{"id":123,"date":"2008-10-25T03:00:40","date_gmt":"2008-10-25T08:00:40","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/dontow.com\/wordpress\/?p=123"},"modified":"2009-11-27T21:51:22","modified_gmt":"2009-11-28T02:51:22","slug":"on-the-issue-of-vaccination-choice","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.dontow.com\/2008\/10\/on-the-issue-of-vaccination-choice\/","title":{"rendered":"On the Issue of Vaccination Choice"},"content":{"rendered":"

An extremely important issue that has been getting increasing discussion recently is the issue of the pros and cons of the government mandating a large number of required vaccinations in children, starting at birth (12 hours old).[1]<\/a> The number of recommended vaccines by the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP), the Center for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), and the American Academy of Family Physicians (AAFP) is 48 before the age of 6. The number of government mandated vaccines may be larger or smaller than the above recommended number, and varies with the state, with NJ requiring the largest number at 60 (with four added just starting in September 2008).<\/p>\n

<\/p>\n

On one side of this debate is the medical\/health establishment, including the AAP, CDC, and AAFP, who claim that requiring such a large number of vaccinations is just good health policy that is needed to stop the spread of dangerous infectious diseases. They point to statistics that show the large decrease of infectious diseases since various vaccines were introduced. For example, in 1920 Diphtheria had 147,991 reported cases resulting in 894 deaths. The Diphtheria vaccine was introduced in 1923, and in 2002 it had only 1 reported case. In the first half of the 20th century, every year Polio had tens of thousands of cases resulting in over 1,000 deaths. The Salk Polio vaccine was introduced in 1955 and the Sabin Polio vaccine was introduced in 1962, and today cases of Polio in the U.S. are extremely rare (but some cautions on such statistics later in this article).<\/p>\n

On the other side of this debate are various grassroots organizations, like the National Vaccine Information Center (NVIC) and the New Jersey Coalition for Vaccination Choice (NJCVC), whose members include a large number of parents who claim that their children were vaccine-injured, but also include doctors, nurses, other healthcare professionals, as well as other professionals. These grassroots organizations claim that vaccines contain a lot of toxic material and can be harmful. They point to the sharp increase of chronically ill and disabled children [who have, e.g., Autism, Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD), asthma, diabetes] during the last 30-40 years when the number of government-required vaccines has more than tripled. For example, in 1970, 1 child in 2,500 developed autism; today 1 child in 150 develops autism. In 1970, 1 child in 1,750 was diabetic; today 1 child in 450 becomes diabetic.<\/p>\n

How can we reconcile the claims of these two sides? To answer this, we need to address at least the following four questions:<\/p>\n

    \n
  1. How much health benefits have really resulted from vaccines?\n
  2. How much health risks can result from vaccines?\n
  3. Are there comprehensive and conflict-of-interest-free medical review bodies that recommend or decide on the vaccination policies and guidelines?\n
  4. Should exemptions to vaccination be provided?\n<\/ol>\n

    Health Benefits of Vaccines: With the exception of the Smallpox vaccine which was developed in 1796, essentially all other vaccines were developed or began widespread use only in the 20th century, with many in the second half of the 20th century. It is true that there has been a very large decrease in various infectious diseases in the U.S. since various vaccines were introduced (see, e.g., the two examples cited at the beginning of this article). However, it is also true that there has been a continuous significant decrease in various infectious diseases in the U.S. in the last 100+ years due to overall improvements in the living conditions of the general population. <\/p>\n

    The CDC document \u201cAchievements in Public Health, 1900-1999: Control of Infectious Diseases\u201d (http:\/\/www.cdc.gov\/mmwr\/preview\/mmwrhtml\/mm4829a1.htm<\/a>) states \u201cThe 19th century shift in population from country to city that accompanied industrialization and immigration led to overcrowding in poor housing served by inadequate or nonexistent public water supplies and waste-disposal system. These conditions resulted in repeated outbreaks of cholera, dysentery, TB, typhoid fever, influenza, yellow fever, and malaria.\u201d <\/p>\n

    The CDC article goes on to state \u201cBy 1900, however, the incidence of many of these diseases had begun to decline because of public health improvements, implementation of which continued into the 20th century. \u2026 From the 1930s through the 1950s, state and local health departments made substantial progress in disease prevention activities, including sewage disposal, water treatment, food safety, organized solid waste disposal, and public education about hygienic practices (e.g., foodhandling and handwashing). Chlorination and other treatments of drinking water began in the early 1900s and became widespread public health practices, further decreasing the incidence of waterborne diseases.\u201d<\/p>\n

    Let us discuss more about the Polio statistics since that is often used to illustrate the effectiveness of vaccine. The website (http:\/\/www.cispimmunize.org\/fam\/ImpactofVaccines.pdf<\/a>) of the Childhood Immunization Support Program (CISP), which is a program under the AAP and CDC, gives the following statistics \u201cBetween 1951-1954, an average 16,316 paralytic Polio cases reported; 1,879 deaths.\u201d It also states \u201cPolio caused by wild-type viruses eliminated from the Western Hemisphere in 1991.\u201d This seems to be extremely impressive. However, the following information should also be made known (http:\/\/www.vaclib.org\/basic\/Neil_Z_Miller_Peer-Reviewed_Study.pdf<\/a>):<\/p>\n

      \n
    1. From 1923 to 1953, before Salk\u2019s Polio vaccine was introduced, the Polio death rate in the U.S. had already declined on its own by 47%, presumably from the overall improvements in the living conditions of the general population as previously mentioned.\n
    2. The standards for defining Polio were changed when the Polio vaccine was introduced. With the old definition, a person only had to exhibit paralytic symptoms for 24 hours to be declared a Polio patient. With the new definition, for a person to be declared a Polio patient, he\/she has to exhibit paralytic symptoms for at least 60 days and residual paralysis had to be confirmed twice by laboratory tests during the course of the disease. Furthermore, prior to 1955, Polio, Aseptic Meningitis, and Coxsackle virus infections were recorded as Polio, but after 1955, Polio, Aseptic Meningitis, and Coxsacle virus infections are recorded as separate diseases. With the above changes of definition, the number of Polio cases would definitely decrease even if nothing else has changed.\n
    3. Salk\u2019s injectable Polio vaccine was actually introduced twice. The first time was in 1954. However, shortly thereafter hundreds of people contracted Polio from Salk\u2019s vaccine, and many died. The Salk vaccine used \u201ckilled\u201d (or \u201cinactivated\u201d) viral matter to trigger an antibody response hopefully without causing the disease. Apparently, the \u201ckilled-virus\u201d in the vaccine used in 1954 was not completely inactivated. Salk redeveloped the vaccine, and introduced the new vaccine in 1955.\n<\/ol>\n

      Shortly after Sabin\u2019s oral Polio vaccine (which uses a weakened form of a live virus instead of Salk\u2019s \u201ckilled\u201d virus) was introduced in 1962, it quickly replaced Salk\u2019s Polio vaccine because it was cheaper to make, easier to take, and appeared to provide greater protection. However, it cannot be given to people with compromised immune systems, and it is capable of causing Polio in some recipients of the vaccine, and in individuals with compromised immune systems who come into close contact with recently vaccinated children. In 1976, Salk testified that Sabin\u2019s live-virus vaccine (used almost exclusively in the U.S. from the early 1960s to 2000) was the \u201cprincipal if not sole cause\u201d of all reported Polio cases in the U.S. since 1961. Then in 1992, the CDC published an admission that the live-virus vaccine had become the dominant cause of Polio in the U.S. Therefore, in January 2000, CDC updated its recommendation so that only the Salk vaccine should be used, and the Sabin vaccine should only be used in \u201cspecial circumstances.\u201d<\/p>\n

      It seems that whether vaccinations have provided such overwhelming benefits with negligible risks as the medical\/health establishment would want us to believe may not be such a slam-dunk issue. Although there may be significant benefits, the risks are not necessarily negligible. In particular, perhaps there may be certain susceptible groups who may have a higher probability of having adverse reactions to any particular vaccine. Furthermore, when taking into consideration the large number of required vaccinations and often multiple simultaneous vaccinations, one wonders what the risks are when all these foreign and potentially toxic substances are introduced into the bodies of small children.<\/p>\n

      Health Risks from Vaccines<\/u>: The underlying basis of how a vaccine for a particular disease works is to introduce (or inoculate) a weak form of the cause of that disease into the person\u2019s body triggering the generation of antibodies that can prevent that person from getting that disease. What is inoculated into the body could be a dead or weakened live virus or bacterium, or a subunit of that dead or weakened live virus or bacterium, or other material. Furthermore, in order to prevent the vaccine from bacterial and fungal contamination, preservatives such as a mercury preservative called thimerosal (also spelled as thiomersal) and formaldehyde are added to various vaccines. Vaccines began using thimerosal starting in the 1930s. <\/p>\n

      Vaccines may damage children in several ways. Live or weakened virus vaccines can actually produce the infection that the vaccine is supposed to prevent. For example, live Polio, as in the Sabin Polio vaccine, should never be administered to a child who comes in contact with an HIV patient, for the weakened virus can “leap” to the HIV patient and produce Polio. Reports exist of normal parents who have developed Polio from the viral vaccine given to their children.<\/p>\n

      A second mechanism of damage comes from neurotoxic materials often found in vaccines. Thimerosal is the most widely discussed, since it contains mercury, which could be extremely toxic to the neuro-system of even adults. The amount of mercury varies with the particular vaccine. Even when the amount may appear not be large, there could still be significant risks. For example, a vaccine may contain about 17 micrograms (mcg) of mercury, which is an amount found in a 6 oz. can of tuna fish. However, two cans of tuna fish a week already push a 130-pound woman over the EPA\u2019s safe level, and half a can of tuna fish a week could push a 4- or 5-year old child over the safe level. When you consider that the vaccine mercury dosage goes into the child with one application, and not spread over a week, even one vaccine may already not be safe. Furthermore, children often take multiple vaccines during the same visit to the doctor. For example, at 4 months and 6 months, they could get respectively 50 mcg and 62.5 mcg of mercury from the multiple vaccinations during one office visit, which is several times above the safe limit! In addition, if the nurse giving the injection did not shake the vial according to directions before drawing out the vaccine dose, there is a chance that the child receiving the last dose from the vial could get as much as 10 times the usual amount in one dose! With increasing public pressure, the CDC and AAP finally in 1999 asked vaccine manufacturers to remove thimerosal from vaccines as soon as possible. Although thimerosal has been phased out in some vaccines, many vaccines still contain thimerosal, including the flu vaccine which is one of the four newly added required vaccinations in NJ for children between six months and five years old who want to attend a licensed daycare or pre-school.<\/p>\n

      The third, and probably the most important mechanism of vaccine damage, is allergic reactions and the development of an auto-immune response, stimulated by the vaccine and its adjuvant (a subsidiary ingredient in a medicine that acts as an assistant). Vaccines always contain adjuvants (e.g., aluminum), which are substances known to amplify the body’s response to the vaccine. These adjuvants are known to sometimes cause allergic and auto-immune responses on their own. It is important to note that different people may have different degrees of such allergic reactions.<\/p>\n

      Although vaccines with their toxin substances may not result in adverse reactions in most patients, there could be a subgroup of patients who for one reason or another may be more susceptible to reacting negatively to the vaccines. Often the adverse reaction may lead to life-long serious health problems, or even death. This is one of the reasons why parents should be given the option to decide whether or not their children should be vaccinated, at least for those vaccines where such susceptible group analysis has not been thoroughly performed.<\/p>\n

      Existence of Comprehensive and Conflict-of-Interest-Free Review Bodies<\/u>: If there are significant risks to vaccines, how did these vaccines get approval from government review\/approval organizations like the CDC? Why did it take so many years before CDC asked the vaccine manufacturers not to include thimerosal in their vaccines? Why don\u2019t federal oversight bodies such as the CDC and the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) require more comprehensive research before approving a vaccine? Why has there been so little research on susceptibility groups for vaccines? Why do organizations like the AAP and CDC strongly recommend such a large number of vaccines? <\/p>\n

      One reason is money. The pharmaceutical industry is a very rich and influential industry. It has a lot of lobbyists, funds a lot of research projects, contributes a lot of money to organizations like the AAP, and is able to place many of their advocates on relevant organizations and committees that make decisions or provide guidelines on vaccination. The pharmaceutical industry doesn\u2019t want to rock the boat that generates billions of dollars of income every year. Here are several reports of this relationship and potential conflicts of interest.<\/p>\n