Vaccinations and Their Side Effects

[Guest guest]

http://lyghtforce.com/HomeopathyOnline/issue2/cover.html

(from Homeopathy Online)

Vaccinations and Their Side Effects

by Quak, translated by Christian Kurz

Editor's Note: Many homeopathic physicians are concerned with the effect of

vaccinations on the state of health of their patients. In everyday

homeopathic practice, we all know the obstacle to cure that vaccinations

can pose. If you are like me, you may have wondered whether any

non-homeopaths have ever taken notice of the risks involved in

immunizations. The answer may surprise you: There is a large body of

evidence, which has been collected over time by conventional medical

scientists, showing clearly the potential long-term risks involved. On the

basis of these published data, Quak examines the risk/benefit

analysis of compulsory mass vaccinations against common childhood diseases

within the paradigm of conventional medicine.

THERE CONTINUE TO BE many reports of complications following vaccinations.

For example, the literature describes the following (rare)

Vaccination-Induced Side Effects (VISE) of the Measles-Mumps-Rubella (MMR)

and polio vaccinations:

Local erythemas

Fever

Irritability

Tiredness

General rashes (acute urticaria)

Conjunctivitis

Arthropathies

Peripheral tremor

Cough and/or coryza

Post-vaccinal meningitis (aseptic meningitis)

Guillain-Barre syndrome

Brachial neuritis

Anaphylactic shock

Multiple sclerosis

Chronic arthritis

Lasting damages, such as the consequences of a post-vaccinal meningitis,

and life threatening diseases, such as anaphylactic shock, are most feared.

The short-lasting, smaller side effects are usually interpreted as the

normal reaction of the immune system to the attenuated disease (i.e., the

vaccine) and are therefore regarded as harmless. According to available

statistical data, the " side effects " of the real diseases are much more

frequent than those of the vaccination. Therefore the following conclusion

is commonly drawn: Vaccinations prevent more damage than they cause and are

therefore of considerable benefit to society.

Side Effects of Vaccinations

Legally, only symptoms which appear within a well defined time (normally a

few days or weeks) after the vaccination, and thereby suggest a causal link

to it, are considered to be side effects of the vaccination (VISE).

Symptoms that develop slowly or those that develop only after considerable

time has passed are difficult to link to the vaccination, because the

patient is exposed to many other environmental influences during this

period. Because data on these delayed effects are difficult or impossible

to treat in a statistically meaningful way, these side effects are not

recognized as caused by the vaccination: Up to the year 1991 " only " 1870

patients in Germany filed claims based on VISE according to the BseuchG

[federal law concerning epidemic diseases] [21]. According to Buchwald

[31], through 1992, 3407 cases of VISE have been legally confirmed in

Germany. This corresponds to a prevalence of 4.3 per 100,000 (persons with

the disease at a certain time) at an incidence of 0.21 per 100,000 (new

persons acquiring the disease each year). For the population of Germany

this translates into about 170 confirmed VISE per year. The number of filed

claims is, of course, many times higher.

Gathering data on long-term VISE requires very expensive and laborious

observations over long time periods. Those would only be useful, however,

if comparable groups of vaccinated and unvaccinated subjects were available

for long-term study. Many ethical and forensic problems arise at this

point. Furthermore, it is difficult to find a sufficient number of

unvaccinated people. There are no comparative long-term studies on

vaccinated and unvaccinated populations.

An important question in the assessment of how frequently VISE occur has to

do with how much attention is given to the observation of VISE and how

frequently the connection between VISE and vaccination is made. The

editorial of the J. Med. Microbiol. [11] comments: " The rate of

post-vaccinal meningitis varies between studies and may be dependent on how

hard the investigators try to uncover such cases. " This comment was made

with respect to a study on the MMR vaccination in the United Kingdom. In

this study the authors show that the risk of aseptic meningitis is not, as

previously thought, between 0.4 and 10 per million, but rather between 1

and 11 per ten thousand [16]. During mass-vaccinations this leads to a

shockingly high number of complications [32], since in this case everybody,

without exception, comes into contact with the (attenuated) virus; not just

a part of the population, as with the naturally occurring disease.

Several years elapsed between the 1988 introduction of the MMR vaccination

in the UK with the so-called Urabe-mumps strain (sold under the brand names

Pluserix and Rimparix in Germany before they were removed from the market

in 1992) until the realization of the high risk involved, when strain was

replaced by the Jeryl Lynn strain in 1992. It is generally assumed that

this strain does not, or does less frequently, lead to aseptic meningitis,

even though cases of meningitis have already been reported for this

particular vaccine [26].

Development of Vaccines

The fact that there even exist different strains of the vaccine has to do

with the way they are produced. All vaccines in use today contain live,

attenuated viruses (as do measles, polio, rubella, influenza, yellow-fever,

varicella).

The " transmutation " (attenuation) of a virulent wild strain into a vaccine

is today still an empirical process. The virus is subjected to several

passages in various cell cultures under non-optimal growth conditions.

Through this process, the virus changes its specific properties, but

remains a " live " virus. The mechanism involved in this attenuation is not

known in any detail. Following attenuation, a few safety investigations are

made and the reactivity and efficacy is tested on laboratory animals and

volunteers.

This process has not changed in essence since the early experiments with

vaccines during Pasteur's time. Pasteur, for example, developed a rabies

vaccine [52] by cultivating the virus in rabbits and " attenuating " it

through variable-length exposures to air. It was this method that made

Pasteur famous as well as infamous, since many people died from rabies

caused by the vaccination itself [57].

In the case of cowpox vaccination, which has been abandoned in our

latitudes, the origin of the virus contained in the vaccine is not even

known. The original vaccine from cowpox used to be transferred from child

to child because there was no way of conserving it. Re-cultivation on cows

was only successfully accomplished after several decades. In the meantime,

attenuation of the vaccine had been achieved in thousands of human bodies

-- a very dangerous process indeed, because not only the cowpox virus was

transmitted, so also were all other infectious diseases of the person.

" This vaccine is molecular-biologically different from the variola virus as

well as the cowpox virus. " [58]

Nowadays there are different vaccines, according to manufacturing

processes, put on the market by various companies, all with differing

properties. However, the molecular basis of the active principle is in most

cases still unknown. The natural virus is indistinguishable from the

attenuated virus by serological methods. The Urabe-mumps virus and the

Jeryl-mumps virus are identical on that basis. Only through the modern

technique of gene sequencing has it recently become possible to identify

several differences between the vaccines. It is, however, still unknown why

one strain is more reactive than the other. Also unknown is how these

genetic differences come about during the process of attenuation. After

all, the injection of a live, attenuated virus is a process involving many

unknowns and immeasurables, which are taken on faith due to the obvious

success and favorable risk/benefit ratio in fighting the so-called mass

epidemics.

Reaction of the Immune System

It is important to realize that the reaction of the immune system to the

injected vaccine is only known partially:

It has been observed frequently that antibody levels do not go hand in hand

with immunity to the disease . . . The investigation of the second branch

of immunity, the cell mitigated immune response, has been technically much

more difficult and turned out to be very complex . . . There exists now a

large number of experimental data and insights into the different

mechanisms of the cell mitigated immune response including their

interactions among each other and with the humoral immune system. Despite

that fact, we have only fragmentary knowledge about the concrete role of

the cell mitigated immune response to an infection by isolated pathogens in

the human body. [58, p270].

These statements are very important:

The potentially disease-provoking properties of a vaccine are unknown (the

structure of the genome is not known).

The reaction of the immune system to the injected vaccine is not known in

any detail.

The interaction of the altered state of the immune system (after the

vaccination) with other variables is unknown.

We don't know which long-term consequences may arise from this, because

studies focus predominantly on short-term reactions to the vaccination.

There are, however, indications of long-term side effects of the immunization.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------

Vaccinations and Their Side Effects: Part II

Long-Term Consequences

The occurrence of arthralgia has been documented since the first studies

about the rubella vaccination [1-10]. Based on these studies, the Institute

of Medicine states: " The committee concludes that a causal connection

exists between the RA 27/3 rubella vaccination strain and incidents of

chronic arthritis in women. " " et al. report in 1973 on eleven

children with recurrent arthritis which lasted at least for 36 months after

vaccination with HPV 77; other cases of potential arthritis have since then

reported, some with the RA 27/3 strain. " [12].

Arthralgia and arthritic affections occur frequently in connection with

diseases for which auto-immune reactions are responsible. Examples are

Lupus erythematosus, scleroderma, Sharp-syndrome, polymyositis [23], or

rheumatoid arthritis.

It would be advisable to study the connection between activation of the

immune system and auto-immune diseases, since the number of diseases in

this class is large and grows steadily with our increase in knowledge of

their pathophysiology: Thyroiditis Hashimoto, primary myxedema, pernicious

anemia, auto-immune atrophic gastritis, Morbus , premature

menopause, Goodpasture syndrome, myasthenia gravis, sterility in men,

Pemphigus vulgaris, sympathetic ophthalmia, multiple sclerosis, auto-immune

hemolytic anemia, primary biliary cirrhosis, ulcerative colitis, Sjogren

syndrome, and so forth.

We know that immunizations can lead to a deterioration in existing

auto-immune diseases [23]. The symptoms which the body exhibits in these

cases, because of its specific predisposition, are an indication of a

weakness in the regulatory system and are usually overlooked in the " still "

healthy person, yet probably present nonetheless ( Coulter refers to

these cases as " cracked eggs " ). " It is generally advisable to abstain from

active immunization with live vaccines in the cases of patients with

auto-immune diseases or chronic inflammatory processes and vaccinate only

in special circumstances and in the presence of strong indications. " [23]

Further: " It is not aberrant to assume that immunizations, being a

considerable interference with the regulation of the immunologic network,

can influence the progression of vasculitic illnesses. " [23]

Even direct side effects are known: " Ten of 1000,000 vaccinated Americans

developed auto-immune post-vaccinal encephalitis or peripheral neuritis

(Guillain-Barre syndrome) one or two weeks after immunization with

attenuated influenza vaccine. " [64].

However, it has been difficult to prove that immunizations are actively

involved in the emergence of auto-immune diseases, because these illnesses

develop after a considerable latency period. Furthermore, studies,

particularly predictive ones, are very involved and have not been carried

out to date.

Patho-Mechanism

It is the right time to launch these important studies, since a

patho-mechanism which might be involved in causing such auto-immune

diseases has been known for a long time: the cross-reaction between foreign

pathogenes (or vaccines), and body chemistry and tissues, so-called

molecular mimicry [59]. One can imagine such a relationship between body

tissues and foreign matter on three planes: [58]:

Between two types of cells, tissues, or micro organisms (e.g., bacteria or

viruses), if they use a similar or identical kind of molecule in their

structure.

Between two antigen molecules if, on their surface, they have not only

different but also identical determinants (i.e., mutually recognizable

sites).

Between two determinants, if they are sufficiently similar to react with

the same antibody. In this case the group homologue to the antibody will

react strongly while the differently configured determinant will yield a

weaker reaction.

All these possibilities apply to vaccines or their constituents. If one

introduces antigens into the body (e.g., through vaccination) which have

similar structural groups as some body tissue, even if the similarity is

only partial, the production of antibodies in the sense of an auto-immune

reaction is possible. A well known medical example for this process is the

cross reactivity between poly-saccharides of the cell membrane of

beta-hemolytic streptococci and the human cortical valve during rheumatic

fever. In this case, damage to the valve can occur by means of antibody

production.

One may remark that the natural infections can trigger auto-immune

reactions, too. However, the vaccination-induced infection differs from the

natural one in three important ways, and therefore possesses a different

antigen makeup from the latter:

The pathway of infection is different from the natural disease (i.e.,

direct confrontation with the antigen by intramuscular injection).

The time of infection is determined by the time of vaccination (e.g., all

children in the third month), not by the susceptibility of the body or the

" random " contact with the virus (readiness of the immune system).

The vaccine is an artificial product with additives which modify the action

of the pathogen (modified antigen makeup).

For these reasons, vaccination and natural disease are difficult to compare

with respect to their risk potential. Both harbor their own risks.

One other point should not be neglected: It is possible to develop

tolerance to certain antigens, the exact opposite of what has been

described so far [27]. This principle is exploited by desensitization

techniques used therapeutically against hay fever and allergic asthma: the

patient is injected with small doses of the allergen (pollen, dust mites,

etc.) in order to make them adapt to it.

In a similar manner, the body may develop a tolerance for things which it

would normally eliminate due to their harmful nature. Along these lines one

could imagine a weakening of the immune response against certain pathogens,

e.g., cancer cells:

" A derailment of the immune system may be responsible for the development

of various tumors. " [60] " Animal experiments have shown that the fetus,

with its immature immune system, can develop a tolerance by exposing it to

antigenes. " [61] However, the exact time when the immune system has matured

fully is unknown, and " other factors like age, genetic background, and

nutritional status " [27] are also relevant to the induction of a tolerance.

Furthermore, the exact mechanisms leading to a antigen tolerance are still

mostly in the dark. Therefore, according to current understanding, there

exists a possibility to develop a tolerance for surface antigens of tumor

cells induced by vaccines exhibiting a cross-reaction with tumor antigens.

As a consequence, tumor cells would not be effectively recognized by the

immune system and hence also not fully eliminated.

Especially when one thinks about the diptheria-tetanus-pertussis (DTP)

immunization, which is given in the third month, such reactions seem

possible. We don't yet fully understand the highly sensitive interplay

between fight and tolerance in our immune system. What consequences our

interference from outside bears is impossible to predict. Further study is

sorely needed in this area since we know of numerous other mechanisms

involved in the development of auto-immune diseases (e.g., formation of

immune complexes after infection following vaccination [64], etc.).

Purity of Vaccines

Another important issue is the purity of the vaccine. As described above,

several vaccines (MMR, polio) are produced by attenuation in living

organisms or cell cultures (kidney-cell cultures of monkeys). Despite the

utmost cleanliness strived for, it is technologically impossible to exclude

all possible risks of contamination entirely.

One such risk is, for example, the infestation of the sample by various

viruses (slow virus, BSE, retro-viruses, onco-viruses, etc.) or mycoplasms,

all of which are difficult or impossible to detect because of their

specific properties. " Virus contaminated cell cultures are a significant

problem of the bio-industry. " [28] In addition, the latency period of

diseases caused by these contaminants is sufficiently long so that a causal

connection is almost impossible to detect.

Live vaccines possess a higher risk of contamination with micro-organisms

than other vaccines. Ontogenetic viruses are, for example, present in

mammalian cell strains used in vaccine production. [64]

Live vaccines attenuated by conventional procedures are commonly carriers

of unknown genetic modifications. Particularly when these modifications are

only minor, like localized mutations, the danger of back mutation into a

pathogenetic virus is possible. The difference, for example, between the

Sabin strain and one of the virulent poliomyelitis strains is only the

addition of one nucleotide. The mutation into neuro-virulent strains

occurred with rabies vaccines and Sabin-polio strains (oral vaccination) of

types 2 and 3 [64]. Another drawback of live vaccines lies in their

possibility of complementation or recombination with closely related wild

strains or vaccine strains. The likelihood and possible consequences of

this are wholly unknown.

The Kinman article (Reference 64) poses important thoughts to the issue of

vaccination risks.

Because vaccines are applied million-fold on entire populations, overlooked

viral contaminations, back mutations, new mutations of the attenuated

vaccine, or insufficient attenuation of the pathogen may have dramatic

consequences for a large number of people. [30] Big immunization accidents

happen not infrequently. Here are a few examples taken from the history of

medicine: 102 people contracted encephalitis and 17 died 1944 in

Brazzaville due to a yellow fever vaccination. A yellow fever vaccination

contaminated with hepatitis virus was conducted in the US in 1942. The

consequence was 28,585 cases of hepatitis and 62 deaths. In 1955, the

so-called Cutter incidence: 250 cases of polio and 10 deaths were reported,

due to active pathogens in the vaccine. 1960 in Berlin, within four weeks

there were 25 cases of paralytic poliomyelitis reported, after using an

insufficiently attenuated vaccine. [56] Again in 1988-92 there was an

increase in encephalitis cases after MMR vaccination.

Undesirable reactions to vaccinations are often the consequence of toxic

substances in the vaccine,

of contaminants which are not antigens and have been introduced in the

preparation of the vaccine (like, e.g., substances used in cell cultures on

which the vaccine virus grows, or insufficiently purified bacteriological

antigens), or in-vivo replications of the viral or bacterial organisms.

Hypersensitivity reactions may conceivably be due to additives to the

vaccine; like, for example, neomycin in the MMR-vaccine or the mercury

contained in Thimerosal, a preservative used in the DTP-vaccine. [25].

Considering that there are more unknowns than knowns in this vast field,

with all imaginable cross-reactions, gene transfers, etc., it is

justifiable to liken the introduction of substances which have been

cultivated on living organisms into the human body to a game of lottery. At

no time do we know exactly what has been injected nor the consequences

arising therefrom.

Vaccinations and Their Side Effects: Part III

Development of Allergies

In today's pediatric practice, we try hard to delay a possible allergen

contact of the baby in order to avoid hyper-allergic reactions later on

(e.g. neurodermatitis, hay fever, allergic asthma, recently also

hyperkinetic syndrome). A study of more than 2000 children showed that

feeding them with cow's milk during the first nine months resulted in seven

times more frequent complaints of eczema afterwards [62]. For this reason

there are a large number of hypoallergic nutritional products on the

market, used by many parents, even though the study could not confirm a

connection between ingestion of milk protein and occurrence of eczema.

On the other hand, the children are already at a very early age

aggressively exposed to foreign proteins (allergens) in the form of

immunizations: diphtheria, tetanus, pertussis, poliomyelitis, hemophilus

influenza, measles, mumps, rubella, and all the corresponding booster

shots. In addition, the vaccines (with the exception of polio) come in

direct contact with the blood circulation and hence are not subject to

antigen modification by, e.g., the gastro-intestinal tract.

Seeking to avoid contact with allergens on one hand, while massively

promoting it on the other hand by means of vaccinations seems inconsistent.

At least there ought to be studies aimed at investigating the connection

between immunizations and subsequent atopies. (Atopy is a congenital

disease that produces an immediate allergic response to certain

environmental substances. Common atopies include hayfever, allergic asthma,

and skin contact allergies.)

The Meaning of Childhood Diseases

What role the so-called childhood diseases play in the development of

children has been the subject of many discussions. Reports of developmental

leaps are frequent, yet usually very subjective. There are, however, some

observations that childhood diseases do not just harbor risks but can be

quite useful.

In ls of Tropical Paediatrics, [53] the following case is reported:

1984 a 5 year-old girl presented with a bad case of psoriasis. She showed

large affected areas on her body and extremities, also involving to a

significant degree her scalp. During the following year she was treated by

Pediatricians and Dermatologists with coal tar preparations, local

steroids, UV light, and dithranol wraps. Despite these therapies and two

hospitalizations, the psoriasis was refractory and remained essentially

unchanged until she came down with measles. As the measles rash began to

spread over her skin, the psoriasis disappeared. Since then she has been

free of psoriasis.

Another startling effect is described in Am. J. Med. Hyg.: " The prevalence

of parasites and average density of malaria parasites is significantly

lower in children who have had measles or influenza before the age of 9

than in the asymptomatic control group. " [54]

An article taken from the Lancet, 1985 [55], may be of decisive importance:

Persons who have never had any visible indication of measles, i.e., never

developed the skin rash of measles, suffer more frequently from non measles

associated diseases. " " The data show a highly significant correlation

between lack of measles exanthema and auto-immune diseases, seborrhoeic

skin diseases, degenerative diseases of the bones and certain tumors . . .

We think that the rash is caused by a cell mitigated immune reaction, which

destroys the cells infected with the measles virus. If this is correct, the

missing exanthema may indicate that intracellular virus components have

escaped neutralization during the acute infection. This may later lead to

the aforementioned diseases... The presence of specific antibodies at the

time of infection interferes with the normal immune response against the

measles virus, in particular with the development of the specific cell

mitigated immunity (and/or cyto-toxic reactions). The intracellular measles

virus can then survive the acute infection and cause diseases manifesting

in the adult age.

If the infection with measles happens at a time when there are already

antibodies against the measles virus present, i.e., within the first few

months after birth, or after administration of measles immune serum because

of contact with measles, or after antibody production following

vaccination, the immune system cannot react fully to the infection, leaving

the virus the chance to become persistent.

If vaccinated children contract measles from the wild strain, the

possibility exists that the infection will be overlooked in them, since

they do not exhibit the typical signs of measles anymore. It is impossible

to say how common these latent measles infections are; finding the

connection between latent measles and a disease at adult age is impossible.

If this suspicion proves to be true, the merit of the measles vaccination

has to be re-evaluated carefully.

Level of Protection

A last word to the level of protection: parents who have their children

immunized assume that they will not contract the diseases covered by the

vaccine. Unfortunately this is not true to the degree that most parents

assume. Some examples:

A population in the Gaza strip which was vaccinated to a density of 90%

suffered two outbreaks of poliomyelitis, 1974 and 1976. In these epidemics

34% and 50%, respectively, of all sick children had received 3 to 4 doses

of the vaccine. The incidence of diseases was 18 per 100,000 [35].

Hungary had a vaccination program which reached a 93% vaccination density

in the target population. A measles epidemic occurred in 1981. In contrast

to earlier epidemics, the majority of the sick were vaccinated persons,

i.e., about 60%.

During another epidemic between September 1988 and December 1989, there

were 17,938 cases of measles recorded (attack rate of 169 per 100,000),

with the majority of cases reported in the vaccinated population (attack

rates for the populations vaccinated in 1971 and 1972 were 1332 and 1632

per 100,000, respectively). The status of immunization was known of 12,890

(76%) cases of measles. Of these, 8006 (62%) had been vaccinated. [29]

A measles epidemic broke out in an entirely vaccinated population of about

4200 students of three schools in the USA [38]. Further cases from the U.S.

have been reported [46, 47, 48, 49, 50, 51]

Despite a vaccination density of 96%, Fife, Scotland, was afflicted by a

measles epidemic in 1991 and 1992. This was followed shortly thereafter by

outbreaks of measles in other parts of the country, notwithstanding the

high MMR vaccination density [45].

In Nashville, Tennessee (USA),a large-scale mumps outbreak occurred in the

vaccinated population [43]. It has been shown that the immunization against

mumps provides in many cases only a 75% protection [39, 40, 43]. Mumps is

nowadays regarded to be a mild disease [41, 42].

Vaccinations and Their Side Effects: Part IV

Conclusion

In conclusion we may say the following:

Vaccinations modulate the immune system. What exactly happens lies beyond

the capabilities of today's scientific analysis.

In particular, long-term consequences of vaccinations are unknown because

their existence is difficult to prove statistically.

So-called minimal lesions [63] and their consequences are not included in

statistical studies of vaccination-induced side effects.

Vaccinations do not give complete protection from the disease.

The decisive question one has to ask is whether the expected short-term

benefit of vaccinations outweighs the potential long-term damage. We all

tend to concern ourselves only with the problems at hand. Illnesses and

diseases which threaten us now are more important in our eyes than possible

complaints in the future. The fear of a post-measles encephalitis is bigger

than the fear of the rheumatic pain of the 30 or 40 year old adult. If,

however, there is indeed a connection between vaccinations and auto-immune

diseases or tumor growth, it is questionable whether the cost-benefit

analysis of today is still applicable. Considering that homeopathic

treatment and prophylaxis can reduce the number of sequelae in childhood

diseases significantly, the practice of vaccination becomes even more

doubtful.

Knowledge of the nature of chronic diseases as described by Hahnemann are

prone to make the homeopathic physician very skeptical towards introducing

pathogens into the human body. (S. Hahnemann, Chronic Diseases, Theoretical

Part)

Confirming Hahnemann's insights, the collective experiences of seasoned

homeopathic physicians show that vaccinations pose an obstacle to cure, and

that diseases frequently take their course after a vaccination.

Furthermore, childhood diseases are usually managed easily, and

unvaccinated children undergo a less complicated development than their

vaccinated counterparts.

References

(you'll have to number these 1 - 64 in order to match footnoots - numbers

didn't come out when copying text - or go to the website)

Howson, C.P., 1991, Adverse effects of Pertussis and Rubella Vaccines,

National Academy Press, Washington, D.C.

, E.K., " Joint Reactions in children vaccinated against Rubella.

Study II: Comparison of three vaccines, " Am. J. Epidemiol., 1972; 95; pages

59-66.

, L.Z., " Transient Arthritis after Rubella Vaccination, " Am. J. Dis.

Child., 1969; 118; pages 218-25.

Horstmann, D.M., " Post-Partum Vaccination of Rubella-susceptible Women, "

Lancet, 1970; 2; pages 1003-6.

Lermann, S.J., " Immunologic response, virus excretion and joint reactions

with rubella vaccine, " Ann. Intern. Med., 1971; 74; pages 67-73

Spruance, S.L., " Joint complications associated with derivates of HPV-77

rubella virus vaccine, " Am. J. Dis. Child., 1971; 122; pages 105-11.

Swartz, T.A., " Clinical manifestations, according to age, among females

given HPV-77 duck rubella vaccine, " Am. J. Epidemiol., 1971; 94; pages

246-51.

, G.R., " Acute arthritis complicating rubella vaccination, "

Arthritis Rheum., 1971; 14; pages 19-26

Wallace, R.B., " Joint symptoms following an area wide rubella immunization

campaign: report of a survey, " Am. J. Public Health, 1972; 62; pages 658-61.

Weibel, R.E., " Influence of age on clinical response to HPV 77 duck rubella

vaccine, " J.A.M.A., 1972; 222; pages 805-7.

Forsey, T., " Mumps vaccines-current status, " J. Med. Microbiol., 1994; 41;

pages 1-2.

Stratton, K.R., " Adverse events associated with childhood vaccines other

than pertussis and rubella, " J.A.M.A., May 25, 1994; 271, No. 20, pages

1602-1605

Forsey, T., " Mumps vaccines and meningitis, " Lancet, 340, Oct. 17, 1992;

page 980.

Gray, J.A., " Mumps meningitis following measles, mumps and rubella

immunization, " Lancet, July 8, 1989; page 98.

, K., " Guillain Barre Syndrome after measles, mumps and rubella

vaccine, " Lancet, 343, Jan 1, 1994; page 60.

, E., " Risk of aseptic meningitis after measles, mumps and rubella

vaccine in UK children, " Lancet, 341, April 17, 1993; pages 979-994.

Buskinco, L., " Measles, mumps, rubella immunization in egg-allergic

children, " ls of Allergy, 72, Jan. 1994; pages 1-3.

Howson, C.P., " Chronic Arthritis after rubella vaccination, " Clin. Inf.

Dis., 15, 1992; pages 307-12.

Wyatt, H.V., " Vaccine associated poliomyelitis, " Lancet, 343, March 5,

1994; pages 609-10.

Sutter, R.W., " Adverse Reaction to tetanus toxoid, " J.A.M.A., 271, May 25,

1994; page 1629.

Zastrow, K.D., " Tetanus-Erkrankungen, Impfungen und Impfschäden in der

Bundesrepublik Deutschland, " 1971 bis 1990, Dtsch. med. Wschr., 118, 1993,

pages 1617-1620.

Peltola, H., " Frequenzy of true adverse reactions to measles, mumps,

rubella vaccine, " Lancet, April 26, 1986; pages 939-942.

Kalden, J.R. and Gerth, H.J., " Polymyalgia rheumatica und Grippe Impfung, "

DMW 1992, 117; page 1259.

Forsey, T., " Mumps vaccines-current status, " J. Med. Microbiol., 1994; 41;

pages 1-2.

Gilsdorf, J.R., " Vaccines: Moving into the molecular era, " J. Pediatr.,

Sept. 1994, 125; pages 339-44.

Ehrengut, W., " Komplikationen " nach " Mumpsschutzimpfungen in der

Bundesrepublik Deutschland, " Monatsschr. Kinderheilk, 1989, 137; pages

398-402.

Friedmann, A., " Oral Tolerance: A biologically relevant pathway to generate

peripheral tolerance against external and self antigens, " Chem. Immunol.,

1994, 58; pages 259-290.

, E., " A new method for rapidly removing contaminating micro-organism

from porcine parvo virus or pseudorabies virus master-seed suspensions, "

Vaccine, 1993, 11(3); pages 363-5.

Agocs, M.M., " The 1988-1989 measles epidemic in Hungary: assessment of

vaccine failure, " Int. J. Epidemiol., 1992 Oct, 21 (5); pages 1007-13.

Brown, F., " Review of accidents caused by incomplete inactivation of

viruses, " Dev. Biol. Stand., 1993, 81 (1); pages 103-7.

Buchwald, G., 1994, Impfen- Das Geschäft mit der Angst, EMU, Verlag.

Clare, D., " Families win support for vaccine compensation claim, " B.M.J.,

Vol. 309, 24. Sept. 1994; page 759.

Berr, C., " Risk factors in multiple sclerosis: A population based

case-control study in Hautes-Pyrenees, France, " Acta. Neurol. Scand.

(Denmark), July 1989, 80 (1); pages 46-50.

White, P.M., " Prevalence of antibody to poliovirus in England and Wales, "

Br. Med. J., Nov. 1, 1986, 293 (6555); pages 1153-5.

Lasch, E.E., " Combined live inactivated poliovirus vaccine to control

poliomyelitis in a developing country five years after, " Dev. Biol. Stand.,

1986, 65; pages 137-43.

Sutter, R.W., " Paralytic poliomyelitis in Oman: association between

regional differences in attack rate and variations in antibody responses to

oral polio virus vaccine, " Int. J. Epidemiol., Oct 1993, 22(5); pages 936-44.

Wyatt, H.V., " Unnecessary injections and paralytic poliomyelitis in India, "

Trans. R. Soc. Trop. Med. Hyg., Sept.-Oct. 1992, 86(5); pages 546-9.

Matson, D.O., " Investigation of a measles outbreak in a fully vaccinated

school population including serum studies before and after re-vaccination, "

Pediatr. Infect. Dis. J., Apr. 1993, 12(4); pages 292-9.

Guimbao, B.J., " Parotitis in postvaccination period, " Med. Clin., 1993 Apr.

10, 100(14); page 559.

Suarez, J., " Prevalence of anti-mumps IgG antibodies in a pediatric

population, " Enferm. Infecc. Microbiol. Clin., Mar. 1992, 10(3); pages 130-4.

Falk, W.A., " The epidemiology of mumps in southern Alberta 1980-82, " Am. J.

Epidemiol., Oct. 1989, 130(4); pages 736-49.

Arday, D.R., " Mumps in the US army 1980-86, " Am. J. Public Health, Apr.

1989, 79(4); pages 471-4.

Wharton, M., " A large outbreak of Mumps in the postvaccine era, " J. Infect.

Dis., Dec. 1988, 158(6); pages 1253-60.

Agocs, M.M., " The 1988-1989 measles epidemic in Hungary: assessment of

vaccine failure, " Int. J. Epidemiol., Oct. 1992, 21(5); pages 1007-13.

, H., " Measles outbreak in Fife; which MMR Policy, " Public Health,

Jan. 1993, 107 (1); pages 25-30.

Marks, J.S., " Measles vaccine efficacy in children previously vaccinated at

12 month of age, " Pediatrics, 1978, 62; pages 955-60.

Marks, J.S., " Measles outbreak in a vaccinated school population, "

A.J.P.H., 1987, 4; pages 434-38.

Hersh, B.S., " A measles outbreak at a college with prematriculation

immunization requirement, " Am, J, Public Health, 1991, 81; pages 360-64.

Daivis, R.M., " A persistent outbreak of measles despite appropriate

prevention and control measures, " Am. J. Epidemiol., 1987, 126; pages 438-49.

Hutchins, S.S., " A school-based measles outbreak, " Am. J. Epidemiol., 1990,

132; pages 157-68.

Gustafson, T.L., " Measles outbreak in a fully immunized secondary-school

population, " New England Journal of Medicine, 1987, 316(13); pages 771-774.

Bendiner, E., " From Rabies to AIDS: 100 Years at Pasteur, " Hosp. Pract.,

Nov. 30, 1987; pages 119-142.

Chakravarti, V.S. and Lingam, S., " Measles induced remission of psoriasis, "

ls of Tropical Paediatrics, 1986, 6; pages 293-294

Rooth, I.B., " Suppression of plasmodium falciparum infections during

measles or influenza, " Am. J. Trop. Med. Hyg., Nov. 1992, 47(5); pages

675-81.

Rønne, T., " Measles virus infection without rash in childhood is related to

disease in adult life, " Lancet, Jan. 1985; pages 1-5.

Beale, A.J., " Hazards of vaccine production, " FEMS Microbiol. Let., 1992,

100; pages 469-474.

e, J.H., Praktische Materia Medica, 1994, S.1455

s, H., Medizinische Mikrobiologie, 1994, S.268.

Barnett, L.A., " Molecular mimicry: a mechanism for autoimmune injury, "

FASEB J., Feb. 1, 1992; pages 840-4.

Roitt, I.M., Immunologie, 1991, S234ff.

Classen, Innere Medizin, 1994, S.464

Keller and Wiskott, Kinderheilkunde, 1991, S.380.

Coulter, H.., 1991, Dreifachimpfung, ein Schuß ins Dunkle,Barthel und

Barthel, Verlag (translation of Coulter's A Shot in the Dark).

Kimman, T.G., " Risks connected with the use of conventional and genetically

engineered vaccines, " Veterinary Quarterly, Aug. 1992, Vol. 14(3); pages

110-118.

(aside)

by n Winston

Hans Burch Gram, M.D.

(1796- Feb. 26, 1840)

Photo © n Winston

Hans Burch Gram was the first homeopath in the United States. Born in

Boston of Danish parents, he returned to Denmark to settle some family

matters. While there he studied medicine, and learned homeopathy from Dr.

Lund, who had studied with Hahnemann.

Gram returned to the U.S. in 1825 and settled in New York City. While

instructing a businessman, Ferdinand Wilsey, in Masonic ritual, Wilsey

confided that he had been suffering from a long-standing case of dyspepsia.

Gram cured him. Wilsey's doctor, Gray, submitted to Gram four more

difficult cases, and Gram cleared them all ­ and F. Gray became Gram's

first pupil.

Although Gram was never as well known to us as his contemporaries ­ Hering,

Hull, Wesselhoeft, and others ­ his mark on homeopathy can be clearly seen

when one traces the number of homeopaths whom he and his pupils trained.

The introduction of homeopathy in Massachusetts, New Jersey, Indiana,

Illinois, Connecticut, and all of New York traces itself back to Dr. Gram.

It is said that most of Gram's work was done with drop doses of tincture.

Gram was buried at St. Mark's burial ground in New York. In 1862 his

remains were transferred to the Gray family plot in Greenwood Cemetery in

Brooklyn, N.Y. The inscription on the stone reads:

H. B. Gram, C.M.L.

Hafniae Pioneer

of Homeopathy

in America

Died 1840

AET. 54

(Hafniae is the New Latin name for Copenhagen, Denmark)