Part
1 appeared in October
2007
Part 2 in November 2007
Page 1, 2,
Resources & Notes
In Parts 1 and 2 of this series, we examined
factors countering the belief that vaccines are safe and effective.
We also discussed the effects of specific
vaccines, including those for diphtheria, pertussis, tetanus, polio, chickenpox,
hepatitis B, measles, mumps, and rubella. In this final installment, we look
at the rotavirus, meningococcal, and smallpox vaccines. We also discuss provocation
diseases associated with vaccines, economic and legal issues of vaccination,
the right to refuse vaccination, and the need to achieve freedom of choice.
Rotavirus Vaccine
In 2006, the Advisory Committee on
Immunization Practices (ACIP) recommended vaccination of all infants
at two, four, and six months
of age with a new vaccine designed to prevent rotavirus gastroenteritis.
RotaTeq (Merck & Co.) is a live, oral vaccine that contains
five reassortant rotaviruses developed from human and bovine strains.1
The American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) also recommended routine
use of this vaccine in infants in 2006.2
The RotaTeq vaccine will almost certainly draw comparisons with
a previous oral rotavirus vaccine, RotaShield, which was released
by
Wyeth Laboratories in 1998. The ACIP and AAP recommended universal
use of RotaShield for healthy infants. A year later, however, RotaShield
was removed from the market after the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting
System (VAERS) received reports of bowel intussusception—an
obstruction in which one segment of the intestine telescopes inwardly
into another—in babies who had received RRV-TV, as RotaShield
was called. By the end of 1999, 121 reports of intussusception in
infants administered RRV-TV had been received by VAERS.3 (Of the
first 15 reported infants who developed intussusception, eight required
a surgical reduction.)
The Centers for Disease Control (CDC) points out that RotaShield
was rhesus-based. By contrast, the parent rotavirus strains of the
newly released RotaTeq are human and bovine.4 RotaTeq was not associated
with an increased risk of intussusception compared with placebo in
a trial involving more than 70,000 children.5 The CDC does note,
however, that children who have already had this bowel obstruction
should not get the rotavirus vaccine, because anyone who has had
intussusception is at an increased risk of getting it again.6
An estimated one million US infants were vaccinated with RotaShield
following its approval. This vaccine's history is made worse
by the fact that prelicensure trials demonstrated that RotaShield
caused bowel intussusception at rates 30 times higher than those
expected. This is what emerged from an analysis of prelicensure trial
data by the Association of American Physicians and Surgeons.7
If it was already known that the vaccine could cause a potentially
lethal condition, why did the FDA approve it? Why had nobody warned
doctors to watch for this complication? These and other questions
prompted the AAPS to request a Congressional investigation of the
vaccine approval process. As Dr. Jane Orient, executive director
of the AAPS, wrote in a letter to Representative Dan Burton, "The
situation with the rotavirus vaccine may be a clue to a far more
serious problem with the vaccine approval process." Dr. Orient
makes the important point that "Decisions about vaccines given
to children should be made by parents in consultation with the child's
attending physician, not mandated by a small group of 'experts' with
minimal accountability."8
Meningococcal Vaccine
In its first year on the market, the new meningococcal conjugate
vaccine (MCV4) was potentially associated with an increased risk
of Guillain-Barre syndrome
(GBS), a rare neurological disorder that causes increasing weakness in the limbs.
The meningococcal vaccine (Menactra) was recommended by the ACIP in May 2005
for routine vaccination of adolescents, college freshmen who live in dormitories,
and other high-risk individuals.9
By September 2006, 17 confirmed cases of GBS in recipients of MCV4 had been reported
to VAERS (all affected individuals had recovered or were recovering).10 Although
this association does not necessarily mean the vaccine caused the illness, the
CDC has reported that the timing of the onset of GBS symptoms—within one
to five weeks of vaccination—is of concern. As of October 2006, the Food
and Drug Administration (FDA) and CDC were monitoring the situation, and the
CDC continued to recommend the vaccine for adolescents and others.11
Smallpox Vaccine
The smallpox vaccine was given to infants in the US until 1972. At that time,
the global incidence of this disease was well under control, and routine vaccination
against smallpox ended. According to the National Network for Immunization Information,
it was believed then that the risk of serious adverse events from the smallpox
vaccine, including death, outweighed the risk of contracting the disease itself
in the US.12 The World Health Organization (WHO) certified that smallpox was
eradicated worldwide in 1980.
After the terrorist threats of 2001, the US developed a plan to reintroduce the
smallpox vaccine, if necessary,13 to counter a potential attack using the virus
as a biological weapon. In State of Immunity, author James Colgrove reports that
the Bush Administration announced an ambitious plan in 2002 to vaccinate emergency
personnel, health care workers, and adults in the general public on a voluntary
basis. The administration failed to win the support of the program from health
care providers, however, and less than a year later, the smallpox vaccination
plan was ceased.14 Approximately 39,000 civilian health care and public health
workers received the smallpox vaccine in 2003.15
Although this vaccination program failed, the proposal to immunize Americans
against a biological attack with smallpox should cause us to take a closer look
at this vaccine. (The old smallpox vaccine is stockpiled in the US, and new smallpox
vaccines are in development.16)
An Unknown Virus
The modern smallpox vaccine does not contain the smallpox virus itself, but rather
a virus called "vaccinia" whose origins are unknown. The CDC states, "The
vaccinia virus is the 'live virus' used in the smallpox vaccine.
It is a 'pox'-type virus related to smallpox. When given to humans
as a vaccine, it helps the body to develop immunity to smallpox. The smallpox
vaccine does not contain the smallpox virus, and it cannot cause smallpox."17
The University of Florida College of medicine information page adds this: "Vaccinia
is the virus that was used for vaccination against smallpox. Its exact origin
is unknown, however, as it does not appear to be related to any other known pox
virus. Some people think that it is a recombinant of smallpox and cowpox, while
others think that it may be a derivative of horsepox, a virus that no longer
exists (if it ever did)."
Adverse Effects of the Vaccine
The CDC reports that while the smallpox vaccine is safe for most people, serious
and life-threatening reactions do occur in rare cases. Serious reactions include
a rash or outbreak of sores in one area of the body (the virus may be spread
from the vaccination site to other parts of the body or to other people); a widespread
vaccinia rash that occurs when the virus spreads from the vaccination site through
the bloodstream; and a toxic or allergic reaction to the vaccine. Life-threatening
reactions to the smallpox vaccine include eczema vaccinatum (a serious rash involving
widespread infection of the skin in people with conditions such as eczema or
atopic dermatitis), progressive vaccinia (an infection of the skin with tissue
destruction that often leads to death), and postvaccinal encephalitis (inflammation
of the brain).18
Another potential complication of the smallpox vaccine is myopericarditis, or
inflammation of the heart. The CDC says that while the link between the smallpox
vaccine and this condition is not proven, data from recent smallpox vaccinations
are "consistent with a causal association" between the two.19 In
2005 the FDA added a new black-box warning to Dryvax (the smallpox vaccine produced
by Wyeth) regarding the increased risk of cardiac problems experienced by some
recipients of the smallpox vaccine.20
What might the consequences of mass smallpox vaccination be? That was the question
addressed in a 2002 article. Using historical data on adverse reactions to the
vaccine, the authors estimated that, after excluding high-risk people and their
close contacts, a vaccination strategy targeting people one to 29 years old would
result in approximately 1,600 serious adverse events and 190 deaths. Vaccination
of people from one to 65 years old would result in approximately 4,600 adverse
events and 285 deaths. The researchers note that the smallpox vaccine "has
a higher complication rate than any other vaccine currently being used." They
conclude that a mass vaccination campaign would have to be careful to exclude
high-risk people and their contacts to minimize the complications, but that this
approach would leave some people susceptible to the disease.21
In a 2006 paper, researchers estimated the expected frequencies of post-vaccinal
encephalitis and death from smallpox vaccines containing two different strains
of vaccinia virus: the New York City Board of Health (NYCBH) strain and the Lister
strain. They note that other studies of the consequences of smallpox vaccination
commonly have used an incidence of approximately one death per million vaccinations.
However, these analyses "may give serious underestimates of the number
of deaths resulting from vaccination." This study estimates that vaccination
with the NYCBH strain (stockpiled in countries such as the US) would lead to
an average of 1.4 deaths per million vaccinations. Vaccination with the Lister
strain (stockpiled in countries such as Germany) would lead to an average of
8.4 deaths per million vaccinations.22
Activists Speak Out on Vaccine Dangers
Those who take issue with universal immunization point out that the programs
do not distinguish between children who may benefit from a certain vaccine
and those who may be hurt by it. Infants are given blanket immunization regardless
of their previous or current state of health and their varying susceptibilities
to side effects. Ideally, the vaccination system should be much more selective,
with parents being given complete information, so they can decide whether
the risks associated with a particular procedure outweigh its potential benefits.
Just as different races may suffer disproportionately from allergies and
food sensitivities, studies indicate that they may experience different reactions
to vaccines.
People engaged in the fight against government-mandated vaccines share their
concerns here about several vaccination issues.
Provocation Disease
One of the most hazardous and insidious effects of vaccination lies in its
potential to induce other forms of disease, a phenomenon known as provocation
disease.23-27 The mechanisms that cause this to happen are unclear,
although many scientists believe that latent viruses—those already existing
in a person—may be stimulated by vaccinations and that this process may
be enough to activate a particular illness.
Vaccination, therefore, may not
be the sole cause but rather the final trigger of an illness.
In his book Vaccination and Immunization: Dangers,
Delusions and Alternatives,28
Leon Chaitow states that there is no way of knowing when such latent or incubating
situations may be operating, and therefore no way of knowing when a vaccine
may produce this sort of provocation.29 He warns that provocation of a latent
virus is a potentially dangerous possibility with every vaccination procedure.
Many diseases thought to be caused at least partially by vaccinations do not
surface until years later, by which time it is difficult to prove a connection.
Two examples of conditions that may be provoked by vaccines are as follows:
- Allergies According to Dr. Harris Coulter,
co-author of A Shot in the Dark,30 and other experts,31 vaccines
and allergies are clearly connected. "What
does allergy mean? It means that your body is ready to react very, very
quickly when exposed a second time to a substance to which it is
allergic. If you
are allergic to ragweed, [a small amount] of ragweed will start
you sneezing. Now,
if you vaccinate a person against pertussis or some other bacillus, you
are making that person 'allergic' to that bacillus. That's what
being vaccinated actually means. It means you are 'allergic' to
that bacillus, in the sense that your body will react very, very rapidly
if exposed to that bacillus a second time."
- Immunosuppression
and Autoimmune Disease The body needs to experience a
full inflammatory response to create immunity, and vaccines do
not allow
this to
happen. Instead, a chronic condition is created that can set the stage
for autoimmune disease. Autoimmune diseases such as Guillain-Barre
syndrome and
thrombocytopenia have been associated with vaccinations.32
In Immunization:
The Reality Behind the Myth, author Walene James suggests that vaccinations
may induce autoimmune disorders because "live viruses,
the primary antigenic material of [some] vaccines, are capable of surviving
or remaining latent in the host cell for years, without provoking acute disease."33
Live virus vaccines include those for chickenpox, measles, mumps, rubella,
and oral polio.34
Cynthia Cournoyer, author of What About Immunizations?,
believes a key principle involved in the many negative effects of vaccines
is that the
immune system
can tolerate only so many challenges, especially before it is given a chance
to develop to maturity. "Every child," she writes, "is born
with a finite ability to combat disease. This is his total immune capacity.
Once a child experiences a particular disease, permanent immunity is extremely
efficient, using probably three percent to seven percent of the total immune
capacity of an individual. In the case of routine childhood vaccination,
it is likely that as much as 30% to 70% of total immune capacity becomes
committed."35
Cournoyer proposes that this effect on immunity may substantially reduce
a child's immunological reserves. "Far from producing a genuine immunity,
a vaccine may actually interfere with or suppress the immune response as a
whole, in much the same way that radiation, chemotherapy, and corticosteroids
and other anti-inflammatory drugs do."36-38Cournoyer continues, "Although
the body will not make antibodies against its own tissues, viruses becoming
part of the genetic make-up may cause cells to appear foreign to the immune
system, making them a fair target for antibody production.... Under proper
conditions, these latent pro viruses could become activated and cause a variety
of diseases, including rheumatoid arthritis, multiple sclerosis, lupus erythematosus...and
cancer."39
- Temporary Immunity of Vaccines Vaccines provide only temporary
immunity, whereas the contraction of an actual disease confers permanent
immunity
most of the time. Viera Scheibner, a retired research scientist, writes
that "generations
of children with this inadequate immunity would grow into adults with
no placental immunity to pass on to their children, who would then contract
measles at an
age when babies are normally protected by maternal antibody....
"Perhaps the most unfortunate thing about the idea of eliminating infectious
diseases by vaccination is that indeed there is no need to do so. As
pointed out by the group of Swiss doctors opposing the US-inspired policy of
mass vaccination
against measles, mumps, and rubella in Switzerland, 'We have lost the
common sense and the wisdom that used to prevail in the approach to childhood
diseases. Too often, instead of reinforcing the organism's defenses,
fever and symptoms are relentlessly suppressed. This is not always without
consequences...'"40-42
Lastly, Scheibner states, "There is no need to artificially immunize
our children and ourselves. The body has proper, natural mechanisms to
create immunity to diseases. The diseases themselves are the priming and
challenging
mechanisms of the maturation process leading to the competence of the immune
system...."43
Page 1, 2, Resources & Notes
|