Updated: 12-14-2006
|
Updated: 12-14-2006 |
|
Flu Shot Vaccine Side Effects and Contamination InformationWeigh the benefits and dangers of antiviral defenses such as flu vaccinations, antiviral drugs and antiviral herbs. Seasonal Cold and Flu Prevention TipsRest: Natural Cold & Flu Cure Flu Shot Vaccine InformationFlu Shot Side Effects
The National Vaccine Information Center(NVIC) is a national, non-profit educational organization founded in 1982. It is the oldest and largest national organization advocating reformation of the mass vaccination system. For flu shot news and information visit the National Vaccine Information Center Get Free Information about Herb, Vitamin and Drug InteractionsHealth
Notes is the leading provider of science-based information on healthy
living. Gathered from scientific studies published in over 550 peer-reviewed
medical and scientific journals. Visit
Health Notes for drug
interactions
|
Sources of Pathogenic Vaccine Contamination
By Benjamin McRearden In recent times mankind is experiencing a situation never previously encountered, that being the threat of release of pathogens intended to kill or disable large numbers of people. That danger has prompted certain health agencies to prepare for possible mass vaccination of the populace. The purpose of this report is to examine the existing scientific evidence of pathogenic contaminants in vaccines. This summary, while making no claim of being a complete review of the subject, will point out sufficient examples and illustrations of contamination with bacteria, viruses, and their components, so as to enable the reader to make a more informed decision regarding accepting a vaccination (or forcing others to receive one). It is presented in a format intended for the public, their physicians, and their agency or governmental representatives, and may be freely copied in its entirety. If you as an individual are too busy to read this brief summary in one sitting, please be aware there is ample evidence in the scientific literature that serious viruses, bacteria; or components and toxins there from; as well as foreign animal or cancer-related proteins and DNA are finding their way into the commercial vaccines intended for humans, pets, and agricultural animals. If you are interested in the short and long-term health of yourself and those you care about, or serve as a public servant or medical advisor, you do owe it to yourself to be informed. In the production of viral vaccines on a commercial scale, the virus of concern must be reproduced in large quantities. Viruses cannot survive or reproduce without being introduced into cells that nourish them, which enables the viral reproductive activity. In that sense all viruses can be considered parasitic on other cells. Living cell types commonly used to reproduce viruses in the lab include monkey kidney cells, chicken embryos, as well as other animal and human cells. These cells must also be nourished with food, and are most often fed with a nutrient mix containing in large part, bovine (cow) calf serum (usually, serum extracted from fetal calf blood). This product can carry many types of bovine blood-borne viruses, and is one of the primary sources of vaccine contaminants. A journal article states, “a potential risk associated with the production and use of biological products is viral contamination. This contamination may be present in the source material, e.g. human blood, human or animal tissues, cell banks, or introduced in the manufacturing process through the use of animal sera...”(1) [Top]Bovine virusesThe viruses and other agents that can contaminate bovine calf serum are numerous. One of the most prominent is a pestivirus called bovine viral diarrhea virus (2). More specifically, we see in several scientific journal sources these types of statements: “contamination of a vaccine as a consequence of infection of fetal calf serum”(3); “many batches of commercially available serum are contaminated with viruses such as BVD” [bovine viral diarrhea] (4); “virus was isolated from 332 of 1,608 (20.6%) lots of raw fetal calf serum obtained specifically for the Center and 93 of 190 (49%) lots of commercially available fetal calf serum (5); “agents most frequently detected in CCL's [continuous cell lines] have been bovine viral diarrhea virus and mycoplasma. Our laboratory has consistently found that the source of bovine viral diarrhea contamination of CCLs has been the use of contaminated fetal bovine cell culture enrichment serum”(6); and finally, “In conclusion, most commercially available bovine sera are contaminated with BVDV and, although there is no evidence that the virus is infectious, bovine sera should be screened for this virus…for the development or production of vaccine.”(7) Can this virus cause infection or disease in humans? New evidence shows this is possible, as researchers have found a new strain that was isolated from human cells, and it is very closely related to the bovine strains (8). One study finds that an alarming 75% of all laboratory cell lines examined were contaminated with pestivirus strains; of these, all of the bovine cell lines were contaminated with one of three possible BVDV strains; cell lines from other animal sources including primates, sometimes contained one of these BVDV strains (9). There is now heightened concern that this virus and others can cross species lines, creating new strains as they adapt to their new hosts, and this would include passage of the virus to and from humans. Whether the human strain of BVDV causes overt illness is uncertain, because physicians may be uninformed and not even be looking for this virus. It may be useful however, to compare the infection patterns in cattle. They can be persistently infected at a low level for their entire life with a non-pathogenic strain of the virus. Under these conditions, they consistently create and shed virus into the surrounding environment, which then infects other animals. The virus can nonetheless become lethal to the animal if it mutates, with the new form also causing “visible cell damage and death” in cultured conditions (10). The animal succumbs to gradual or acute deterioration of the gastrointestinal mucous lining, which produces diarrhea and its eventual demise. However, mutated virus is not always necessary to provoke debilitating illness and death, and ordinary virus can be isolated from the cow’s pancreas, adrenal glands, and pituitary glands (11); the virus has also been documented as causing serious pulmonary illness (12). A study describes an outbreak of disease among goats due to a vaccine contaminated with a bovine pestivirus; oddly, these animals experienced reproductive failure and lesions to the central nervous system (13). So, can these disease symptoms in varied organs and tissues also occur in humans when they carry this virus short or long-term? A cursory examination of the literature indicates this may be occurring. One revealing study tells us “faeces from children under 2 years old who had gastroenteritis that could not be attributed to recognised enteric pathogens were examined…for Pestivirus antigens. Such antigens were detected in 30 of 128 episodes of gastroenteritis…The diarrhoeal disease in children excreting Pestivirus antigens resembled that in other children except that it was more commonly associated with signs and symptoms of respiratory inflammation.”(14) There are also concerns regarding a pattern of pestivirus infection in infacts born with microcephaly, a condition wherein the head or cranial capacity is unusually small (15, 16). Scientists from the USDA National Veterinary Services Laboratory describe the situation quite clearly, and give an indication of the seriousness of the problem: “The high frequency of virus and antibody detection in individual animal or small pool samples suggests that any large pool of unscreened sera will be contaminated. Infection of cell cultures with BVDV can lead to interference with the growth of other viruses. Vaccine produced on contaminated cells may in turn be contaminated, leading to seroconversion or disease in the vaccine. The safety, purity, and efficacy of viral vaccines require BVDV testing of ingredients, cell substrates and final product.”(17) And here is a similar statement from a New York Blood Center: “Bovine viral diarrhea virus, whose small virion size does not allow 100% assurance of its removal by filtration, may potentially contaminate every lot of commercially produced fetal bovine serum.”(18) In reality though, how much of this particular viral contaminant has trickled into humans? Well, in spite of manufacturers and regulatory agencies claiming efficacy of their testing procedures, one 2001 study found 13% of human MMR, polio, or Streptococcus pneumoniae vaccines tested positive for pestivirus RNA (19). And another researcher observes, “serum antibodies against BVDV have been detected in approximately 30% of human population who had no contact with potentially infected animals.”(16) Also, “pestiviruses adapted to human cell cultures may be harmful because serious BVDV infections in humans have been frequently suggested…The BVDV persistently infected in cell cultures used for vaccine productions have been shown to be a source of contamination in live virus vaccines. It is, therefore, prerequisite to examine pestivirus contamination in cell cultures to avoid secondary infections in humans as well as in animals.”(20) [Top]Continuous immortal cell linesThis same scientist brings up another important issue. Because many medical-use biological products (including vaccines) are now being cultured or produced on what is called “continuous” cell lines (i.e., these are cell cultures consisting of “immortal” or cancerous types of cells because they have no limits on how many times they can divide), there is concern that viral contamination of these cell lines with a pathogen like bovine viral diarrhea virus, could spread cancer-promoting material into the human recipient. How could this happen? Briefly, it works like this. The virus (which in this case has a single strand of RNA for its genome) is capable of incorporating RNA from the cells in which it has been cultured, into its own genome. If any contaminant RNA virus is present in a culture that contains immortal cancerous cells, this virus can easily mutate to include unwanted oncogenic material, which can then get passed into the biological product intended for human medical use (16). Were you aware that biological products, including some common vaccines (for instance, polio and rabies), are being produced on “continuous” immortal cell lines? Manufacturers, scientists, and agencies will often assure us that these cells themselves are not “tumorigenic”, i.e., they do not cause tumors per se. A closer look however, shows this is not always the case. While lab culturing may indicate that these types of cells are not immediately changing to overt tumor cells, it is now well-known in the scientific community that after these cells have been repeatedly cultured a certain number of times, something causes them to convert to a cancerous state (21). This journal article summary addresses the issue in regards to Vero cells, which is a continuous cell line coming from the African green monkey, and is commonly used in vaccine production. It states, “One of the current criteria for evaluating the acceptability of cell lines for use in vaccine production is lack of tumorigenicity. Vero cells represent an example of a class of cells known as continuous cell lines. They were derived from African green monkey kidney, and their growth properties and culture characteristics have many advantages over other cell substrates for use in vaccine production. We have tested Vero cells for tumorigenicity in nude mice and in a human muscle organ culture system, and found a significant increase in their tumorigenic potential with increasing passage numbers. Cells at passage 232 and higher produced nodules in all nude mice inoculated.”(22) [The term “passage” in this context means the number of times a cell line has been cultured]. There is another very important issue reported in studies that is evidently being largely ignored as regards long-term vaccine effects and safety. There is obvious evidence that in the lab, continuous immortal cell lines react differently between one type of animal species and another (21, 23). As an example, tissue from one species will allow the immortal cell to induce a cancerous change more quickly, in comparison to tissue from a different species. These results then beg the following questions. How extensively have these continuous cell lines been tested on human tissues, and would the results vary from one type of tissue to another? And what happens over the long term…if an immortal cell from a vaccine culture makes its way into the final vaccine product, does it keep dividing in the human body? Another scenario might suggest the tumor-promoting portion of its DNA inserting into a viral genome, which then gets injected into the body… what happens at that point? Furthermore, given the evidence that closely-related animal species (as an example, various species of monkeys) react differently to immortal cells, do we also need to consider that any one vaccine intended for all humans might ultimately react differently among the various races, ethnic groups, and sexes? And what are the effects of the vaccine contaminants on persons with immune depression, on the elderly, or on infants? A letter from the FDA to vaccine manufacturers dated as recently as March 2001 shows that this issue regarding immortal cell lines is still of concern. It states, “In general, CBER [Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research] currently views Vero cells as an acceptable substrate for viral vaccines, but has residual concerns…CBER recommends that all products derived from Vero cells be free of residual intact Vero cells. If your manufacturing process does not include a validated filtration step or other validated procedure to clear residual intact Vero cells from the product, please incorporate such a procedure into your manufacturing process.”(24) It is now 16 years after the WHO gave a go-ahead (in 1986) to use continuous cell lines for vaccine production (25), and yet there are very basic safety questions not resolved by the manufacturers, agencies, and scientific community, much less the finer details (26, 27). One 1991 study reports: “Cell substrate DNA was shown to be an abundant contaminant in the clarified preparations of the Sabin type 1, 2 and 3 poliovaccines produced on a continuous cell line”(28). Another indicates that immortal cell lines showed 100-times greater number of DNA recombination events compared to normal cells (29). As one researcher states, “Using neoplastic cell lines as substrates for vaccine development could inadvertently result in viral-viral or viral-cellular interactions whose biological consequences are unclear…viral-viral and viral-cellular interactions can result in the generation of new retroviruses with pathological consequences.”(30). We note the term “neoplastic” means the quality of having an abnormal growth characteristic. There is an even stronger statement dating back to 1990. A scientist in the field writes, “The present concern is for safety of vaccines made using transformed or neoplastic mammalian cells that may contain endogenous contaminating viruses or integrated gene sequences from oncogenic viruses. There is also concern for use of plasmid vectors employing promoter elements from oncogenic viruses. The principal concern for safety lies with retention of residual DNA in the vaccine, especially since induction of cancer is a single-cell phenomenon, and a single functional unit of foreign DNA integrated into the host cell genome might serve to induce cell transformation as a single event or part of a series of multifactorial events. Current proposed standards for vaccines would permit contamination with up to 100 pg [picograms] of heterologous DNA per dose. This is equivalent to about 10(8) ‘functional lengths’ of DNA. Total safety would seem to require complete absence of DNA from the product.”(31) Please note that 10(8) means 10 to the power of 8, or 100,000,000 “functional lengths” of DNA are allowed per dose of vaccine. Is there something wrong with this picture? How long will the general public be subjected to these vaccine products that according to this information, are nowhere near safe? It has taken, for instance, approximately forty years for the scientific community to finally acknowledge that we have a serious problem as a result of the contamination of polio vaccines with simian virus 40 (SV40) in the late 1950s-early 1960s. There has been previous evidence of some human brain and other tumors containing this virus (32, 33), but the medical community has been slow to acknowledge a definitive link between SV40 and cancer in humans. However, two independent research teams have recently found this virus present in 43% of cases of non-Hodgkins lymphoma (34, 35). Another study found it present in 36% of brain tumors, 16% of healthy blood cell samples, and 22% of healthy semen samples (36). And strangely, SV40 has now been found to infect children (37). Considering that children of this era, are not supposed to be receiving the virus via the vaccine contamination route, this would therefore imply that SV40 is being transmitted from one human to another, in ways not previously known. Other simian viruses may also be contaminating the (Vero) monkey cell lines used for vaccine production. One example from the literature cites the contamination presence of SV20, which is a oncogenic simian adenovirus (38). Simply put, are we in a state of denial that vaccines are ultimately transmitting viruses, DNA, and proteins into humans from foreign animal sources (and possibly unhealthy human sources), and that this may be strongly contributing to the incredible upsurge in cancers and serious chronic diseases? Are these foreign animal genes altering your DNA? Furthermore, given that viral presence can sometimes take years to manifest actual disease symptoms, and then considering the tendencies of health-related agencies and corporations towards short-term solutions and profits, will we ever truly know the long-term consequences until it is too late? [Top]Other bovine virusesAnother contaminating virus found in the calf serum used for vaccine production is bovine polyoma virus (polyoma viruses are strongly associated with cancer); one pertinent article is titled “Bovine polyoma virus, a frequent contaminant of calf serum”(39). Other contaminants include a virus from the parvovirus family (40); another study cites “virus-like particles” and “mycoplasma-like agents” in 68% and 20% of the samples, respectively (41); and yet another mentions the presence of infectious bovine rhinotracheitis virus (aka bovine herpes virus 1), and parainfluenza-3 virus in addition to the common BVDV (42). An interesting report from 1975 not only affirms the presence of these viruses in calf serum, and mentions the additional presence of bovine enterovirus-4, but also tells us that 25% of serum lots that were pre-tested by the suppliers and “considered to be free of known viral contaminants” were actually contaminated with bovine viruses (43). It should be obvious that any bovine blood-borne virus (including serious retroviruses such as bovine leukemia virus, bovine visna virus, and bovine immunodeficiency virus) could ultimately end up in human or animal vaccines via the use of calf serum in the manufacturing process. Contamination of calf serum with certain bovine herpes viruses, and the possible implication for human health, deserves a bit of scrutiny. It is known that bovine herpesvirus-1 replicates easily in a human embryo cell line called WI-38 (44). It is also known that bovine herpesvirus-4 is quite “persistent” in calf serum, and has a wide host range, including human cells (45). In fact, this particular virus strongly replicates in two human embryonic cell lines, WI-38 and MRC-5, enough so to prompt one author to give these details and a warning: “PCR [polymerase chain reaction] detected a 10,000-times-higher level of BHV-4 [bovine herpesvirus-4] DNA… the supernatant indicated a 100-fold increase of infectious particles. Since this is the first bovine (human herpes virus 8 and Epstein-Barr virus related) herpes virus which replicates on human cells in vitro, the danger of possible human BHV-4 infection should not be ignored.” (46) The clincher to this possible contamination, is that these same human cell lines WI-38 and MRC-5 are two of the most common human cell lines used to manufacture viral vaccines, (for example - rubella, chickenpox, smallpox) and these cell lines are of course, commonly nurtured with calf serum. [Top]Contaminants from chicken sourcesSome viral vaccines are produced by growing the virus in chicken eggs. Common human vaccines manufactured by this method include influenza, mumps, measles, yellow fever, and others. Like the vaccines that include bovine-source materials, those derived from chicken embryo culture are plagued with some very serious viral contamination problems. Avian leukosis virus (aka avian leukemia virus or ALV) is a retroviral pathogen that infects large segments of the modern poultry industry, is present in commercial chickens and eggs, and thus exposes humans on a consistent basis (47). An interesting virus in the sense that it can be considered a “parent”, it easily transforms into a dizzying array of related viruses by hijacking one of numerous cancer-related gene segments from its host, and inserting it into its own genome. Furthermore, it has the additional capability of inserting itself into the host (including human) genome, hiding out so to speak, and causing cancerous cell transformation from that location. There is now much scientific literature available that describes the various active mechanisms of this and other cancer-associated viruses (48). Viruses that originate from the “parent” avian leukosis virus, include the potent Rous sarcoma virus, Rous-associated viruses, avian myeloblastosis virus, avian myelocytoma virus, avian erythroblastosis virus, Fujinami sarcoma virus, etc. One group of researchers studying the mechanism of ALV writes, “Serial passaging of a retrovirus that does not carry an oncogene on such cultures leads with a high frequency to the emergence of new viruses that have transduced oncogenes…”(49). In other words, given the right growth conditions, ALV can easily transform into other closely related viruses that are known to be cancer-related. Just how common is this avian leukosis virus in viral vaccines? The first evidence of contamination came to light in the 1960s when yellow fever vaccine was found to contain it (50). Since that time, it is common knowledge in the industry that this virus (or components thereof) still linger in human and animal vaccines (51). Indeed, the respected Fields Virology text (year 2001 edition) states, “At the present time, vaccines produced by some of the world’s 12 manufacturing institutes are contaminated with avian leukosis virus”(52). One point that researchers in this field do agree upon, are the presence of ALV, avian endogenous virus, avian reticuloendotheliosis virus (another poultry retrovirus), and also an enzyme called reverse transcriptase (a component of retroviruses) in final vaccine products intended for human use, especially the mumps, measles, yellow fever, and influenza vaccines (53, 54, 55). What they do not agree upon are the effects on humans in terms of transmission, infection, and possible subsequent disease. A recent study coming out of the U.S. CDC (Centers for Disease Control), which analyzed frozen blood serum samples from children that had received MMR vaccinations, reports no avian viral presence in these samples (56). And yet, we see reports from other researchers that make us question the results of that study. As is often the case with viruses, some strains will show particular affinities for certain types of tissues or growth conditions, and ALV is no exception (57). One researcher makes the effort to explain, “Because of the difficulty in infecting mammalian cells in vitro with these viruses, it is generally held that they do not infect humans…Our results show that exposed poultry workers and subjects with no occupational exposure to these viruses have antibodies in their sera specifically directed against ALSV [Avian leucosis/sarcoma viruses]… Further investigation into whether these findings mean that virus has been integrated into the human genome is needed, to assess the public health implications of these results.”(58). He also explains in another article, that given the known behavior of these viruses in mammalian cellular culture, a blood serum test will not always provide the correct evidence of viral presence in the human body (47). In other words, does the virus (or viral antibodies) need to be actively present in the blood stream at the time of the blood draw? What if the viral particles have retreated into other tissues? Thus the CDC study mentioned above may not have presented an accurate assessment of viral presence, or long-term effects from the numerous ALV-associated “offspring” viruses. Considering that ALV can for example, easily capture the human “erbB” oncogene (59), and that erbB as well as the oncogene called myc are strongly associated with common forms of human breast cancer, it seems that the issue of ALV vaccine contamination would deserve a high level of attention! (By the way, the general reader should not feel intimidated by the abbreviations associated with oncogenes…erb refers to “erythroblastosis”, and myc refers to myelocytomatosis, which are the names of two ALV-associated offspring viruses). A well-known microbiology text reinforces these concepts by teaching, “Proto-oncogenes become incorporated into retroviral genomes with surprising ease.” (60) [Top]Toxin contaminationThe unintentional presence of bacterial-source toxins (called “endotoxins” or “exotoxins”) in human and veterinary vaccines has been recognized for many years. Such toxins are originally present in source materials, or are produced as a result of bacterial infection during the manufacturing process (61, 62). The various methods used in attempts to eliminate viruses and bacteria from vaccines are simply not effective in the removal of these problematic toxic proteins (63). Several observers have expressed concern that the presence of endotoxin may be a source of severe adverse reactions seen in some individuals after receiving a vaccine (61, 64). Some vaccines, such as those for diphtheria and tetanus, are specifically created to induce a protective mechanism in the body against the bacterial toxin; however, vaccines prepared from bacteria can contain appreciable and potentially dangerous lingering amounts of toxin, despite the steps used during manufacture to decrease the toxic potency, as described in this comment: “Vaccines composed of gram-negative bacteria contain endotoxin in considerable amounts. This may result in adverse effects after vaccination of sensitive animals.” (65). It has also been reported that bacterial toxin contamination residing in calf serum, can cause breaks in the DNA of human cells (66). [Top]Bacterial contamination - nanobacteriaNanobacteria is a recently discovered pathogen that infects humans. Now considered to be the smallest existing bacterial form known to science, it escapes through common filtering processes, and can easily invade other cells and cause cell death. Nanobacteria also are classed as “pleomorphic”, that is, they have the ability the change physical form. A human variety of this pathogen has been found to cause or be associated with a host of disease conditions, only a few of which include atherosclerosis, coronary artery / heart disease, kidney stones and kidney disease, arthritis, MS, alzheimers, some cancers, and other conditions (67). Since this species of bacteria is specific to mammals, and must be lab-cultured in mammalian blood or serum, it is not surprising that this variety of nanobacterium has been isolated as a contaminant from bovine calf serum, other mammaliam bio-products, and vaccines. One study reports that 100% of serum of cattle in a US herd showed antigens to nanobacteria, and cites another report from Europe that, “more than 80% of commercial bovine serum lots contain Nanobacterium” (68). Obviously, any vaccines that must incorporate mammalian products during production (which would include cow, monkey, or human cells, blood or serum), will be prone to nanobacterial contamination. This was indeed verified when a group of researchers found that 2 out of 3 lots of inactivated polio vaccine, and 3 out of 6 lots of veterinary vaccines were contaminated with nanobacteria. They also point out that the bacteria could be coming from calf serum and contaminated culture cell lines (69). Any reasoning person with a basic knowledge of vaccine production can deduce that nanobacteria have undoubtedly been infecting humans in a fairly widespread manner via vaccination procedures. One might also wonder whether it has contributed to the current prevalence of atherosclerosis and generalized heart disease. [Top]Bacterial contamination mycoplasmas and related formsIf there is any one type of bacterial contamination in vaccines that warrants particular attention, it would be mycoplasmas. These small organisms have a structure not characteristic of most forms of bacteria, i.e., they usually contain a thin outer membrane as compared to the more complex walls of common bacterial forms. They are described as being capable of slipping through filtration procedures, and can transfer to other media through the air or via routine handling in the lab (70). One source states that “less than 10% of laboratories actually test for infection/contamination regularly”…that mycoplasmas are “influencing almost every aspect of cell biology”…and that labs “which do not test for mycoplasma probably harbour contaminated cell lines and may even have their entire stocks contaminated, as mycoplasma spreads readily along cell lines via regents and media, the operator and the work surface” (71). They are resistant to certain types of antibiotics used to kill other bacteria (70, 72), and are subject to changing form under varying physiological or biochemical conditions (73). The journal and industry literature is filled with references to the problems of mycoplasma contamination in cell cultures and vaccines. Various studies cite corrupted cell lines ranging in occurrence from 5% to 87% (71, 72, 74, 75, 76), and as we now know, once this pathogen is in the cell culture being used to make the vaccine, it is liable to end up in the final product (77, 78, 79,80). One author states, “Mycoplasma contaminants can be considered important not only because of their role as pathogens but also because they may indicate that insufficient care has been taken during vaccine manufacture or quality control.” (81). Species of mycoplasmas that have polluted the cell cultures include Mycoplasma hominis, M. fermentans (implicated in Gulf War illness), M. arginini, M. hyorhinis, M. orale, M. pirum, M. pneumoniae, and Acholeplasma laidlawii (75, 76, 82). Any reputable company that sells tissue or cell culture material, also must test for and sell kits to detect mycoplasmas (72, 75, 76, 83, 84). Mycoplasmas and associated variant forms have long been associated with many disease processes, including cancer, chronic illnesses such as chronic fatigue syndrome, fibromyalgia, arthritis, Gulf War Illness, and many others (73, 85, 86). It would be impossible to cite all the pertinent references in this short report, on this vast arena of microbiology that is often ignored by much of the medical community, sometimes with tragic consequences. Mycoplasmas without question have the capability of altering cell membranes and their antigens, disrupting DNA, and altering cellular metabolism both in vitro and in vivo (70, 71, 72, 73, 86). [Top]Cross-contamination of cell linesAs we recall that all viral vaccines can only be produced with the use of cells, the purity of the cell lines an important issue. The most famous example of many cell lines becoming contaminated from outside sources, occurred when the famous and extremely fastidious HeLa cancer cells started showing up in labs across the world in the 1960s. The phenomenon is well-documented (87, 88, 89, 90), and is even the subject of an entire book (91). One study from 1976 cited a litany of contamination in all primary and continuous cell lines that were examined many viruses were found, as well as HeLa cells (92). As the years progress, the reports continue to come in: one from 1984, for instance, tells of inter- and intra-species cell cross-contamination, that 35% of all cell lines were corrupted, and that most of these lines were (originally) cells of human origin (93). Let’s fast-forward to 1999. A study in Germany finds that the problem is continuing, if not worsening. In a survey of human cell lines, the most common cross-contaminants came from “classic tumor cell lines”; that these polluted lines had been unknowingly used in “several hundred” projects which generated potentially false reports; and that they considered it a “grave and chronic problem demanding radical measures” (94). The situation is such that several scientists were prompted to write a letter to the respected journal “Nature” in January 2000, calling for immediate action to institute procedures that would verify the purity of cells used for research and production of biological products, ensure freedom from mycoplasma, and include biohazard information (95). (Did I hear that correctly cells can be considered a biohazard)? Has anything changed since then to remedy the situation? There is another report from Jan. 2002, that two major cell lines used in research projects actually turned out to be HeLa cells (96). I ask the reader to now recall information from earlier in this report, that there are proposals being considered to produce vaccines and other biological products using distinctly cancerous cell lines, including HeLa (25). Does this seem reasonable, especially since the current lines are already dangerously tainted with HeLa and possibly other cancerous cells? Please remember the 100,000,000 allowable pieces of cell-source DNA allowed per dose of vaccine (and this does not include the viral contaminants). Anyone care for a small, under-the-skin serving of human cancer-cell-component soup? With maybe a few monkey cell fragments for garnish, and viruses for flavor? [Top]Additional flu shot safety points to considerThere are several issues the public and medical community may want to be aware of concerning safe administration of vaccines. The human and animal body has normal barriers that help to protect against infiltration by foreign agents, among them are the skin, the respiratory and intestinal mucous linings, and the blood-brain barrier. The puncture of skin by a needle breaches that barrier. A group of researchers states, “Virus contamination of bioproducts such as vaccines, blood products or biological material used in surgery and for transplantations also is more hazardous because the application of contaminating virus usually occurs by circumvention of the natural barrier systems of the body…virus contamination of bioproducts should be considered as a hazard no matter which method has been used for its detection.” (97). Of even more concern, is the administration of vaccines nasally (through the nose), or accidental passage via that route (98). Fields Virology text (2001) says, “The olfactory tract has long been recognized as an alternative pathway to the CNS [central nervous system]…olfactory neurons…are unprotected by the blood brain barrier.” While that writer particularly addresses the flavivirus family [i.e., “intranasal inoculation of flaviviruses may result in lethal encephalitis” (99)], this pattern of potential danger may deserve further attention than it currently receives, especially if there ever is consideration to use a method of nasal inoculation for mass vaccination of the public or military, and there may be contaminating viruses or toxins in a vaccine that have an affinity for nerve cells and tissues. Mass immunization programs often use jet injectors to save the time and inconvenience associated with needles and syringes. However, a study published in July 2001, found that the four injectors tested had the capability of transferring tiny amounts of fluid and blood (and thus, viruses such as hepatitis B and C, HIV, etc.) from one recipient to the next (100). Numerous other articles confirm the danger, and question the safety of these devices, including one study that reported an outbreak of hepatitis B associated with use of a jet injector (101, 102). Some of the newest types of vaccines are called “subunit” and “naked DNA” vaccines. Without going into the intricacies of their production, they involve techniques used in genetic engineering. Subunit vaccines generally will insert a viral or bacterial DNA section into the DNA from yeast, which is allowed to reproduce in large quantities. The protein intended for inclusion in the vaccine is then separated from the yeast cells. In the case of naked DNA vaccines, the viral or DNA gene is first reproduced, then spliced into a plasmid (which is essentially free DNA, widely used in recombinant technology), reproduced in bacteria or cells, and then separated from them for inclusion in the vaccine. Recombinant gene vaccines can also be produced via these methods for instance, hepatitis B is now an exclusively recombinant vaccine (103, 104) One of the major concerns with these methods is the unpredictability and interaction of the final vaccine product with the proteins or DNA of the host. A document from the FDA states: “Genetic toxicity: Integration of the plasmid DNA vaccine into the genome of the vaccinated subjects is an important theoretical risk to consider in preclinical studies. The concern is that an integrated vaccine may result in insertional mutagenesis through the activation of oncogenes or inactivation of tumor suppressor genes. In addition, an integrated plasmid DNA vaccine may result in chromosomal instability through the induction of chromosomal breaks or rearrangements.” (105). Another group advises, “Research findings in gene therapy and vaccine development show that naked/free nucleic acids constructs are readily taken up by the cells of all species including human beings. These nucleic acid constructs can become integrated into the cell's genome and such integration may result in harmful biological effects, including cancers.” (106). And to reiterate the danger of tumorigenic cell lines, a researcher says, “More recently, recombinant DNA technology has expanded beyond bacterial cells to mammalian cells, some of which may also be tumorigenic.” (107). It seems obvious that there needs to be a new and open dialog regarding vaccines among the regulatory agencies, manufacturers, research and medical community, and the public. Many have been ridiculed for refusing vaccination for themselves or their children, but considering the occurrences of short-term adverse events and questionable efficacy (108), possible long-term health damage, and now also facing the potential of wide-ranging loss of civil liberties (109), is it so surprising that many are questioning what the actual benefits are surrounding most vaccination protocols? Are the cases of damaged children, non-functional adults, the huge increases in cancer rates, immune and chronic diseases to be simply and blindly accepted by the public as “tolerable losses”? As a citizen with a right to good health, please be advised of the following issues. Vaccine quality in the U.S. relies for the most part, on manufacturers reporting to the FDA. Here is a relevant statement from the CDC: “Manufacturers are required to submit the results of their own tests for potency, safety, and purity for each vaccine lot to the FDA. They are also required to submit samples of each vaccine lot to FDA for testing. However, if the sponsor describes an alternative procedure which provides continued assurance of safety, purity and potency, CBER may determine that routine submission of lot release protocols (showing results of applicable tests) and samples is not necessary.” (110) Yes, this is the scope of the quality-control protocol that oversees a market worth billions of dollars, yet allowing all these contaminants into the vaccines. It may be helpful to have an idea of the scope of the operation to understand what we are dealing with here. We are advised that “Large-scale cell culture operations for biotechnology products use millions of litres of complex media and gases as well as huge quantities of organic and inorganic raw materials. These raw materials must always be assumed to contain contamination by adventitious agents” (111). And because there is a potentially large number of animal and human viruses (or viral segments) that could be entering into the final vaccine products, it would take a equally large bank of molecular probes, as well as frequent, wide-spread testing, to screen for presence of these contaminating agents. This would obviously add time and expense for the manufacturers. What needs to be decided is this is the effort and cost involved in cleaning up these admittedly filthy medical products, worth the resultant benefit to the public health? And since certain animal products are necessary for the production of vaccines, it may also be necessary to clean house at several levels, including the agricultural sector. It is no secret for instance, that commercial chicken flocks raised for meat and eggs are often carrying infectious avian leucosis virus, mentioned earlier in this report (112, 113, 114) For the record, the smallpox vaccine ordered by the U.S. government from Aventis is being produced on two types of continuous cell lines, the human embryonic MRC-5 and the green monkey Vero cells (115). We might also be advised of one researcher’s thoughts, that “normal embryo and foreskin cells presumably represent a state in development which is genetically unstable, rendering them considerably more susceptible to malignant transformation.” (116). Are remnants of these types of cells something we want injected into our bodies? The decision you make in accepting or refusing a vaccination can be a very personal one, but whatever you decide, do try to be informed of the true benefits and risks. Nobody should be forced to submit to any medical procedure, especially one of questionable value. |
The Flu Shot Versus Good NutritionFlu season is fast approaching. The "authorities" would have everyone lining up for a flu shot even though the vaccine is literally a crapshoot. Experts guess in advance which viral strain will be making its worldly rounds and if they guess wrong, there may be no protection at all from the vaccine.Furthermore, you are never warned about the significant dangers of all the preservatives and/or heavy metals in the vaccine. Big drug company profits hinge on selling the patented pharmaceutical vaccines. But you don't hear anything about all of the published data showing adverse reactions to the vaccine. Many people who get the shot become ill. You're also never told that the vaccine may not work at all if you have sub-optimal nutrition. If, due to your inadequate nutritional status, you do not mount an ideal antibody response the the vaccine, what is the point? Why risk the shot? This could explain why so many vaccinated people develop the disease anyway. Are there legitimate ways to naturally boost your resistance to the influenza virus? Sure there are, but you'll never hear about them, because no drug company stands to profit by letting you find out about them. But in the case of influenza, they may very well save your life! Published in FASEB Journal in June 2001 is a landmark article on the impact of the trace mineral selenium on the influenza virus. Researchers divided mice into two groups, one well fed and nourished with ample selenium and a control group made selenium deficient. They made a startling finding, which they said has implications for humans, as the same effect is likely to occur in us. Not only were the malnourished mice sicker than the controls, but the mild virus (influenza A Bangkok) to which they were exposed mutated to more virulent (dangerous) forms. And worse, this action may contribute to new outbreaks of not just flu but many viral diseases, from the common cold to AIDS and Ebola. A key researcher reported that once the mutations have occurred, even nutritionally sound animals became susceptible to the newly mutant strain. While the study focused on influenza, which leads to over 100,000 hospitalizations each year in the U.S. alone, it also studied the mutation of Cocksakie B3, linked to a heart disease called Keshan disease. Areas of China have soils very poor in selenium. Not only have those areas been at great risk for rapid premature aging and degenerative diseases due to this deficiency, but they were also at risk for heart infection. Supplements have largely eradicated the disease, according to researchers. The Archives of Internal Medicine (April 12, 1999) reported on the impact of trace elements on immunity and infections in elderly patients. Their objective was to determine the effects of supplementation with zinc and selenium (trace minerals) compared to a second experimental group supplemented with beta carotene, vitamin C, and vitamin E (all vitamins), and a third control group receiving only a placebo. The study found that after nutritional deficiencies were corrected (taking six months) the mineral supplemented group not only had fewer viral infections compared to BOTH other groups, but also had a higher antibody response to influenza vaccine when administered. But influenza is not the only viral infection you have to worry about this time of year. The common cold is caused by a virus, too. And here, vitamin C plays a big role in reducing the severity of symptoms. Guess what? It works for the flu, too. A number of studies involving subjects under heavy acute physical stress, show that vitamin C decreases common cold incidences by half. At least three controlled studies have shown an 80 percent reduction in the incidence of pneumonia among vitamin C users. In one large study of 700 students, vitamin C at an initial dose of 1,000 mg per hour for the first six hours followed by 3,000 mg each day thereafter, reduced cold and flu symptoms by 85 percent. Folks, these reports reveal some explosive information. First, it appears that all of us are placed at risk due to the poor nutritional status of our neighbors and society at large. The poor nutritional status of individuals and populations appears to contribute to increasing virulence and spread of viruses, contributing to epidemics. Unfortunately, we do not hear public health and government authorities educating us about this monumental information. Large scale immune risks that can be corrected safely and inexpensively with non-patentable nutritional supplements do not seem to be newsworthy. Your government and medical community would rather push vaccinations on people, when the simple truth is their immune response may be inadequate due to improper nutrition. Selenium is an absolutely mandatory participant in the most important glutathione pathway of metabolism, perhaps the body's greatest detoxifier, antioxidant, and booster of immune response. In fact, AIDS victims are found very deficient in glutathione and when levels are raised, their symptoms recede or can be prevented. It is found in meat, grains such as wheat and rice, but my favorite source of readily bioavailable selenium is nutritional yeast. I sprinkle an abundant amount of this very nutritionally rich food on my salad every night. You can find it at most grocery stores. Selenium is such a valuable mineral, I personally believe everyone should take a small supplement of it. Excellent studies have shown enormous protection and prevention of various cancers including prostate cancer in men. While too much selenium can be toxic, I have never seen 200 mcg daily of selomethionine cause any problems. Zinc (up to 30 mg daily) is another required mineral for proper immune function. In fact, years ago, a University of California Davis study demonstrated that making rats deficient in zinc led to an immune deficiency in the offspring, which persisted for four generations even when the zinc was replenished in the offspring! Thus, not only do we likely place our friends at risk of promoting epidemics by maintaining poor nutritional status, we may very well be creating lifelong immune problems for our children, grandchildren, and great-grandchildren because we failed to take care of ourselves. Instead of pushing mass vaccination on the population with its many unknown risks, it makes much more sense to educate and inform people of the many basic common sense steps they can take to actually improve immune function. The rationale for mass vaccination is herd immunity, that is, if enough people become immune through vaccination, the disease will have a much less chance of propagating. I wonder why immunity to most every infectious disease that could be attained through nutritional supplementation isn't promoted (hint: $$)? Action to take: Whenever you can, shop organic to maximize the nutritional value of your meals. Eat a wide array of deeply colored fruits and vegetables every day. Shoot for five to nine half-cup servings a day of various fruits and veggies. Cut out the added sugar in your diet, sugar weakens your resistance to viruses and bacteria. Because the diet is never perfect I take supplements every day. I suggest you take a good multi-vitamin mineral that provides at least 500 mg of vitamin C and 50 to 75 mg of all the B vitamins, 10,000 units of beta carotene and 5,000 to 10,000 units of vitamin A. Be sure it provides 200 mcg selenium and 15-30 mg zinc. If your multi does not provide vitamin A, take a teaspoon of cod liver oil every day. Add an extra gram or two of vitamin C each day to help you avoid infection. If you do find yourself feeling a bid under the weather, rest, get plenty of fluids, and take an extra 3,000 mg of vitamin C the first day. Protect yourself now safely, effectively, and inexpensively with nutrition. You'll find all of these nutrients in Healthy Resolve's Max Plus. You can subscribe to Dr. Robert Jay Rowen's Second Opinion newsletter by contacting Second Opinion Publishing, P.O. Box 467939, Atlanta, GA 31146-7939, 800-728-2288, 770-399-5617, or fax 770-399-0815. Flu Vaccine Scandals 10/22/04by Sandy Gottstein MintzMaybe Dan Rather thought the 60 Minutes segment, "Saying 'No' To Immunization" was a no-brainer. Report on an easy subject, i.e., the importance of vaccinations, and the seeming carelessness that lead to his recently tarnished reputation would be shown to be a mere fluke. Blame recent pertussis outbreaks on the unvaccinated. Never mind that the DPT (diphtheria-pertussis-tetanus) vaccine is not considered particularly effective. Never mind that outbreaks have occurred in highly vaccinated populations. Never mind that no one actually knows where the alleged "source" of an outbreak got the disease, and whether it was from an unvaccinated - or vaccinated - person. Make those misguided (albeit educated, high income) so-called anti-vaccinationists look ignorant and foolish. Don't concern yourself with parents whose children died or were injured within hours or days of being vaccinated. Don't mention the overwhelming number of case reports that, while they may not be proof, provide considerable evidence that vaccines cause more harm than is generally being acknowledged. Accept at face value industry claims that the proper studies have been done. Use the sheer number of so-called vaccine safety studies published, as opposed to evaluating the quality and significance of the research, as "proof" that vaccines are safe. Ignore the role that conflict of interest plays in what gets studied and how it gets studied. Disregard the role that conflict of interest plays in what actually gets published. Overlook the role that conflict of interest plays in which vaccines are added to the pediatric vaccination schedule. (e.g., 1, 2) Use a developer of a vaccine and paid vaccine industry promoter, Dr. Paul Offit, as your "unbiased" expert on the side of vaccine safety and efficacy. Bad-mouth a maverick researcher, Dr. Andrew Wakefield, without giving him the opportunity to defend himself. Act as if no other study confirming or supporting his findings has ever been published. (Click here for some that have been published.) Dismiss and/or ridicule all anecdotal and scientific evidence that does not support the status quo. (Click here for some of the scientific evidence.) Note that in a literature search where the word "adverse" is used, the authors of the article may or may not conclude that the vaccine was responsible. One must read the abstract or the article to determine exactly what their findings were. Now I can't begin to know what motivates Mr. Rather. That's between him and God, his shrink and his accountant. A recent "World Conference of Science Journalists", however, in which it was noted that "Science journalists (have) accused drug companies of issuing misleading information to inflate perceptions of disease threats and maximise profits from drug sales" and at which they "called for greater journalistic scrutiny of the companies' activities" may offer some clues to his reasoning. Regardless of his motivation, all the apparent shortcomings in this most recent broadcast make me wonder whether or not the CBS News "memo-gate" fiasco was the exception or the rule. Even more, I wonder what it will take to get mainstream media to fairly and responsibly report on this subject. "Eternal vigilance is the price of liberty." - Wendell Phillips (1811-1884), paraphrasing John Philpot Curran (1808) Sandy Gottstein Mintz is the publisher of the website "Vaccination News", and writer of the columns "Scandals" and "Out of Control". To join her political action egroup or learn more about it, please send an email to sandymintz@touchngo.com, indicating the purpose of your email in the subject line. Past Scandals and Out of Control. ©Copyright 2003 by Sandy Gottstein Mintz. All Rights Reserved. This content may be copied in full ONLY with copyright, contact, creation, authorship, and information intact (including all links), without specific permission, and ONLY when used in a not-for-profit format. If any other use is desired, permission in writing from Sandy Gottstein Mintz is required.
|
Echinacea - How Does It Work?
Test Your Immune System Does your immune system need a boost? This test by Dr. Linda Page is quick and easy.
Flu Shot Side Effects-
|
 |
Echinacea root,
leaf & flower (Echinacea purpurea) Wild Indigo root (Baptista tinctoria) Thuja leaf (Thula occidentalis) Boneset leaf flower (Eupatorium perf.) Prickly Ash bark (Zanthoxylum c.h.) |
 |
Shopping
with us is safe. Guaranteed |
Who is Herb Pharm?
By Roman Bystrianyk - Investigative reporter for HealthSentinel.com
The fatal
tendency of mankind to leave off thinking about a thing which is no longer
doubtful is the cause of half their errors.
-- John Stuart Mill
In 1949, the DTP vaccine was licensed to prevent diphtheria, tetanus, and pertussis (whooping cough) issuing forth the modern use of vaccines in the prevention of childhood illnesses. Polio immunization was later introduced to prevent that dread disease. In 1963, the measles vaccine was licensed and was combined with mumps and rubella toxoids to create the MMR vaccine. In more recent times the hepatitis B and chickenpox vaccines have been developed and incorporated into our healthcare system. Now a child can expect to receive up to 33 vaccines during their childhood with more vaccines on the horizon, such as herpes zoster (shingles), West Nile virus, influenza, pneumococcal, HIV, and many more.
The belief that vaccines are safe and effective is pervasive in today’s society. The vast majority of the medical, public, and government communities have a well-established belief system in the benefits of vaccines. Even children’s books show how important it is to “get a shot from the doctor to keep us well.” Our belief system is so ingrained that we look to medical science to create new vaccines to protect us from everything from AIDS to ear infections.
Unlike almost any other health-related issue in the free world, governments mandate many vaccines for the theoretical public good. In the United States, all 50 states require a large number of vaccinations before children are allowed to attend public schools or day care centers. Although most states have religious and medical exemptions, with some having a philosophical exemption, public and medical officials exert a great deal of pressure to vaccinate. The pervasive attitude that plagues will return and ravage the western world without everyone giving their child a full set of vaccinations is a powerful force in modern society.
One of the chief concepts that vaccine proponents tell us, and that we generally believe in modern society, is that the use of vaccines is responsible for the virtual elimination of many childhood scourges that used to ravage the world. We are told, and assume, that in the 1800s and early in the 1900s many diseases killed a large number of people, and that vaccines were invented and stopped these diseases from being a threat. But is this in fact the case? An immunization booklet produced by the CDC (Centers for Disease Control) states the following:
“Why are baby shots so important? These shots protect your baby from nine diseases: measles, mumps, rubella (German measles), diphtheria, tetanus, pertussis (whooping cough), polio, Haemophilus influenzae type b (Hib disease), and hepatitis B. Are these diseases very serious? Today we might not think of these diseases as being very serious because thanks to vaccines, we don’t see them as often as we used to. … Measles used to kill hundreds sometimes thousands of people a year. In the 1920s, over 10,000 people a year died from diphtheria.”
“Years ago, diphtheria was a widespread and greatly feared disease. Through the 1920s, it struck about 150,000 people a year and killed about 15,000 of them. Since then these figures have dipped considerably, thanks to parents who have gotten their children vaccinated against this terrible disease. There were only 918 cases in 1960, 435 in 1970 and 128 in 1976. Today, only a few cases occur each year.”
“Before measles vaccine was available, nearly all children had measles by the time they were 15 years old. An average of 530,000 cases a year were reported in the United States during the 10 years before vaccine was available. And during each of these years, over 450 people died because of measles. Now, thanks to the measles vaccine, the number of measles each year is a fraction of what it was then.”[1]
These statements are certainly compelling. On the face of it, we cannot help but assume that vaccines have played a key role in improving all of our lives. But looking carefully at the evidence over a longer period of time reveals a different picture of disease evolution and the role vaccines have played. One Swiss scientist that analyzed data over a longer period of time came to a different conclusion of what occurred in Switzerland:
“An analysis has been made of the evolution in Switzerland of mortality due to the main infectious diseases ever since the causes of death began to be registered. Mortality due to tuberculosis, diphtheria, scarlet fever, whooping cough, measles, typhoid, puerperal fever and infant gastro-enteritis started to fall long before the introduction of immunization and/or antibiotics. The decline was probably due to a great extent to various factors linked to the steady rise in the standard of living: qualitative and quantitative improvements in nutrition; better public and personal hygiene; better housing and working conditions and improvements in education.”[2]
In that research paper, several graphs of death rates in Switzerland show massive drops in deaths from disease long before vaccinations are introduced. One graph shows diphtheria death rates for children from 0 to 14 years of age peaking at over 200 deaths per 100,000 in the late 1800s. This is followed by death rates decreasing to less than 10 deaths per 100,000 near the time of the introduction of the vaccine in the mid 1930s. There was an apparent 95 percent decrease in diphtheria death rates before introduction of the vaccine. Another graph within the same study shows scarlet fever decreasing from 200 deaths per 100,000 in the late 1800s to virtually zero by the 1930s before drug treatments were introduced. Yet another graph in the study shows typhoid also decreasing from 50 deaths per 100,000 in 1876 to virtually zero by the 1940s when drug treatments were introduced.
“During the last two decades of the 19th century diphtheria was the leading cause of death of toddlers in the industrialized world, in some cities killing more than a thousand in a single year. In contrast, since 1980 fewer than 100 cases have been reported in the entire United States. Although diphtheria is hardly the only infectious disease to have thus faded, its story is unique because the early period of its decline can be directly linked to advances in bacteriologic knowledge and practice. Between 1880 and 1930 health authorities in New York City were responsible for much of the practical innovation in the control of diphtheria, as well as a good share of scientific progress.”[3]
The Vital Statistics of the United States contains compiled statistics for a wide variety of information since early in the 1900s. Among those are death rates from all diseases, including infectious diseases. An introductory statement from the 1937 statistics indicates that death rates from infectious diseases declined greatly in the early part of the century. These declines occurred well before the advent of vaccines to treat these conditions.
“The trend in death rates for specific causes, over the past 20 or 30 years, may be characterized by two general statements. In the first place, there has been a great reduction in the death rates for infectious and preventable diseases; in the second place, there has been an increase in the rates for certain diseases characteristic of older ages. Greatest proportional rate decreases have taken place for such diseases as typhoid and parathyroid fever, which has declined from a rate of 23.5 in 1910 to 2.1 in 1937; and diphtheria, which declined from a rate of 21.4 in 1910 to 2.0 in 1937. … The rate reductions for infectious and preventable diseases can be largely attributed to the development of modern public-health practice.”[4]
From these figures, we can see that death rates from typhoid decreased by 91% from 1910 to 1937 and death rates from diphtheria declined by 90.5% during the same time period. The decrease in diphtheria occurred well before the use of vaccination.
An even a more recent editorial statement from the Journal of Pediatrics states that proper sanitation was largely responsible for the early large declines in infectious diseases.
“… the largest historical decrease in morbidity and mortality caused by infectious disease was experienced not with the modern antibiotic and vaccine era, but after the introduction of clean water and effective sewer systems.”[5]
“The conquest of infectious disease and the health revolution it initiated is arguably one of the greatest achievements of Western civilization. Yet the phenomenon is largely unknown and rarely taught, even in history courses. Conventional wisdom usually assumes that conquest of infectious disease can be credited to well-known lifesaving innovations in medicine such as vaccines, antibiotics, and surgical asepsis. These icons are truly essential ingredients of modern medicine, and their contribution to human life and health in this century can never be minimized. However, except for the smallpox vaccination, which was introduced in 1798 and made compulsory in England in 1853, the overall contribution of medical innovations to the health revolution of the 1800s is difficult to validate. Diphtheria, tetanus, and pertussis vaccine arrived on the scene only after disease mortality rates already had been reduced significantly; measles, rubella, and polio vaccines did not become available until the middle of the 20th century, when most infant deaths were the result of other causes. The same holds true for sulfa drugs and antibiotics. Their contribution is unequivocal, but they did not affect mortality rates until the 1940s.” [6]
Another paper published in the premier medical journal The Lancet in 1977 by the Department of Community Medicine in the United Kingdom also indicates that vaccines were not responsible for the decline in disease rates in that country.
“There was a continuous decline [whooping cough deaths], equal in each sex, from 1937 onward. Vaccination, beginning on small scale in some places around 1948 and on a national scale in 1957, did not affect the rate of decline if it be assumed that one attack usually confers immunity, as in most major communicable diseases of childhood. … The steady decline of whooping cough between 1930 and 1957 is predictive of a linear exponential decay characteristic of a general and progressive lessening in the volume and spread of infection among the susceptible population. With this pattern well established before 1957, there is no evidence that vaccination played a major role in the decline in incidence and mortality in the trend of events.”[7]
The author’s conclusion that “there is no evidence that vaccination played a major role in the decline in incidence and mortality” is quite monumental and far different than the general public perception.
Thomas McKeown who was Professor of Social Medicine in the University of Birmingham Medical School between 1950 and 1978, is still regarded as a major social philosopher of medicine, and known for his important works on epidemiology and the practice and purpose of medicine. His conclusion was also that diseases were declining well before medical interventions such as vaccinations came into standard use.
“The distinguished epidemiologist Thomas McKeown (1912-1988) maintained that reductions in deaths associated with infectious diseases (air-, water-, and food-borne diseases) cannot have been brought about by medical advances, since such diseases were declining long before effective means were available to combat them.” [8]
Another author shows that disease and mortality was falling before the advent of vaccines or drug therapies:
“… in 1869 there were 716 deaths from typhus in London; by 1885 this had been reduced to 28; and at the beginning of the twentieth century there was none. Similar declines could be given for other infectious diseases. Tuberculosis began a remarkable disappearing act. Killing perhaps 500 out of every 100,000 Europeans in 1845, consumption slowly but continuously sank to 50 per 100,000 by 1950. Curative medicine played little part in that transition. The disappearance began before Koch discovered the tubercle bacillus. By the time antibiotics entered the picture, TB in cities such as New York had fallen to eleventh place in the death lists. And the mortality graphs for most of Europe’s fatal crowd diseases all dived before antibiotics had been marketed. Whooping cough killed 1400 children out of every million in 1850, but one hundred years later whooping deaths were less than 10 per million. Scarlet fever behaved in the same way. Measles, typhus, pneumonia, dysentery and polio all share similar histories. Their retreat had a dramatic impact on the European population. By 1900 civilization had lost its biological population check: infectious disease. After centuries of hostile encounters, humans and microbes found a new adjustment with little interference from drugs or vaccines. In some cases the microbe became less virulent (measles and diphtheria) or the human host more resistant (tuberculosis).” [9]
In the view of this, how can the statements made by the CDC on how “thanks to vaccines” diseases are a thing of the past be correct? Back in 1924 Mark Twain was quoted as saying, “There are three kinds of lies — lies, damned lies, and statistics.” When Mark Twain made this statement, his point was that numbers could be manipulated by the unscrupulous to misrepresent facts, to justify a particular bias, or fulfill a particular agenda. It is an unhappy fact of modern life that anyone with an idea can support that idea with statistics. The less the public knows about the source of the statistics, the more possible it is to have misinformation posing as scientific results.
Simple statements, such as “in the 1920s, over 10,000 people a year died from diphtheria”, although accurate are very misleading. Providing a piece of historical fact without any real context and mixing it with statements on how vaccines helped cure these diseases leads the reader to erroneously conclude that vaccines were instrumental in the massive declines of deaths from these diseases.
The CDC’s statements on vaccines only provide a few facts and then draw a conclusion on this limited information. To understand the role of vaccines, we must use the raw information and analyze it over a long period of time. The Vital Statistics of the United States provides the most accurate information of death rates from various causes starting early in the 1900s.[10] Figure 1 is a graph of the death rates from measles, typhoid, scarlet fever, whooping cough (pertussis), and diphtheria. Both the pertussis and diphtheria vaccines were made widely available in 1949 and the measles vaccine was introduced in 1963.
This graph shows that large drops in disease death rates occurred long before vaccines were introduced. From 1900 to 1963, when the measles vaccine was introduced, death rates from measles had declined from 13.3 per 100,000 to 0.2 per 100,000 a 98% decrease. From 1900 to 1949, death rates from whooping cough declined from 12.2 per 100,000 to 0.5 per 100,000 a 96% decrease. From 1900 to 1949, death rates from diphtheria declined from 40.3 per 100,000 to 0.4 per 100,000 a 99% decrease. These are clear and major changes in the severity of diseases well before any vaccines were introduced. Close up views (figures 2-4) of the diphtheria, pertussis, and measles death rates show this dramatic drop well before vaccination programs began.
Similarly, in England and Wales we find the same decline in disease mortality. The data for the disease mortality was recorded 50 years earlier than in the United States, beginning in 1850. [11]
From 1850 to 1968, when the measles vaccine was introduced, death rates from measles had declined from a range of 52.11 to 26.6 per 100,000 to 0.11 per 100,000 a range of 99.8% to 99.6% decrease. From 1860 to 1955, death rates from whooping cough declined from a range of 43.73 to 60.86 per 100,000 to 0.2 per 100,000 a 99.5% to 99.7% decrease. From 1859 to 1940, death rates from diphtheria declined from a range of 49.2 to 22.7 per 100,000 to 6.77 to 1.83 per 100,000 a 96.2% to 70.2% decrease. The exact decrease in mortality is difficult to obtain because the mortality from these diseases fluctuated from year to year, and the exact introduction of a vaccination and number of people vaccinated each year is difficult, if not impossible, to obtain. However, it is clear that death rates in England did to a large extent decline before vaccinations were widespread.
Figure 5 is a graph that shows the mortality rate declines in England and Wales. The gap from 1891 to 1900 is because data was not acquired for those specific dates.
The modern era of vaccines actually began with the advent of the vaccine against smallpox. Edward Jenner was aware of the belief that people who contracted cowpox never contracted smallpox. He hypothesized that inoculating people with cowpox would immunize them against smallpox. On May 14, 1796, he inoculated an eight-year-old boy, named James Phipps, with matter taken from a cowpox pustule. Phipps developed coxpox and quickly recovered. Several weeks later, Phipps was inoculated with smallpox and did not contract the disease. In 1798, Jenner reported his work in the book, “An Inquiry into the Causes and Effects of the Variolae Vaccine.” This book prompted the medical professionals of the time to adopt the practice of vaccination. The vaccine was introduced in England in 1798. It was later made compulsory in 1853 through the Compulsory Vaccination Act, and then in 1867, an even more stringent law was passed to enforce vaccination.
Looking at the raw data from England during that era [12], as shown in Figure 6, we see that despite enforced vaccinations against smallpox there was no significant decrease in deaths from smallpox. In fact, three major epidemics during 1857-1859, 1863-1865, and 1871-1872 occurred, even though there was a high vaccination rate. The last major epidemic in 1871-1872 had death rates of 101.2 and 82.1 per 100,000 people respectively, occurring just four years after a newer and more strict vaccination law was enacted in 1867.
Another interesting point of note is that certain diseases that also once killed many people declined and vanished without any assistance from mass vaccination programs. Typhoid death rates of 10s per 100,000 each year was not uncommon. Scarlet fever once killed large numbers of people at a death rate of 100 or more per 100,000 each year. While quite deadly during their prime, these two “killers” were in effect eradicated due in large part to advances in hygiene and a better understanding of germ activity. The Canadian Medical Journal contains the following statements in an advisory statement:
“Typhoid fever is caused by Salmonella typhi, which affects only humans, often causing serious systemic illness. The organism is generally transmitted by the feces or urine of the people with the disease or those who are the S. typhi carriers. The death rate is approximately 16% for untreated cases and 1% for those given appropriate antibiotic therapy. … The incidence of typhoid fever is very low in all of the industrialized countries. Approximately 70 cases are reported in Canada and 190 in the United States annually. The low incidence of typhoid fever in these countries is attributable to improved living conditions, better drinking-water quality and the treatment of sewage. The vaccine does not seem to play an important role in maintaining this lower incidence. Most infections occurring in the industrialized countries are acquired elsewhere. … It is certain that vaccination does not afford adequate protection when heavily contaminated foods are ingested. … There cannot be too much emphasis placed on hygiene and food precautions; these measures appear to be the most effective protection against the disease.”[13]
If the forces of improved living conditions, better drinking water quality and the treatment of sewage virtually eliminated illnesses such as typhoid and scarlet fever, then isn’t it reasonable to consider that other diseases, such as measles and pertussis, would have had similar fates? An analysis of the death rates for all these diseases does support this idea. The Conquest of Disease by Thurman B. Rice, MD from 1932 states:
“The benefit of pure water is expressed not only by the lowering of the typhoid rate but also in a considerable lowering of other death rates, and even of the general death rate. … Why has the death rate [for Scarlet fever] markedly fallen in the days before the cause of the disease was understood? It must be remembered that a given germ is only part of the cause of a disease; there are often many other very important contributing, predisposing, or determining factors. As housing conditions were improved, as the general laws of sanitation, ventilation, and personal hygiene came to be better understood; as we came to insist on individual drinking cups; fresh air in bedrooms, and frequent bathing; as doctors became more proficient in treating the infection so as to prevent its serious complications and sequelae; as boards of health became more efficient in the enforcement of public health laws; as methods of isolation and disinfection were better understood the death rate declined accordingly.”[14]
Again, the major decline in mortality rates can be attributed to improvements in proper hygiene, not only at a societal structural level, but also due to major changes in attitude in personal hygiene.
“In addition to the seminal and recognized role of environmental hygiene, a substantial but overlooked component of the health revolution was the transformation in personal hygiene practices and cleanliness. The transformation probably started in the early 1800s, became extremely popular from 1890 to 1915, and has since become an essential feature of “civilized” behavior in the United States and Europe. It is proposed that this mass behavioral changes in washing, bathing, laundering, and domestic hygiene practices contributed significantly to the continuing reduction of illness and death rates at the beginning of the 20th century.” [15]
It would appear that, at best, vaccines could be credited with only a tiny fraction of the overall decline of disease deaths in the 1800s and 1900s. Because death rates were declining, it is impossible to say whether vaccines had a real effect or if that the same forces that caused the majority of the decline would have continued to have a positive impact. Those forces were primarily that of improved sanitation, proper personal hygiene, improved diet, and the natural cycles of disease.
Based on our knowledge that proper sanitation, improved living conditions, and improved nutrition were the key factors that caused declines in these diseases, we can ask the question: are the present deaths and complications from these diseases in people of poor socioeconomic or compromised nutritional status? Is it possible that the focus on mass vaccination programs diverted attention from continued improvements in sanitation and nutrition that could have further reduced or eliminated disease deaths and complications?
It would seem that the people who recognized the underlying cause of diseases and instituted better living conditions, proper water and better sanitation should be recognized for their remarkable achievements, not the inventors and promoters of vaccines. This analysis, which is based on historical and scientific studies, is a far different picture than the one alluded to by the CDC in their vaccine literature.
Because the focus has predominantly been on medical intervention, the history of what really caused the decline in disease mortality is “largely unknown” and “rarely taught”. The information that disease death declined before vaccination is important in the present day because we need to pay attention to these underlying causes of infectious disease. We must be ever vigilant to avoid returning to those disease-causing conditions and to examine these conditions when disease outbreaks occur. It is an important lesson in how we should approach disease prevention in third world countries. We should not forget the words of George Santayana: "Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it."
[1] Parent’s Guide to Childhood Immunization. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Public Health Service, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, National Immunization Program, Atlanta Georgia 30333, 1993, pp. 1, 7, 21
[2] Gubéran, E., “Tendances de la mortalité en Suisse”, Schweiz. Med Wschr. 110, 1980, pp. 574-583
[3] Morman, E.T., “Childhood’s Deadly Scourge: The Campaign to Control Diphtheria in New York City, 1880-1930”, The Journal of the American Medical Association, April 12, 2000 Vol. 283, p. 1889
[4] Vital Statistics of the United States 1937 Part I, U.S. Department of the Census, 1939, p. 11
[5] “Zinc, diarrhea, and pneumonia (editorial)”, The Journal of Pediatrics, December 1999, Vol. 135, No. 6, p. 663
[6] Greene, Velvl W., PhD, MPH, “Personal hygiene and life expectancy improvements since 1850: Historic and epidemiologic associations”, American Journal of Infection Control (AJIC), August 2001, Vol. 29, No. 4, pp. 203-206
[7] Steward, Gordon T., “Vaccination Against Whooping-Cough Efficacy Versus Risks”, The Lancet, January 29, 1977, pp. 234-237
[8] Porter, Roy, “The Greatest Benefit to Mankind”, Harper Collins Publishers, 1997, p. 426
[9] Porter, Roy, “The Greatest Benefit to Mankind”, Harper Collins Publishers, 1997, p. 427
[10] Vital Statistics of the United States 1937 Part I, U.S. Bureau of the Census, 1939, pp. 11-12; Vital Statistics of the United States 1938 Part I, U.S. Bureau of the Census, 1940, p. 12; Vital Statistics of the United States 1943 Part I, U.S. Bureau of the Census, 1945; Vital Statistics of the United States 1944 Part I, U.S. Bureau of the Census, 1946, p XXII-XXIII; Vital Statistics of the United States 1949 Part I, U.S. Public Health Service, 1951, p. XLIV; Vital Statistics of the United States 1960 Volume II Mortality Part A, U.S. Department of Health, Education, and Welfare,
Medical Review of Herbal Remedies
