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