graphs - Vaccines and Diseases

[Guest guest]

Reminder of this page......

GO TO WEBPAGE for graphs and stats of diseases

and vaccines (graphs in left column on main apge)

http://www.healthse ntinel.com/

http://www.whale. to/a/bystrianyk3 .html

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.

A review of “Childhood’s Deadly Scourge” states:

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]

Again, in a 2001 paper in the Journal of Infection Control:

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.

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 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.

Figure 1. Death rates from infectious diseases

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.

Figure 2. Death rates from Diphtheria

<

Figure 3. Death rates from Pertussis

Figure 4. Death rates from Measles

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.

Figure 5. Death rates from infectious diseases in England and Wales

The modern era of vaccines actually began with

the advent of the vaccine against

smallpox. 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

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.

Figure 6. Death rates from smallpox and scarlet fever in England.

Another interesting point is that the smallpox

disease cycle of decreased deaths and epidemics

appears closely tied to the scarlet fever disease

cycle. Just as there was a large decrease in

scarlet fever deaths after 1885, there was

simultaneously a decrease in smallpox deaths. It

is important to remember that death from scarlet

fever, which was the worst of infectious diseases

in that era, was eliminated without any vaccination program.

Figure 7 shows that vaccination coverage had no

apparent affect on smallpox deaths. As coverage

fell to from a high of 86% in 1879 to 61% in 1898

there was no resurgence of smallpox

deaths. There was a small increase in smallpox

deaths to 7.5 per 100,000 people as vaccine

coverage rates again increased to 71.8% in 1902,

but there after, as vaccine rates fell to below

40%, there was no increase in smallpox

deaths. In fact, after 1905, deaths from smallpox almost completely vanished.

Figure 7. Smallpox deaths and vaccination percent of births.

We must also remember that deaths were directly

attributable to the smallpox vaccine. Figure 8

shows the deaths per 100,000 that were caused by

the smallpox vaccine. Although the number of

people that died from the vaccine is small

compared to the number of people that were killed

directly by smallpox, after 1888 there were years

that the deaths from the vaccine was close to or

exceeded that from the disease itself (e.g. 1889

­ smallpox: 23, vaccine: 58; 1890 ­ smallpox: 16,

vaccine: 43; 1891 ­ smallpox: 49, vaccine:

43). After 1905, as can be seen in Figure 9, the

number of deaths from smallpox and vaccination

were very close to one another. In point of

fact, after 1905, a person was almost as likely

to die from the vaccine for smallpox as from the disease itself.

Figure 8. Deaths per 100,000 from cowpox and other effects of vaccination.

Figure 9. Actual smallpox and smallpox vaccination deaths.

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 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 Publishers, 1997, p. 426

[9] Porter, Roy, “The Greatest Benefit to

Mankind”, Harper 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, 1963, p. 1-25; Vital

Statistics of the United States 1967 Volume II ­

Mortality Part A, U.S. Department of Health,

Education, and Welfare, 1969, p. 1-7; Vital

Statistics of the United States 1976 Volume II ­

Mortality Part A, U.S. Department of Health and

Human Services, 1980, p. 1-7; Vital Statistics of

the United States 1987 Volume II ­ Mortality Part

A, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services,

1990, p. 11; Vital Statistics of the United

States 1992 Volume II ­ Mortality Part A, U.S.

Department of Health and Human Services, 1996, p.

12; Historical Statistics of the United States ­

Colonial Times to 1970 Part 1, Bureau of the Census, p. 58

[11] Mortality in England and Wales for 95 years

as provided by the Office of National Statistics - Published 1997;

[12] Written answer by Lord E. Percy to

Parliamentary question addressed by Mr. March,

M.P., to the Minister to Health on July 16th, 1923

[13] “Statement on overseas travelers and typhoid

fever”, Canadian Medical Association Journal, 1994, 151, pp. 989-990

[14] Rice, Thurman, A.M., MD The Conquest of

Disease, The Macmillan Company, 1932, pp. 68, 121-122

[15] Greene, American Journal of Infection

Control (AJIC), August 2001, Vol. 29, No. 4, pp. 203-206

Roman Bystrianyk is an investigative reporter for HealthSentinel. com

Last update on February 23, 2003