovitz possesses a degree in Microbiology and Immunology and is the Scientific Director of the Chronic Illness Research Foundation. He testified to the following in front of the Committee on Government Reform and Oversight. 

1.     The human body retains a genetic memory of the foreign substances to which it has been exposed, including viral and bacterial vaccines;

2.     Each individual responds to foreign substances differently, based on his or her own unique genetic background;

3.     There appears to be a limit on how much foreign material to which the human body can be exposed before some level of genetic damage occurs and a chronic disease initiates.

Each generation gets more vaccinations.  Each generation has more immune related diseases.  Where are all the new “auto-immune” diseases coming from?  (Such as Crohn’s disease, Guillian-Barre syndrome, asthma, encephalomyelitis, multiple sclerosis, myasthenia gravis, chronic neuropathy, stiff-man syndrome, retinopathy, primary biliary sclerosis, pernicious anemia, systemic lupus erythematosus, rheumatoid arthritis, etc. etc.)  And regardless of the self-serving pronouncements by the American Cancer Society and the National Cancer Institute, cancer rates continue to climb. 

By giving each generation more and more vaccinations are we not creating populations of genetically damaged mutants?

There are a lot of unknowns in respect to childhood vaccination.  But as parents, nobody ever waved them in front of us.  Nobody ever said that there’s over 50 years of evidence that vaccines can cause brain damage.  Nobody ever said that we don’t know if vaccines cause cancer because we never tested it.  Nobody told us that if Alexander was immune deficient he shouldn’t get the vaccines.  Nobody ever told us that Alexander’s symptoms (before he was diagnosed with cancer) of vomiting, “spasms” and eczema were signs that this child could not endure the vaccinations.  Nobody ever told us that monkey viruses that have been found in vaccines are known to cause brain cancer.

What would happen if parents were provided with full disclosure or “informed consent” as is legally required with any medical procedure?  Some parents might say “no thanks” to the vaccines.  But then this could take a bite from the billions of dollars earned by the vaccine manufacturers.

Between the greed of the drug companies and the impotence of our government, parents and children have been forced into making a dangerous trade.  Assuming for a moment that vaccines actually work (after careful research we believe they do not work but that would take another letter), assuming they do, we have traded mumps for autism, polio for SIDS and whooping cough for cancer.  We are not suggesting that there exists a one to one relationship, but we are suggesting that our government has traded one group of diseases (relatively benign childhood diseases) for another group of diseases (complex, permanent, disabling and deadly).  That trade continues to be made without our permission and without good science.  For example, for years, pediatricians and pediatric neurologists were finding that the pertussis vaccine can cause neurological side effects - some temporary, others permanent.  However as late as the 1980’s some physicians were fighting fifty years of clinical observations.  They claimed that there was no link between the pertussis vaccine and permanent and disabling brain damage. As it turns out these doctors were employees of the drug companies that manufactured the vaccines.  

According to the book A Shot in the Dark: Why the P in DPT vaccination may be hazardous to your childs health, by H.L. Coulter and B.L. Fisher, one of these doctors, James D. Cherry received money (nearly a half a million dollars) from Lederle.  Lederle manufactures vaccines including various brands of DTP, Hib, influenza, and poliovirus.  It also manufacturers countless other drugs.  Lederle is a division of American Cyanamid the manufacturer of pesticides, herbicides, fungicides and all the other “wonderful chemicals” poisoning the earth, our food, water and air, the animals, the plants and our bodies.

Writing in the Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA) in March 1990, Cherry stated that it was a “myth” that pertussis caused encephalitis.  Such a statement is an insult to 50 years of dead or disabled children and 50 years of grieving parents.  But if you investigate who Cherry is, his position makes sense.  He is a recipient of funds from one of the largest manufacturer of vaccines.  What’s the money for?  Is it just a coincidence that he has also testified in over 125 lawsuits on behalf of vaccine manufacturers who were being sued by parents of vaccine damaged children.  But here’s the problem - as a doctor he is considered “independent” and “credible.”  His research, analysis and conclusions are considered “objective.”  He is a peer reviewer for JAMA which means that he has influence as to what gets published and what doesn’t get published - what gets communicated and what doesn’t get communicated to children’s doctors.  His articles in JAMA and other prominent medical journals are read by thousands of doctors. When Dr. Cherry says encephalopathy from vaccines is a “myth” those words are believed.  Children are vaccinated.  After Alexander received his DTP  vaccinations he had convulsions.  We called his pediatrician and the doctor told us that it was nothing to worry about because “sometimes little children get excited.”  The pediatrician didn’t consider encephalopathy.  Our pediatrician was probably aware that there was a controversy regarding the pertussis vaccine but that no scientific consensus had been reached.  But the controversy is artificial.  On one hand there was 50 years of maimed and dead children and pediatricians and pediatric neurologists who knew encephalopathy when they saw it.  On the other hand you had prominent doctors like Cherry.  The two sides seemed to have an equally objective point of view.  Doctors on either side of an important question, rationally debating a medical issue where lives are at stake.  But this “controversy” is a fiction. 

On one hand you have experience, observation and clinical skills.  On the other hand you have a drug company protecting its immense profits.  People like Cherry are not doctors if you define doctors as truly objective and rational professionals who are seeking truth.  People like Cherry are MD’s for hire.  Their positions and arguments are a direct result of who is paying them.  Sadly, there are many many Ph.D’s and MD’s like Cherry.  People need to be paid and some people want to be paid more than others.  As mentioned above, today there are two major employers of science - the drug companies and the U.S. Government.  Since he who pays the piper calls the tune, the prevalent point of view throughout the medical literature is the position of the drug companies and the government.  In respect to vaccines, where one of these entities stops and the other starts is hard to discern.  The government mandates the vaccines and corporations like Lederle produces them.  Where is the incentive for either of these two parties to admit that vaccination can harm?  To admit this would subject the government to severe criticism and cause the drug companies to loose millions of dollars.

Another corruption of the scientific process is that “scientists” like Cherry can help determine the frequency of adverse events that are reported.  How often does autism, SIDS, encephalitis, permanent neurological damage and cancer result from vaccination?  The vaccine manufacturers through their pay-rolled scientists decide.  Is an infant’s sudden death that takes place twelve days after vaccination counted as vaccine related or does it have to take place within seven days or three days or 24 hours?  Who chooses the number?  If you scrutinize the data on the frequency of adverse reactions you will find that the very corporations manufacturing the vaccine financed most of those studies.  In other words, the vaccine makers have chosen the number for their own ends.  They have chosen a number that will ensure that most vaccine related deaths and injuries will not be counted as such.  Your child died seven days after the vaccinations?  Sorry, she had to die within 24 hours for it to be linked to the vaccines.  Therefore, cause of death is unknown.

The most powerful doctors in America are those affiliated with drug companies.  The influence of the drug companies is so complete and profound that the agenda of the drug manufacturers has become the agenda of mainstream medicine and the U.S. government.

Our son, Alexander was our life.  At two years old Alexander was bilingual in English and French.  He was full of joy and laughter.  He loved life.  He loved looking at the little ants in the earth.  He would say, “Look Daddy they go vite, vite, vite” (fast, fast, fast).  He loved going to the beach, in particular the tide pools looking for “gaga crabs” and “little tiny animals.”   When I asked my son, “Alexander you want to go rollerblading?  He used to give me a big smile and say: “Yeah, rollerblading with Mommy” and run to the closet to get the rollerblades.  We used to go fast on the bike path along the beach.  Alexander was in his special purple stroller holding his apple juice bottle and Mommy would push.  But Mommy will never push the stroller again with her beautiful son who loved life. 

I’m only left with his handsome pictures, his special smell in his little clothes, his bag of special cars, memories of laughter and pain, a little brown sandwich bag with his curly brown locks, his smiling face on the videos and his beautiful innocent little voice which always said: “Mommy, I’m happy, happy, happy.”

Alexander used to say: “Mommy, Daddy and Alexander, the Team!”  Yes, my love we will always be the team, but a family we are no more.

Yours Sincerely,

Raphaele Moreau-Horwin                                                Michael Horwin

Alexander’s Mommy                                                           Alexander’s Daddy

MH Biomed@aolcom

Vaccinations Alexander Received from age 2 months to 17 months.  Within 15 months my son received 16 vaccinations.  But how many viruses?  This was the same time his brain cancer began to grow.

Date                    Date                    Date                    Date

DTP                      8/12/96          10/10/96          12/14/96          11/7/97

IPV                       8/12/96          10/10/96     

OPV                                                                      11/7/97

MMR                                                                                 7/7/97        

HbPV                    8/12/96          10/10/96          12/14/96   7/7/97

Tuberculin            (Only checking for the antigen)                  7/7/97 

HEP B                  12/14/96 1/2/97                    3/7/97         

VARIVAX             7/7/97   (chickenpox)

Dr. Mercola's Favorite Vaccine Links Page

The Optimal Wellness Center is a reference point for guiding healthcare professionals through the information resources of the Internet. I have made it very easy to search for healthcare related information.

Provided are a listing of Medical hyperlinks:

Dr. Classen's excellent vaccine site

http://www.vaccines.net/ 

Immunizations

http://www.pcslink.com/~klove/immunize.htm

Vaccine Information and Awareness (VIA) Web Site

http://www.access1.net/via/

Concerned Parents for Vaccine Safety

http://home.sprynet.com:80/sprynet/Gyrene/Home.htm

National Vaccine Information Center (NVIC)

http://www.909shot.com

The best site for Anthrax Vaccine Information

http://www.anthraxvaccine.org/

The best web site I know for vaccine related information

http://trufax.org/menu/bio.html