Vaccination Information Service
"A foolish faith in authority is the worst enemy of truth." Albert Einstein
Comments on Japanese SIDS "rebuttal"
Introductory note: This is a response by Dr Viera Scheibner to an article written for the magazine of an organisation who call themselves the Australian Skeptics, yet are anything BUT sceptical of pharmaceutical (the Greek roots of the word "pharmaceutical" mean "poison" or "sorcery" - take your pick) "science", including the unproven wisdom of injecting a witches brew of highly toxic substances into a previously healthy body in the belief that this will somehow prolong the person's good health (and even worse, continuing to do it even after it is observed that it has made them less healthy!).
The author of the article, apart from stating some incorrect facts, follows the unscientific practice of relying on researchers' conclusions rather than focusing on the data that is reported, the latter being far more scientifically significant and of course unaffected, or far less affected, by politics in respect to the company that sponsored the research and the researcher's education and career. Dr Scheibner's response to other subjects covered in the article will be posted here soon. The article is at www.skeptics.com.au/journal/anti-immune.htm
Firstly, the author of this "rebuttal" hasn't done his homework: he can't even spell my name and my book VACCINATION was published in 1993 and not 1992. (These errors have since been corrected in the article to which this is responding - editor.) In my opinion, his homework about vaccines and infant deaths is of the same quality as his homework about my book and my work.
The author has taken, in isolation, a couple of statements I have made here and there that I acknowledge I did not explain as well as I could have. He then misinterpreted them, falsely claimed that I was resting my entire position on those few points, and ignored a host of other significant, but unambiguous revelations that accompanied those statements, but which revelations did not apparently suit his objective.
1. Between 1970 and 1974, 37 infant deaths occurred after DPT vaccination in Japan; because of this the doctors in one prefecture boycotted vaccination (Iwasa et al. 1985 and Noble et al. 1987). Consequently, the Japanese Government first stopped DPT vaccination for 2 months in 1975, and, when vaccination was resumed, the vaccination age was lifted to 2 years.
Cherry et al. (1988) found it "instructive" that the entity of cot death "disappeared". The author of the Skeptics' article claims that what was meant by "the entity of cot death" was not cot death itself, but simply the number of compensation claims made in respect to it being linked to vaccination, which claims of course inevitably would have to disappear because cot deaths occur before 2 years of age (the new minimum vaccination age).
However, I would like first to make the point that Cherry et al. (1988) found this "instructive". Surely it would not have been "instructive" if these researchers were merely referring to a figure in a table of vaccine injury compensation claims, showing an artificially induced change to the number of associations made between vaccines and cot death - it is only an inevitable logical result, not "instructive", that vaccines will not be blamed for any deaths that occurred before the babies could have any vaccines.
Far more significantly however, the overall infant mortality improved: Japan zoomed from 17th to first place in infant mortality in the world. This means that Japan moved from a very high bracket to the lowest infant mortality rate in the world (Janny Scott 1990). Interestingly, Noble et al. (1987) who spent some 2 weeks in Japan studying the acellular whooping vaccine there, wrote: "It is difficult to exclude pertussis vaccines as a causal factor even when other etiologies are suggested, particularly when the adverse events occur in close temporal association with vaccination".
What was also significant, and seems to be ignored by Dr Basser, was the fact that the doctors in a prefecture had boycotted vaccination when they observed those deaths. The association must have been pretty clear for the doctors to take such a strong stand that flies in the face of the education they had received that vaccines are safe and effective.
The same thing happened in England after 1 July 1975 when thanks to the first media reports of brain damage linked to vaccination, parents stopped vaccinating: the compliance fell down to 30% or even 10% in some areas. As unwittingly documented by McFarlane (1982), the overall infant mortality rate plummeted. She wrote:
"The postneonatal mortality fell markedly in 1976, the year in which a sharp decline in perinatal mortality rate began. Between 1976 and 1979, however, neither the late nor the postneonatal mortality rates fell any further. Indeed, the postneonatal mortality rate increased ,slightly among babies born in 1977". This very closely correlates with the documented oscillations in vaccination compliance: low compliance was linked to low death rate and vice versa. The vaccination compliance was lowest in 1975-76. Then it started climbing up in 1977-78, simply because people have short memories and the new parents did not know about the publicity surrounding vaccination as the cause of serious side effects (young couples become interested in these issues only after they have their first children). Fine and Clarkson (1982) wrote "...it is surprising that the interepidemic period did not decrease after the 1974 fall in vaccine uptake." They expected the incidence to increase in the unvaccinated children. Indeed, this interepidemic period was unusually long with the lowest incidence of whooping cough on record.
When in 1988 Japanese parents were given the choice to start vaccinating anything between 3 months of 4 years, obviously many ignorant parents started at 3 months because the low SIDS rate increased fourfold in the last 13 years (Byron Shire Echo; June 1994). Professor Hiroshi Nishida of Tokyo Women's Medical College has been quoted as saying that the SIDS rate among babies aged under 1 year had sharply increased to 0.33 % in 1992 when compared with 0.07 % in 1980.
2. SIDS is a rather rubbery diagnosis and the figures can be and are manipulated. However, the total infant deaths are a bit more difficult to manipulate. The definition of SIDS is a death of a child unexpected by history and with insufficient determination of cause of death. So, it depends on the degree of damage whether the infant death will be diagnosed as Sudden Infant Death Syndrome or pneumonitis, bronchiolitis, brain edema etc. With the increasing number of vaccines administered as part of the "routine" now, we shall see increasing numbers of babies with very serious reactions to vaccines and they will not be diagnosed as SIDS. We already see it in the epidemic of Shaken Baby Syndrome, when babies develop serious brain and other haemorrhages and die or remain seriously damaged and the parents are being accused of causing it by allegedly shaking their babies to death (Scheibner 1998).
Cherry et al. (1988) discussed the pertussis vaccine deaths in a rather odd way. Under the subheading Non-SIDS deaths they quoted Madsen's (1933) description of two babies who died soon after pertussis vaccination. In a way which can be described as contemptuous they tried to explain these immediate deaths (one-half hour after the second vaccination given four days after the first) and two hours after the second vaccination respectively) and Werne and Garrow (1946) who reported on the deaths of identical twins following the second injection of diphtheria and pertussis antigens. These children died within 24 hours of their vaccinations and had symptoms of anaphylactic shock (Cherry et al. 1988 wrote "suggestive" of shock) and they concluded that the injuries were also consistent with diffuse viral infection such as that which might be due to an enterovirus. No evidence whatsoever was offered for this unfounded assumption.
Under a subheading "SIDS", Cherry et al. (1988) tried to diffuse the impact of the published data on vaccine deaths by writing about a small section of the Tennessee deaths within 24 hours of their DPT vaccination. "An extensive evaluation of this possible association was made, and there was a weak statistical association with one lot of vaccine. It was the impression of the investigators and a panel of outside consultants that there was no causal relationship between the specific lot of vaccine and SIDS." and "A statistically significant number of excess deaths was noted in the first week following immunization (observed 17, expected 6.75 P less than .0005). This study was criticized by Mortimer and colleagues (1992) because ...did not take cognizance of the well-known age distribution of SIDS". This is a blatant circular argument: the well-known distribution of SIDS follows closely the vaccination schedule and none of the studies of SIDS distribution or incidence was the vaccination status of the SIDS victims even mentioned. This is "science" squarely standing on its head.
They also wrote that of the six children having serious side effects to Wellcome pertussis vaccines (described by Griffith (1978), "one was found to have pneumonia, one Reye Syndrome, and a four-day febrile illness, one acute tracheobronchitis, one tuberculous meningitis, and one an encephalomyelitis which had its onset seven days after immunization". Vaccines are known to cause pneumonia; the Reye Syndrome is a recognised side effect of vaccination, vaccines cause febrile illnesses and seven days is one of the characteristic critical days for the onset of vaccine reactions. I would also like to see details of the "tuberculous meningitis" before concluding that this was not a reaction to the administered vaccines.
Wilkins (1988) dealt with the question of delayed reactions to vaccines. She wrote that "if one assumes that the adverse reaction to the DTP vaccine may result from an immunologic intravascular complexing of particular antigen (whole-cell or disrupted organisms) with specific antibody to produce a Jarisch-Herxheimer reaction, then adverse reaction may not occur within 24 hours of inoculation...If the post inoculation interval is extended to 2 weeks, an additional 93 case infants (now representing a total of 98 case infants) might have been at risk for an adverse reaction to DTP vaccine."
Perhaps the most revealing is the comment of Cherry et al. (1988) about articles by Torch (1982 and 1986a, b). Even though the two articles published in 1986 were available at the time. Cherry et al. (1988) did not quote them. One wonders why? Perhaps, the answer is contained in the articles (see below).
Torch (1982 and 1986 a,b) analysed the symptoms and postmortem findings in babies and small children after vaccination and described them in sufficient detail not to leave anything to imagination. Torch (1986b) concluded that "Although many feel that the DPT-SIDS relationship is temporal, this author and others maintain a causal relationship exists in a yet-to-be determined SIDS fraction."
3. Even though vaccinators as a rule are very reluctant to use the word CAUSED when they talk about vaccine damage, they, interestingly, talk about REACTIONS to vaccination. The word reaction in itself implies the causal link, though it does not actually say so. You can't have a coincidental reaction to vaccination, you can only have coincidental occurrence of some damage or symptoms, demonstrably caused by something else. They often use the word "TEMPORAL" meaning occurring in time, always overlooking the fact that these "TEMPORAL REACTIONS" always occur AFTER and not NOT BEFORE vaccination, and that the reality of the occurrence after vaccination is the first condition to fulfill when establishing causality; if something happens before vaccination we would not even consider it being caused by the subsequent administration of vaccines.
4. In the past, vaccinators were denying that vaccines cause any adverse effects. Thanks to strong anti-vaccination awareness, vaccinators now have to admit that yes, no vaccines are 100% safe or 100% effective and reactions do occur and the vaccinated children are getting the "vaccine-preventable diseases". Yes, there are mild or strong local reactions; and yes, there are systemic reactions, like fever, convulsions, hypotonic-hyporesponsive episodes, screaming (a cerebral cry), drowsiness, but only within a maximum of 7 days after vaccination. They also have great difficulty recognising and accepting the damage in individual cases. They always claim that the damage was coincidental, or worse still, caused by the parents of the affected or killed child by accusing them of Shaken Baby Syndrome.
The vast majority of published studies of vaccine reactions included a follow-up of up to only 48 hours. This conveniently excludes about 90% of reactions to vaccination (see also Wilkins 1988).
Characteristically, most vaccine reactions are delayed, many starting only 2-3 weeks after vaccination.
5. With this introduction, we may find it rather curious why Cherry et al. (1988) would even contemplate to publish some 40 pages of a Report of the Task Force on Pertussis and Pertussis Immunization in which they analyse in quite a detail all those "temporal" reactions to the pertussis vaccine. But they did.
Among many other examples of this remarkable, and as it might seem, wholly misplaced diligence. Cherry et al. (1988) looked into sudden infants deaths after pertussis vaccination. That babies as a rule are given the pertussis vaccine together with the diphtheria and tetanus toxoids as DPT did not seem important to these authors. If you administer 3 in 1 vaccines how do you know which vaccine caused what? Unless, of course, you know precisely what damage the pertussis component of this toxic trio causes. In fact, the pertussis vaccine is as a rule used to induce encephalomyelitis in laboratory animals (Steinman et al. 1982) and when these unfortunate animals develop encephalomyelitis, as expected, and intended, it is never considered just coincidentally temporally related to the administration of the pertussis vaccines, or a result of some Shaken Rat Syndrome inflicted by laboratory staff: it is only when the same vaccine causes the same reactions in babies, it is as a rule considered coincidental and only temporally related or a result of Shaken Baby Syndrome inflicted on them by their parents or other carers. Kirschner and Stein (1985) called this hostile attitude of medical staff a form of medical abuse.
On page 971, Cherry et al. (1988) under the heading "development of alternative B pertussis vaccines" write that "During the past several decades, many laboratories attempted to identity and separate significant protective antigens from those bacterial components that account for adverse reaction. Until recently, this effort amounted to a trial and error process that proved to be exceedingly difficult in face of the array of biologically active products that could be derived from B pertussis organisms..-Two of the extracted vaccines will be described. The experimental vaccine of Pillemer et al. (319) was partially purified by adsorption to human RBC stroma. In extensive comparative field trials in the United Kingdom, it was highly protective in children but caused significantly more systemic reactions than available conventional whole-cell vaccines. It was not pursued further." We should not even have to go any further. Cherry et al. (1988) here clearly and without a shadow of a doubt (at least in my mind) used the word "caused" when describing the adverse systemic reactions which were observed and documented as a result of this pertussis vaccine administration in extensive comparative trials.
But let's read further:
"An extracted pertussis vaccine (TRiSolgen manufactured by Eli Lilly Co) was marketed in the United States from 1962 to 1977 (for fifteen years!). There are few published data evaluating this product. The antigen was chemically extracted from whole bacteria, cell debris was removed by centrifugation and no additional purification steps were taken. The vaccine was never well characterized, two published small field trials provided information regarding reaction data and agglutinin liters. 320, 321 Only one of these trials was carried out in a randomized, double-blind fashion, and in this study the difference between the reaction rates following the extracted vaccine varied only slightly from the comparative whole-cell vaccines. The local reactions were less frequent with extracted vaccine, although the systemic reactions were not significantly different.
In addition, there are no specific data concerning efficacy or frequency of uncommon temporally related severe neurologic events with this extracted vaccine."
So, vaccines which were discontinued (after 15 years of use!) or never reached the distribution do cause serious side effects and have never been properly researched.
Also, ordinary systemic reactions are caused by the vaccine, but when it comes to the 'severe neurologic events' they are suddenly only temporally related. In other words, the vaccine causes only mild reactions and the severe reactions are caused by nothing.
But Cherry et al.(1988) continued in their strange rhetoric. On page 972 (Development of Acellular Vaccines in Japan) they write under a subheading (Transient Local and Systemic Reactions): "In general, transient local and systemic reactions caused by acellular vaccines were less frequent and milder when compared with Japanese conventional whole-cell vaccines. A small number of children in the United States received a Japanese T-type component vaccine and similar mild reactions were observed." Well, no problem using the word 'caused' when it comes to what they called transient local and systemic reactions.
However, when it comes to severe events, they suddenly change their choice of words into "Temporally Related Severe Events" (p. 972). Cherry et al. (1988) write here: "In the 5 year period from 1970 through 1974, a period when standard whole-cell DTP immunization was started routinely at 3 to 5 months, there had been a total of 57 severe temporally related events and 37 deaths (9.5 severe reactions and 6.1 deaths per year) including presumed vaccine-associated encephalopathy and other CNS diseases, as determined by claims paid by the Japanese national compensation system. When whole-cell vaccines were initiated at 24 months of age, in the six years between 1975 and 1980, there were eight severe temporally related events (average 1.6 [per] year) and three deaths. The whole-cell DTP vaccines used in'the latter period were equivalent to those in prior use. Thus, the age of starting routine immunization appears to be a far more important determinant of temporally associated reactions than the switch from conventional whole-cell vaccine to acellular vaccines".
And then Cherry et al. (1988) continued:
"The conclusion can be drawn that either (1) DTP prepared with whole-cell B pertussis is less likely to cause neurologic disease when begun at 24 months or (2) the purported reactions in infants were in large part unrelated<developmental events expected commonly in that age group but attributed to vaccine because they were time related... The rate of severe reactions does not differ significantly between the acellular and whole-cell vaccine when used at 24 months of age. (Table 8). The decrease in severe reactions is slight, if any. The category "sudden death" is also instructive in that the entity disappeared following both whole-cell and acellular vaccines, when immunization was delayed until a child was 24 months of age." And further: "It is clear that delaying the initial vaccination until a child is 24 months, regardless of the type of vaccine, reduces most of the temporally associated severe adverse events. Furthermore, analysis of cases with paid claims in the Japanese national compensation system indicates many of the putative cases to be related to other medical conditions".
This paragraph is the source of controversy. As I see it. Cherry et al. (1988) here clearly indicate that the shift of the start of vaccination to 2 years reduced the incidence of (what they would describe as temporal) severe adverse events. Without saying in which age group, one can reasonably assume that he also meant the unvaccinated babies younger than 2 years of age. All this must inevitably change the temporal into causal; the continued use of the word temporal is inappropriate. This interpretation is supported by the lack of decline in the incidence of these reactions after DTP vaccination of 2 year-olds and the causal link is very obvious.
As far as the infant death rate or SIDS rate and vaccination schedule is concerned, it is quite clear that the shift of the lower vaccination limit to 2 years resulted in Japan zooming from 17th to first place in infant mortality rate: meaning from very high to the lowest rate in the world. This could hardly be interpreted to mean that only the number of vaccine deaths which were subject to compensation claims declined as the proponents of vaccination claim.
As far as low vaccination compliance in the seventies and the incidence of whooping cough is concerned. Noble et al. (1987) published a very interesting graph on their Figure 21 (page 1352) which is showing that whilst the vaccination compliance started climbing up after 1976, so did the incidence of whooping cough. Far from showing the effectiveness of vaccination, this figure 2 shows that vaccination was at best irrelevant to the issue of the incidence of whooping cough. Inappropriate correlations abound in this article, like for example comparing the incidence of whooping cough in 1984 (the epidemic year) with the incidence in 1970 (a non-epidemic year). Equally unreliable are the data on adverse reactions to the acellular vaccine. Indeed, when acellular vaccines were tested in the nineties in Sweden, they expected 20 deaths and experienced 45 (plus one accidental death) (Olin et al. 1997 and elsewhere). Also, the rate of side effects was much higher than anticipated. This includes a large epidemic of whooping cough within about 7 months into the trial, and in the children who were given three trial doses, which prompted the discontinuation of the trial before the planned date (Olin 1995). This shows that like the whole cell pertussis vaccine, the acellular one causes whooping cough. When the US mandated DPT vaccination in 1978, it resulted in the sustained three-fold increase in the incidence of whooping cough particularly in the well-vaccinated age group between 2 and 6 months (Hutchins et al. 1988). This explains the substantial increases in the incidence of whooping cough in Japan after 1976, when the vaccination compliance started climbing up. In fact, one must read the figures 1 and 2 of Noble et al. (1987) correctly, as showing a fall in the incidence with the falling vaccination compliance and the increasing incidence with the upward climb in compliance. Any other interpretation offends common sense.
Perhaps the most important statements in Noble et al. (1987) are on page 1355: "It is difficult to exclude pertussis vaccine as a causal factor even when other etiologies are suspected, particularly when the adverse events occur in close temporal association with vaccination" and on page 1356: "If acellular vaccines have produced a reduction in the occurrence of serious reactions with sequelae in children over 2 years of age, the decrease is slight".
My evaluation of the "Japanese SIDS rebuttal" is that it is as bad as they come, and it is poor on real facts and real analysis and rich in abusive language and reasoning unworthy of a scientific analysis, not withstanding compassion for the pain and documented suffering vaccination causes to infants and all their recipients. The Skeptic Magazine never published either the longer or the shorter version of my response to Basser's original article, only a very abbreviated version together with another attack of that by Dr Basser because they just had to have the last word. I am back to my original response which is ignoring this type of literature and groups of people who are not interested in the truth or real facts but in trying to silence people who express opinions and publish facts which are uncomfortable for them.
And last but not least: Japan discontinued MMR vaccination in 1993, and shortly afterwards, compulsory vaccination of any kind.
Iwasa, Ishida, S., and Akama, K. 1985. Swelling of the brain in mice caused by pertussis vaccine - its quantitative determination and the responsible factors in the vaccine. Japan J Med Sci Biol; 38: 53-65.
Noble, G.R., Bernier, R.H., Esber, E.C., Hardegree, M.C., et al. 1987. Acellular and whole-cell pertussis vaccines in Japan: report of a visit by US scientists. JAMA; 257(10): 1351-1356.
Jenny Scott, 1990. Press & Sun Bulletin (taken from Los Angeles Times); March 1, 1990. Report: U.S. slips in fight to cut infant mortality.
Mason, J.O., 1991. Reducing infant mortality in the United States through "healthy start". Publ Health Reports (Sep-Oct).
McFarlane, A., 1982. Infant deaths after four weeks. Lancet (Oct 23).
Fine, P.E., and Clarkson,. J., A., 1982. The recurrence of whooping cough: possible implications for assessment of vaccine efficacy. Lancet (March 20): 666-669.
The Byron Shire Echo (June 22, 1994). SIDS cases quadruple in 13 years.
Scheibner, V., 1998. Shaken Baby Syndrome - the vaccination link. Nexus (August-September): 35-38 & 88.
Cherry, J.S., Brunell, P.A., Golden, G.S., and Karzon, D.T., 1988. Report of the task force on pertussis and pertussis immunization. Pediatrics (suppl): 939-984.
Madsen, T., 1933. Vaccination against whooping cough. JAMA; 101: 187-188.
Werne, J., & Garrow, I,. 1946. Fatal anaphylactic shock: Occurrence in identical twins following second injection of diphtheria toxoid and pertussis antigen. JAMA;131:730-735.
Griffith, A., H., 1978. Reactions after pertussis vaccine: A manufacturer's experience and difficulties since 1964. Br Med J; 1: 809-815.
Bernier, R.,H., Frank, J.AS., Dondero, T.J., Jr. 1982. Diphtheria-Tetanus-Pertussis vaccination and sudden infant deaths in Tennessee. J Pediatr; 1982; 101: 419-421.
Baraff, L.J., Ablom, W.J., Weiss, R.C., et al. 1983. Possible temporal association between diphtheria-tetanus- toxoid-pertussis vaccination and sudden infant death syndrome. Pediatr Infect Dis; 2: 7-11.
Mortimer, E.A., Jr., Jones, P.K., and Adelson, L. 1983. DTP and SIDS. Pediatr Infect Dis; 2: 492.
Wilkins, J., 1988. What is 'significant' and DTP reactions. Pediatrics; 81(6): 912-913.
Torch, W.S., 1982. Diphtheria-pertussis-tetanus (DPT) immunization: a potential cause of the Sudden Infant Death Syndrome (SIDS). Neurology; 32(4): A169 abstract).
Torch, W.C., 1986 a. Characteristics of diphtheria-pertussis-tetanus (DPT) postvaccinal deaths and DPT-caused Sudden Infant Deaths Syndrome (SIDS): a review. Neurology (suppl 1); 36: 148 (abstract).
Torch, W.C., 1986 b. Diphtheria-pertussis-tetanus (DPT) imunization may be an unrecognized cause of Sudden Infant Death (SIDS) and Near-Miss Syndrome (NMS): 12 case reports. Neurology (suppl 1); 36: 149 (abstract).
Steinman, L., Weiss, A., Adelman, N. et al. 1985. Pertussis toxin is required for pertussis vaccine encephalopathy. Proc Nati Acad Sci USA; 82: 8733-8736.
Kirschner,R.H., and Stein,R.J., 1985. The mistaken diagnosis of child abuse. A form of medical abuse? Am J Dis Child; 139: 873-875.
Pillemer, L., Blum, L., and Lepow, I.H. 1954. Protective antigen of Haemophilus pertussis. Lancet; 1: 1257-1260.
Olin, P., Rasmussen, F., Gustafsson, L., Hallander, H.O., et al. 1997. Randomised controlled trial of two-component, three-component, and five-component acellular pertussis vaccines compared with whole-cell pertussis vaccine. Lancet; 350: 1569-1577.
Olin, P., 1995. Acellular vaccines - a question of efficacy. J Hosp Infect; 30 (suppl): 503-507.
Hutchins, S.S., Cochi, S.L.,, Brink, E.W., et al. 1988. Current epidemiology of pertussis in the United States. Tokai J exp din Med; 13 (suppl): 103-109.
8. Due to documented problems with vaccines' effectiveness the aims of vaccinators changed: at the beginning, in the fifties and up to the eighties, they were going to eradicate diseases like whooping cough, measles, mumps, rubella or whichever disease for which a vaccine happened to be developed. Indeed, the US Secretary of State Califano announced that measles will be eradicated from the United States by 1 October 1981 (Scheibner 1993,p..89): "Predictably, the programme to eradicate measles in the US by 1st October 1981 fell flat on its face. After 1981, instead of achieving eradication of measles, the US was hit repeatedly by major epidemics of measles, mostly in fully vaccinated communities". Atypical measles (only occurring in the measles-vaccinated) persisted as a "continuing problem" (Nichols 1979; Canadian researchers published that up to one half of the vaccinated who get measles, developed atypical measles).Atypical measles is a deranged immunological response to the injections of measles virus into the blood stream. When a healthy, unvaccinated child gets measles, rash appears on the forehead, behind the ears, on the trunk and then moves to the extremities. In contrast to this, when a vaccinated child gets measles, rash may appear on the extremities (palms of hands and soles of feet) and moves to the trunk and these children end up with recurrent pneumonia which resists all treatment. Indeed, this is the ultimate evidence for the validity of the Herring's Law of appearance of symptoms. This law says that rash normally appears first on the more vital organs and as the body deals with the infection in a beneficial way, rash then moves to the less vital organs. However, when the immune response is deranged, such as we see in the vaccinated, rash appears first on the less vital organs - the extremities - and moves to the more vital organs, hence the development of atypical measles, with 12-15% mortality rate. To spare Basser further embarrassment: atypical measles first appeared with the use of the so-called killed measles virus vaccine, but when this was replaced by the so- called live measles virus vaccine, atypical measles started occurring in its recipients, as well. When in 1995 a few teenagers in Queensland allegedly died of measles, it transpired that they had been vaccinated and were in fact victims of atypical measles. 9. With measles mass-vaccination, many babies below the age of 2 years, often only a few weeks or months old, are now contracting measles. Black et al. (1984) and many others warned that babies born to vaccinated mothers will have poor transplacentally transmitted immunity (TTI) which is essential for the protection of young babies before they develop their own immune system, indicating a serious and insidious long-term side effect of vaccination. This continued to be a well-published reality in the nineties. Interestingly, the Amish, a religious group that mostly rejects vaccination on religous grounds, did not report a single case of measles between 1970 and 1987 (Sutter et al. 1991). This was the time with low incidence of measles in the well-vaccinated outside communities and naively credited to vaccination. One must give a serious thought to a possibility that high vaccination compliance in the outside communities might have kept measles occurring and that without any measles vaccination very likely no cases of measles would have occurred there, on par with the unvaccinated Amish. This is supported by the fact that measles vaccination started in the US in 1963 and it remains to be explained as to why measles incidence decreased only after 7 years of intensive vaccination. Quite obviously, other factors (in fact the same factors as in the largely unvaccinated Amish) were at play here. One thing is for sure: it was not vaccination. 10. Infectious diseases are beneficial for children by priming and maturing their immune system and representing developmental milestones. West (1966) published that having mumps prevents ovarian cancer. Ronne (1985) published that adults who did not have measles in childhood, or when having measles did not develop proper rash, were more likely to develop certain tumours, degenerative diseases of bone and cartilage and subaceous skin diseases. That the author of this article then recommended vaccination is beyond normal comprehension. 11. Risk v benefit. How do 19 deaths from whooping cough in 15 years (which is just over 1.2 per year) publicised by vaccinators score against 500 cot death per year in Australia which adds-up to 7500 in fifteen years? Naturally, vaccinators don't want to hear about the causal link between vaccination and cot death. It would devastate their position. However, the articles dealing with cot death after vaccination, including those that "concluded" that their own data did not provide any evidence of the causal link between vaccination and cot death, unwittingly show clustering of these deaths along the same critical days as recorded in breathing of babies after vaccination with the microprocessor-based Cotwatch breathing monitor (developed by Leif Karlsson). I was invited to present the data collection on babies breathing to the Second Immunisation Conference in Canberra 1991 and an abstract of my presentation is published in the Proceedings. Some other results of the studies with Cotwatch breathing monitor are published in a refereed medical journal (Tye et al. 1993). 12. Vaccinators are trying to scare parents into vaccinating by quoting conditions that prevailed in Europe in the last century. But their all time favourite is the developing countries. This has no revelance to the present situation. In developed countries, both mortality and morbidity from infectious diseases declined by up to 90% before any vaccine has been developed and used in mass proportions. The most plausible and best documented factor was better nutrition. The role of better hygiene was most probably a major factor in lack of exposure. Vaccinators boast disappearance of smallpox as the only success of vaccination. Indeed, as discussed in my book "Vaccination" there is no evidence to support this illusion, either: the largest smallpox epidemics occurred soon after major vaccination drives and those countries and areas which refused vaccination, had the lowest incidence and mortality from smallpox. Smallpox was on the way out by the time the decision was made to "eradicate" it. The real test of the effectiveness of any vaccine is in epidemics (Dr Robert Hall, January 1997 issue of The Australian Doctor: "Whether antibodies are the best measure of protection is a point of debate. Antibodies are important but the real test is clinical effectiveness"). The way vaccinators are presenting the risks versus benefits "debate" does not make sense. Their figures are flawed and non- sensical. I'd like to remind Basser that the way provaccinators use of the term "herd immunity" is inapproppriate and misleading. Hedrich (Am J Hyg 1933) observed measles epidemics in the Boston area over 30 years. When certain percentage of susceptibles get measles, the epidemic stops and comes back again after 2-3 years when there is, again, enough susceptibles. If you have 2-3 year epidemics of measles in fully vaccinated populations then the vaccine is quite obviously ineffective. But, of course, Hedrich (1933) talked about natural immunity, not "vaccine-induced immunity" (whatever that means). One must also look at the incidence of measles over a long period of time, like Hedrich did, because within a longer period of time practically all vaccinated and practically all unvaccinated will get measles. To look at one epidemic or outbreak is unscientific to say the least. If a child has side effects from the disease like measles one must look at possible mismanagement. Pumping children full of antibiotics and suppressing their temperature (a natural healing process) when having measles is asking for trouble. In some New York hospitals and in some developing countries, children with measles are given large doses of vitamin A. Vitamin C is invaluable in any infectious disease. Babies documentedly develop whooping cough from the vaccine. Hutchins et al. (1988) unwittingly documented this by showing that the incidence of whooping cough went up three-fold straight after DPT vaccination became mandatory in the US. So did cot death: the Tennessee deaths are the best documented evidence. The clear clustering of these deaths along the same critical days as recorded in babies breathing after vaccination, is the ultimate and indisputable scientific evidence of the causal link. Also, it was not just four deaths: according to Bernier et al. (1982) 54 babies died between August 1977 and March 1978 and August 1978 and mid-March 1979 within the first 60 days after vaccination. Interestingly, published data on infant mortality in the UK show that when, after the first media reports of brain damage linked to vaccination in 1975, the vaccination compliance fell down to 30% or even 10%, the infant mortality declined substantially in 1976 "...the year in which a sharp decline in perinatal mortality began. Between 1976 and 1979, however, neither the late neonatal nor the postneonatal mortality rate fell any further. Indeed, the postneonatal mortality rate increased slightly among babies born in 1977 (Lancet 1982, Oct 23)". These documented facts show clear internal consistency with the documented fluctuations in vaccination compliance. People have short memories so a year after the observed initial fall in compliance and when the new generation of one year olds arrived, and coupled with the campaigns of the UK health authorities, the vaccination compliance increased to around 50% by 1978. The decline in infant mortality not only stopped, but mortality rate increased slightly among babies born in 1977. When Sweden discontinued whooping cough vaccination in 1979, because of the ineffectiveness of the vaccine and also because of the unacceptably high rate of side effects from the vaccine (not even touched on by Basser), whooping cough became a mild disease (Taranger 1983) and the incidence was equivalent to that in the well-vaccinated US. The same happened in the UK. Even vaccinators admitted that low vaccination compliance after 1 July 1975 did not result in a shortening of the interepidemic period. Quite to the contrary, this was followed by a long interepidemic period with the lowest incidence of whooping cough on record. When, three years later, the normal world-wide epidemic of whooping cough arrived in 1978 a child only had to cough and it was diagnosed with whooping cough; also, 37% of all reports came from 2% of surgeries. Obviously, vaccinators resorted to overreporting. What gives this game away is that 35% of hospital admissions were of fully vaccinated children (Stewart 1980) and the death rate was very low. When you consider that there were only 24 deaths (or 36 depending on who is reporting) from the disease, then low vaccination compliance saved about 1000 cot deaths per year. Thus, non-vaccination has quite an impressive risk v side effects ration in its favour. Sweden has been under pressure from the US vaccinators to test acellular vaccines. The first trial 1986-87 ended up with fiasco: the Swedish health authorities withdrew their license application; the reasons being inadeqate effectiveness of the vaccines and a concern about a possible causal link between administration of the vaccine and an unexpectedly high rate of deaths from invasive infections in the vaccinated (Lancet 14 Sep 1989). The second round of trials is also interesting because within a short period of time a large number of babies who were given 3 doses of the vaccine developed whooping cough (Olin 1995). Indeed they had more death on their hands than they expected for the whole duration of the trial. This prompted discontinuation of the trial before the planned termination. Swedish vaccinators. Gustafsson et al. (1996) admitted that they had 4 deaths during the second trial of acellular pertussis vaccine (the Italians did not mention any deaths during their trial), even though, all of these deaths were "judged to be unrelated to vaccination" (one child died of cot death within 24 hours, another on day 27 and another two from bacterial infections 7 and 14 months after the third dose of the DT vaccine). All this despite the fact that death was one of the side effects they were looking for. Even more importantly, none of the 45 deaths occurred before the trialed vaccine was given. There were two groups of trial babies: those who were given the first dose at 2 months and those who were given the trial dose at 3 months. None of the observed deaths occurred before 2 or 3 months respectively (Olin et al. Lancet 1997; 350: 1569-1577). As a rule, when vaccination compliance fell, the age distribution of whooping cough returned to normal: with no or very low pertussis vaccination, over 80% of all cases occurred between about 2 1/2 and 10 years (Sweden, West Germany and UK) while in the US 90% of cases of whooping cough occur below the age of one and mostly between 2 and 6 months of age, in the well-vaccinated age group (Marchant et al. 1994). Within a short period of Sweden starting pertussis vaccination with the acellular vaccine in 1995, 18 babies were reported having serious reactions: hypotonic-hyporesponsive episode. To reach the target of the 80% effectiveness of the acellular vaccine, the Swedish experimenters excluded from the calculation of efficacy those babies who developed whooping cough after 3 doses of the vaccine but in whom Bordetella pertussis was not bacteriologically proven. It is a well-documented fact that in vaccinated individuals it is often impossible to identify Bordetella pertussis in the blood (the vaccine pushes the organism deep into the tissues). 13. Basser's comments on the hearing before the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission are either naive or tendentious and misleading: he should know that at hearings like this one answers questions and does not elaborate outside the specific questions. Also, if he read the transcripts of the hearing, Basser would have seen that during my presentation I was constantly interrupted and cut short by the Commissioner, typically in half sentence. In contrast to this, presentations of the doctors who appeared for the Council are pages of unterrupted ramblings punctuated by supportive statements by the Commissioner. While presenting evidence published in refereed medical journals for Mr Beattie's case I struggled with these interruptions to get in as much published information as possible. In contrast to this the Council's experts stressed that they were only presenting their personal opinions and did not support them with any published information with the exception of one expert who handed in his own paper. Astonishingly, in his ruling the Commissioner wrote that "it is simply not possible to address all of the evidentiary material used either by Mr Beattie or his principal witness, Dr Viera Scheibner" thus effectively admitting that he did not read it, or that, worse still, if he read it, decided to ignore it. Also, the Commissioner wrote that: "If Dr Scheibner's view is the acceptable one then s.48 cannot save the discriminatory decision made by the Council in respect of the Beattie children from unlawfulness". One cannot but notice the careful choice of words by the Commissioner here: he did not write "correct": instead he wrote "acceptable", which in my reflected opinion indicates that the decision was motivated by political considerations rather than published medical and/or scientific facts. The Commissioner also wrote in his summary that "Those who advocate vaccination as a public health imperative assert on (one wonders why he did not write "proved") that the immunisation process with the use of vaccine is the only truly effective preventative measure available to public health authorities if the required level of herd immunity is to be achieved. That is not to say that natural immunity is to be discouraged, rather, it is asserted that effective prevention in respect of highly infectious diseases as a public health issue can only be achieved by effectively and deliberately raising the level of herd immunity for the various infections and this can only be satisfactorily achieved by orderly, well-publicised and educative program" (a far cry from excluding unvaccinated children from pre- school or forcing parents to vaccinate their children if they want them to go to the Maroochy Council sponsored pre-schools). (Truth has its own way of popping up on the surface. A recent example being a very public statement on ABC Radio National: "Life matters" by Dr Steven Leeder that his 4-year old child got whooping cough despite being fully vaccinated. One wonders how many vaccinated children are contracting whooping cough in the Maroochy Council's run pre-schools. They should have been ordered by the Commissioner to disclose this vital information). Nowhere in their statements did the Council and its medical witnesses demonstrate that the above assertions are not just their wishful thinking based on hearsay or that it is factual and correct or that it reaches beyond hollow statements unsupported and indeed clearly contradicted by published evidence and even clinical experience. 14. Vaccination and cot death connection. "DPT and SIDS" is of a different concern to parents and vaccinators: the latter are more concerned about the fate of their vaccination programmes. As I answered the Commissioner's question on this subject at the above hearing, if vaccinators admitted that vaccines are killing babies then vaccination would have to stop forthwith. The first report on the so-called Tennessee deaths (Bernier et al. 1982) admitted that there was an unsual clustering of deaths after DPT injections but then the authors resorted to saying that this temporal relationship does not constitute the evidence of the causal link; forgetting that temporal association is the first prerequisite to consideration of causality. Further and further articles kept diluting the issue more and more. And all this while their own raw data show unmistakenly clustering of deaths along the same critical days and an internal consistency of increasing numbers of deaths with the increasing interval after the injection and increasing number of injections and age: the little babies die earlier, while bigger babies take longer to die. Torch (1982) came to the same conclusion. If this is not enough, than one only has to read Peroutka et al. et al. (1987) who clearly admitted to pertussis vaccine causing death. After the presentation of his findings, Torch was heavily criticised (vaccinators descended on him like a tonne of bricks at the conference and later on in published word); nevertheless, Torch (1986) presented further data on the causal link between vaccine administration and death, including SIDS. Basser has difficulty separating facts from hearsay and documents from fantasy. His absurd reasoning is dripping thick and fast from his statements like "She is forced, however, to concede that the author of the paper found "no evidence to support...a causal relationship". I was not forced to concede anything, I was simply quoting the authors verbatim. This does not constitute any evidence that the quoted conclusions and political disclaimers are anything more than what they are: meaningless political disclaimers designed to allay the real concerns of conscientious doctors and parents. I am old enough to having lived during two totalitarian regimes: the fascist one during the WW2 and the communist one between 1948 and 1968 in what then was Czechoslovakia and I recognise the totalitarian language and tactics in Basser's article. It is principally poor on facts and rich in abusive language and twisting of the facts. Plus, characteristically, and unwisely, trying to discredit an opponent by hostile personal references. I'd like to refer Basser to an editorial in JAMA (1991) in which Dr Rennie, the then editor of this unquestioningly orthodox and prestigious refereed medical journal, expressed concern about the ad hominem nature of arguments against an engineer who looked at the data of medical researchers on the alleged affectiveness of amoxicillin in treatment of otitis media with effusion and demonstrated on their own data that not only was amoxicillin ineffective but that those babies who were given amoxicillin had an increased risk of developing further bouts of otitis media with effusion compared with those babies who were not given any medication. The JAMA editor denounced the actions against this engineer by comparing the American medical science to the stalinistic Lysenkoism of the former Soviet Union. 15. Japanese experience "The Japanese experience" is particularly difficult to digest by some vaccinators. In his lame effort to discredit the Japanese experience Basser is providing more evidence for the relevance and validity of it: if the postponement of all vaccination to 2 years of age resulted in disappearance of claims for cot death then it says the same as the quote in my book: "the entity of sudden deaths is also instructive in that it disappeared ... when the vaccination was postponed to 24 months" (Cherry et al. 1988). The fact is that not only the entity of sudden death disappeared, Japan also zoomed from 17th (very high) to the first place (the lowest) in infant mortality in the world. If Basser's assessment of Japanese experience was correct, then the infant mortality rate would have remained unchanged after 1975. Moreover, no matter what else they wrote often contradicting themselves, Cherry et al. (1988) also wrote that the incidence of whooping cough in Japan went down including the totally unvaccinated age group (even though less than in the older age groups). Whoops? If Basser read carefully the entire Cherry et al.'s (1988) report he would have found many more revelations (perhaps Freudian slips?) like this one in it. However, I believe Cherry et al. (1988) because statements of facts like the above were against their interest. During the study period in question (1970-75) there were 37 deaths after vaccination (Cherry et al. 1988 p.) and this resulted in Japanese doctors in one prefecture boycotting vaccination. Basser stepped on his tongue here: if it were only 2 deaths (between 1974-75) it couldn't have motivated doctors in one Japanese prefecture to stop vaccinating in 1973. Their reason was concern over adverse effects. Now, why would that be so if vaccines are as safe as Basser is trying to tell the readers of The Skeptic? Considering the amount of pressure and intimidation vaccinators often subject their critics, those Japanese doctors must have had a dandy reason to boycott vaccination. Basser's statement on p. 22 that "Claims for vaccine related sudden deaths stopped, not because children were no longer dying, but because their deaths no longer occurred during a period when they were also receiving immunisation" does not reflect the reality of Japanese sudden deaths; not only those sudden deaths following vaccination disappeared, but the overall infant mortality has vastly improved after vaccination stopped being administered before the age of 2 years. So it was not just re- distribution of death, it was real disappearance of deaths. In contrast to this, the US infant mortality shows a different trend: in 1950's the US had the sixth best infant mortality in the world, by 1986 they were on 17th place, in 1990 on 20th and 1991 on the 24th place. The only major difference between 1950's and later years is mass vaccination and particularly the mandatory vaccination with an ever increasing number of foreign antigens being pumped into vulnerable babies (there is such a thing as "hypervaccination" documented in medical literature). The inclusion of "routine" HepB vaccination shortly after birth, mostly in the first 24 hours of life did result in the age shift of cot deaths (VAERS data from the CDC, Atlanta Georgia, USA). Brief classic definition of cot death (SIDS) is a death of an apparently healthy infant for no apparent reason after the first month of life. That most (80%) of cot deaths occur between 2 and 6 months of age was considered coincidental with vaccination. I am waiting for vaccinators to "explain" the "coincidence" of cot deaths within the first 24 hours of life after HepB vaccination. Those who commented on the alleged lack of shift of cot death age with the shift in vaccination age forgot one important element: the inevitable spread of the actual ages when babies were vaccinated. Even though there was a change in the recommended age for vaccination, not all parents observed it. Also, most vaccine deaths occur more than one day after vaccination. However, hepB vaccine is administered on the first day of life and the fit is perfect. New Zealand..... Measles: after the introduction of any vaccine, the notorious and well-documented underreporting took place; deaths from measles between 1960-69 and 1965-69 being no exception. The quoted article from Finland (Peltola et al. 1994) claiming elimination of indigenous measles, mumps and rubella (not just measles as erroneously stated by Basser) from Finland by a 12-year, two dose vaccination programme is a good example of the vaccinators' tactics and misleading presentation of facts, however, the truth shines through their statements: "99 percent decreasse in the incidendce of three diseases was accompanied by increasing rate of false positive diagoses". What are these false positive diagnoses all about? Well, Finnish children were still developing measles, mumps and rubella but their vaccinators called it false positives. This is one of the most blatant examples of misrepresentation of observed and published facts that I have seen in medical literature. "Success" figures like 99% used by these (and many other) vaccine researchers remind me of the election results in totalitarian countries. The SINGLE and UNOPPOSED candidates always won the elections with 99% "majority" and the communists flaunted this as the evidence of the popularity of their totalitarian regimes. Basser joins other vaccinators who are telling Australian parents to vaccinate their children (against measles, or whatever) because little children in developing countries are dying from measles. That their nutrition and other living conditions are vastly different from ours is of no relevance for them. However, there is another sinister twist here, too: Science 1992 published that the W.H.O. was forced to discontinue measles vaccination with a potent high titre Edmonston-Zagreb measles vaccine in developing countries because a ten-year follow-up demonstrated that the recipients (girls slightly more than boys) of this "most effective vaccine ever developed" were dying by up to 80% more from bacterial infections around the age of 2 years when compared with those who were given different measles vaccine. Before the news about this reached the public, thanks to some honest and compassionate researchers who participated in this experiment, this deadly vaccine was "tested" on minority babies (black and Hispanic) in California and also resulted in similar pattern of death. And all this without telling the parents of these babies that it was an experimental, and indeed, a killer vaccine. The experimenters with this vaccine wrote that the vaccine kept the babies "well-protected from measles", while it clearly caused their untimely deaths due to other infections, by suppressing their immune system. Is death a reasonable swap for having measles? Furthermore, considering that 80% of measles occur between 5-9 years of age, what chance did these babies have to even get measles by 2 years of age? I leave these calculations to Basser since he considers himself an expert on statistics. 16. "Eradication" of polio by vaccination. Vaccinators, Basser being no exception, constantly quote the example of polio outbreaks in the Netherlands, allegedly in unvaccinated members of groups of people who reject vaccination on religious grounds. This careful wording is significant: it is designed to make an impression that the members of these religious groups were unvaccinated. In this case they took it one step further and actually said that none of the patients were vaccinated. I'd like to refer Basser to MMWR 1992 which reported on the outbreak of polio in Holland, in September and Oct 1992 and stated that the first and second patients were given polio vaccines, one of them one day before the onset of paralysis (it is a well-documented fact that vaccination shortens the incubation time). Vaccinated persons are spreading the polio viruses to other people (polio vaccine product inserts warn parents and other contacts of recently-vaccinated babies that they may contract polio from them). Another paper reporting on the epidemic in Holland stated that between about 25% and 76% of the members of the three religious groups are polio vaccinated (Conyn-van Spaendonck et al. 1996). Another example of questionable presentation of facts is a paper which reports on eradicaton of polio from the Americas. Quadros et al. (1991) described very well the way this "eradication" was achieved: by discarding the ever increasing reported cases of flaccid paralysis. The 1985 major vaccination drive resulted in a major epidemic of paralytic polio: 350 cases occurred in the span of only 4 months. Despite "reformulation" of the polio vaccine used, "...from 1985 through 1989 there were yearly increases in the number of cases of acute flaccid paralysis reported. A similar effect was seen for the increased number of cases confirmed to be poliomyelitis from 1985 to 1986. After 1986, however, the number of cases confirmed decreased to 130 in 1989, representing an 86% decline in the number of confirmed cases in 1986. This decline in the number of cases occurred despite a 2-fold increase in the number of reported cases of flaccid paralysis that were investigated and reported, from approximately 1000 in 1985 to over 2000 in 1988. Interestingly, when the mass vaccination stopped during 1989, even the number of reported cases went sharply down. In 1988 of the 2094 cases of acute flaccid paralysis reported in the Americas, 130 have been confirmed not to be polio (discarded cases) [without any further explanation].The 130 confirmed cases of polio in 1989 represented a 62% decline from the 340 cases of poliomyelitis reported in the previous year". It is clear to me that the key word in this "polio eradication in the Americas" is "discarded." Considering that polio is a seasonal disease, while vaccination is not, the next paragraph in Quadros et al. (1991) article stating that there were no seasonal differences in the number of confirmed cases of polio in 1989 is of great interest. Of the 130 confirmed cases of polio in 1989, 25% had their dates of paralysis onset in the winter, 24% in the spring, 26% in the summer and 25% in the fall. "In contrast when analysing only cases that had wild poliovirus isolated in their stool, 46% (11 of 24) had dates of paralysis onset in summer". If only 24 out of 130 confirmed cases had wild poliovirus isolated in their stools, then the remaining 106 must have had (or could have had) the vaccine poliovirus isolated from their stools, indicating that they were vaccine-induced cases. Hence less that 20% of cases were possibly linked to the wild polio and the rest (almost 80%) were vaccine-induced. It is of special interest that 75% of the confirmed cases were younger than 5 years. This was the age group targeted for vaccination. Outbreaks of polio in the outside, well-vaccinated populations are not much publicised. Indeed, redefinition of poliomyelitis after the introduction of mass vaccination "eradicated" polio overnight. It certainly improved the polio vaccines' lack of performance overnight and beyond anybody's wildest imagination. Polio outbreaks in Taiwan, Oman, Namibia, Gambia etc. 17. Conclusions Predictably, Bassers conclusions follow the same pattern of "reasoning" as the rest of his article. He does not know that others, more competent to judge, recognised me as an expert on vaccination and cot death. This includes some powerful groups in Australia. Quite predictably, I am not looking for "approval" by writers like Basser. His choice of words and inimitable style says more about himself than about me. It is really good that vaccination has "defenders of faith" of his calibre; it is making our role much easier. Information from totalitarian countries cannot be taken seriously. Neither can be the results of further studies from Finnish trials. Another well-documented example is their Hib trials: they found even the infamous PRP Hib vaccine highly effective, yet this vaccine had to be abandoned in the United States and elsewhere for total lack of efficacy and causing Hib invasive infections... I leave it to the reader of this reply to decide for themselves whether it was mosquito control or the vaccine that lowered the incidence of Japanese encephalitis. Summary No amount of aggressive rhetoric nitpicking on non-essential detail and squabbling about words will undoe the well-documented fact that vaccines are dangerous and ineffective. Infectious diseases of childhood, such as measles, mumps, rubella and whooping cough are beneficial for children by priming their immune system and representing developmental milestones. In contrast to this, diseases like polio and invasive bacterial infections are linked to immunosuppression caused by previous vaccine injections. And last but not the least: no matter how selective any quoting may be, it does not affect the importance and relevance of the quoted material. No published facts are obsolete until proven wrong. References Craighead, J.E., 1975. Report of a workshop: disease accentuation after immunisation with inactivated microbial vaccines. J Inf Dis.; 1312 (6): 749-754. Scheibner, Viera, 1993: Vaccination: 296 pp. Hinman, A.R., 1979: The opportunity and obligation to eliminate measles from the United States. JAMA 242 (11): 1157-1162. Nichols, E.M., 1979: Atypical measles: a continuing problem. Am J Publ Health; 69(2): 160-162. Sutter, R.W., et al., 1991: Measles among the Amish: a comparative study of measles severity in primary and secondary cases in households. J Inf Dis, 163:12-16. West, R.O., 1966: Epidemiologic studies of malignancies of the ovaries. Cancer (July): 1001-1007. Ronne, T., 1985. Measles virus infection without rash in childhood is related to disease in adult life. Lancet (5 Jan.): 1-5. Tye, K., Pollard, I., Karlsson, L., Scheibner, V. and Tye G., 1993. Caffeine exposure in utero increases the incidence of apnea in adult rats. Reproductive Toxicology; 7: 449-452. Huchins, et. al. 1988: Current epidemiology of pertussis in the United States. Tokai J exp Biol & Med; 13 (Suppl): 103-109. Bernier, R.H., et al., 1982. Diphtheria-tetanus toxoids- pertussis vaccination and sudden infant deaths in Tennessee. J Pediatrics; 101(5): 419-421. Taranger, J., 1982. Mild clinical course of pertussis in Swedish infants today. Lancet; 12 June: 1360. Stewart, G.T., 1980. Whooping cough in the United Kingdom 1977-8. Br Med J; 9 Aug.: 451-452. Olin, P., 1995. Acellular pertussis vaccines - a question of efficacy. J Hosp Infect; 30 (Suppl): 503-507. Gustafsson, L., et al. 1996. A controlled trial of a two- component acellular, a five-component acellular and a whole-cell pertussis vaccine. N Engl J Med; 334(6): 349-355. Olin, P., Rasmussen, F., Gustafsson, L., Hallander, H.O., et al. 1997. Randomised controlled trial of two-component, three- component and five-component acellular pertussis vaccine compared with whole-cell pertussis vacine. Lancet; 350: 1569-1577. Marchant, C.D., et al., 1994; Pertussis in Massachusetts, 1981- 1991: incidence, serologic diagnosis, and vaccine effectiveness. J inf Dis; 169:1297-1305. Torch, W.C., 1982. Diphtheria-pertussis-tetanus (DPT) immunisation: a potential cause of the sudden infant death syndrome. Neurology 32(2): A169-170. Torch, W.C., 1986a. Diphtheria-Pertussis-Tetanus (DPT) Immunization may be an unrecognized cause of sudden infant death (SIDS) and near-miss syndrome: 12 cases reports. Neurology 36 (suppl 1), April. Torch, W.C., 1986b. Characteristics of Diphtheria-Pertussis- Tetanus (DPT) postvaccinal deaths and DPT-caused sudden infant death syndrome (SIDS): a review. Neurology 36 (suppl.1), April. Peroutka, S.J., et al. 1987. Treatment of lethal pertussis vaccine reaction with histamine H1 antagonists. Neurology (37 June): 1068-1072. The Editorial. 1991. The Cantekin Affair, JAMA; 266(23): 3333- 3337. Cherry, J.D., et al., 1988. Report of the task force on pertussis and pertussis immunisation. Pediatrics (Suppl.): 939- 984. Peltola, H. et al., 1994. The elimination of indigenous measles, mumps and rubella from Finland by a 12-year, two-dose vaccination program. N Engl J Med; 331(21): 1397-1402. Weiss, R., 1992. Measles battle loses potent weapon. Science; 258 (23 Oct): 546-547. Quadros, C.A. de, et al., 1991. Eradication of poliomyelitis: progress in the Americas. Pediatr infect Dis J., 10: 222-229. Conyn-van Spaendonck, M.A.E., et al. 1996. Circulation of poliovirus during the poliomyelitis outbreak in the Netherlands in 1992-1993. Am J Epidemiol; 143(9): 929-935.
Copyright (C) 1998-9 Taycare Pty Ltd
Web Designed and Hosted by Breakfast
Bytes Pty Limited
Domain Name Sponsored by MyName - My Own Domain Name - FREE!