fwd: SCHIEBNER COMMENTS ON THE SIDS REBUTTAL (incl. mentions of SBS)

[Guest guest]

I share this as it is so similar to the MMR thing and timing of

reactions and all.

This is quite long but important. Someone said that Dr. Scheibner had been

wrong in saying that SIDS disappeared in Japan

after vaccination moved to age 2 from 2 months.

Here is her response, worth printing out

Subject:

SCHIEBNER COMMENTS ON THE SIDS REBUTTAL

Date:

Tue, 24 Aug 1999 08:08:52 -0700

From:

Organization:

vaccine information and awareness

To:

via

References:

1

Comments on JAPANESE SIDS REBUTTAL

Firstly, the author of this " Rebuttal " (Australian Skeptics) hasn't done

his homework: he can't even spell my name and my book VACCINATION was

published in 1993 and not 1992. In my opinion, his homework about

vaccines and infant deaths is of the same quality as his homework about

my book and my work.

1. Between 1970 and 1974, 37 infant death occurred after DPT vaccination

in Japan; because of this the doctors in one prefecture boycotted

vaccination (Iwasa et al. 1985 and Noble et al. 1987). Consequently, the

Japanese Government first stopped DPT vaccination for 2 months in 1975,

and, when vaccination was resumed, the vaccination age was lifted to 2

years.

Interestingly, not only the entity of sudden death disappeared from

vaccine injury compensation claims (only 2 deaths were subject of

vaccine injury compensation claims in the 2-year olds compared with 37

in younger children), but the the overall infant mortality has improved:

Japan zoomed from 17th to first place in infant mortality in the world.

This means that Japan moved from a very high bracket to the lowest

infant mortality rate in the world ( 1991). Interestingly,

Noble et al. (1987) who

spent some 2 weeks in Japan studying the acellular whooping vaccine

there, wrote that " It is difficult to exclude pertussis vaccines as a

causal factor even when other etiologies are suggested, particularly

when the adverse events occur in close temporal association with

vaccination " .

The same thing happened in England after 1 July 1975 when thanks to the

first media reports of brain damage linked to vaccination, parents

stopped vaccinating: the compliance fell down to 30% or even 10% in some

areas. As unwittingly documented by McFarlane (1982), the overall infant

mortality rate plummeted. She wrote:

" The postneonatal mortality fell markedly in 1976, the year in which a

sharp decline in perinatal mortality rate began. Between 1976 and 1979,

however, neither the late nor the postneonatal mortality rates fell any

further. Indeed, the postneonatal mortality rate increased, slightly

among babies born in 1977 " . This very closely correlates with the

documented oscillations in vaccination compliance: low compliance was

linked to low death rate and vice versa. The vaccination compliance was

lowest in 1975-76. Then it started climbing up in 1977-78, simply

because people have short memories and the new

parents did not know about the publicity surrounding vaccination as the

cause of serious side effects (young couples become interested in these

issues only after they have their first children). Fine and son

(1982) wrote " ...it is surprising that the interepidemic period did not

decrease after the 1974 fall in vaccine uptake. " They expected the

incidence to increase in the unvaccinated children.

Indeed, this interepidemic period was unusually long with the lowest

incidence of whooping cough on record. When in 1988 Japanese parents

were given the choice to start

vaccinating anything between 3 months of 4 years, obviously many

ignorant parents started at 3 months because the low SIDS rate increased

fourfold in the last 13 years (Byron Shire Echo; June 1994). The article

quoted Professor Hiroshi Nishida of Tokyo Women's Medical College, who

said that the SIDS rate among babies aged under 1 year

had sharply increased to 0.33 % in 1992 when compared with 0.07 % in

1980.

2. SIDS is a rather rubbery diagnosis and the figures can be and are

manipulated. However, the total infant deaths are a bit more difficult

to manipulate. The definition of SIDS is a death of a child unexpected

by history and with insufficient determination of cause of death. So, it

depends on the degree of damage whether the infant death will be

diagnosed as Sudden Infant Death Syndrome or pneumonitis, bronchiolitis,

brain edema etc. With the increasing number of vaccines administered as

part of the " routine " now, we shall see increasing numbers of babies

with very serious reactions to vaccines and they will not be diagnosed

as SIDS. We already see it in the epidemic of Shaken Baby Syndrome, when

babies develop serious brain and other haemorrhages and die or remain

seriously damaged and the parents are being accused of causing it by

allegedly shaking their babies to death (Scheibner 1998).

Cherry et al. (1988) discussed the pertussis vaccine deaths in a rather

odd way. Under the subheading Non-SIDS deaths they quoted Madsen's

(1933) description of two babies who died soon after pertussis

vaccination. In a way which can be described as contemptuous

they tried to explain these immediate deaths (one-half hour after the

second vaccination given four days after the first) and two hours after

the second vaccination respectively) and Werne and Garrow (1946) who

reported on the deaths of identical twins following the second injection

of diphtheria and pertussis antigens. These children died

within 24 hours of their vaccinations and had symptoms of anaphylactic

shock (Cherry et al. 1988 wrote " suggestive " of schock) and then

concluded that the injuries were also consistent with diffuse viral

infection such as that which might be due to an enterovirus. No evidence

whatsoever was offered for this unfounded assumption.

Under a subheading " SIDS " , Cherry et al. (1988) tried to diffuse the

impact of the published data on vaccine deaths by writing about a small

section of the Tennessee deaths within 24 hours of their DPT

vaccination. " An extensive evaluation of this possible association was

made, and there was a weak statistical association with one lot of

vaccine. It was the impression of the investigators and a panel of

outside consultants that there was no causal relationship between the

specific lot of vaccine and SIDS. " and " A statistically significant

number of excess deaths was noted in the first week following

immunization (observed 17, expected 6.75 P less than .0005). This

study was criticized by Mortimer and colleagues (1992) because ...did

not take cognizance of the well-known age distribution of SIDS " . This is

a blatant circular argument: the well-known distribution of SIDS follows

closely the vaccination schedule and none of the studies of SIDS

distribution or incidence was the vaccination status of the SIDS victims

even mentioned. This is " science " squarely standing on its head.

They also wrote that of the six children having serious side effects to

Wellcome pertussis vaccines (described by Griffith (1978), " one was

found to have pneumonia, one Reye Syndrome, and a four-day febrile

illness, one acute tracheobronchitis, one tuberculous meningitis, and

one an encephalomyelitis which had its onset seven days after

immunization " . Vaccines are known to cause pneumonia; the Reye Syndrome

is a recognised side effect of vaccination, vaccines cause febrile

illnesses and seven days is one of the characteristic critical days for

the onset of vaccine reactions. I would also like to see details of the

" tuberculous meningitis " before concluding that this

was not a reaction to the administered vaccines.

Wilkins (1988) dealt with the question of delayed reactions to vaccines.

She wrote that " if one assumes that the adverse reaction to the DTP

vaccine may result from an immunologic intravascular complexing of

particular antigen (whole-cell or disrupted organisms) with specific

antibody to produce a Jarisch-Herxheimer reaction, then

adverse reaction may not occur within 24 hours of inoculation...If the

post inoculation interval is extended to 2 weeks, an additional 93 case

infants (now representing a total of 98 case infants) might have been at

risk for an adverse reaction to DTP vaccine. "

Perhaps the most revealing is the comment of Cherry et al. (1988) about

articles by Torch (1982 and 1986a, . Even though the two articles

published in 1986 were available at the time. Cherry et al. (1988) did

not quote them. One wonders why? Perhaps, the answer is contained in the

articles (see below).

Torch (1982 and 1986 a, analysed the symptoms and postmortem findings

in babies and small children after vaccination and described them in

sufficient detail not to leave anything to imagination. Torch (1986b)

concluded that " Although many feel that the DPT-SIDS relationship is

temporal, this author and others maintain a causal relationship exists

in a yet-to-be determined SIDS fraction. "

3. Even though vaccinators as a rule are very reluctant to use the word

CAUSED when they talk about vaccine damage, they, interestingly, talk

about REACTIONS to vaccination. The word reaction in itself implies the

causal link, though it does not actually say so. You can't have a

coincidental reaction to vaccination, you can only have coincidental

occurrence of some damage or symptoms, demonstrably caused by something

else. They often use the word " TEMPORAL " meaning occurring in time,

always overlooking the fact that these " TEMPORAL REACTIONS " always occur

AFTER and not NOT BEFORE vaccination, and that

the reality of the occurrence after vaccination is the first condition

to fulfill when establishing causality; if something happens before

vaccination we would not even consider it being caused by the subsequent

administration of vaccines.

4. In the past, vaccinators were denying that vaccines cause any adverse

effects. Thanks to strong anti-vaccination awareness, vaccinators now

have to admit that yes, no vaccines are 100% safe or 100% effective and

reactions do occur and the vaccinated children are getting the

" vaccine-preventable diseases " . Yes, there are mild or strong local

reactions; and yes, there are systemic reactions, like fever,

convulsions, hypotonic-hyporesponsive episodes, screaming (a cerebral

cry), drowsiness, but only within a maximum of 7 days after vaccination.

They also have great difficulty recognising and accepting the damage in

individual cases. They always claim that the damage was coincidental, or

worse still, caused by the parents of the affected or

killed child by accusing them of Shaken Baby Syndrome.

The vast majority of published studies of vaccine reactions included a

follow-up of up to only 48 hours. This conveniently excludes about 90%

of reactions to vaccination (see also Wilkins 1988).

Characteristically, most vaccine reactions are delayed, many starting

only 2-3 weeks after vaccination.

5. With this introduction, we may find it rather curious why Cherry et

al. (1988) would even contemplate to publish some 40 pages of a Report

of the Task Force on Pertussis and Pertussis Immunization in which they

analyse in quite a detail all those " temporal " reactions to the

pertussis vaccine. But they did.

Among many other examples of this remarkable, and as it might seem,

wholly misplaced diligence. Cherry et al. (1988) looked into sudden

infants deaths after pertussis vaccination. That babies as a rule are

given the pertussis vaccine together with the diphtheria and tetanus

toxoids as DPT did not seem important to these authors. If you

administer 3 in 1 vaccines how do you know which vaccine caused what?

Unless, of course, you know precisely what damage the pertussis

component of this toxic trio causes. In fact, the pertussis vaccine is

as a rule used to induce encephalomyelitis in laboratory animals

(Steinman et al. 1982) and when these unfortunate animals develop

encephalomyelitis, as expected, and intended, it is never considered

just coincidentally temporally related to the administration of the

pertussis vaccines, or a result of some Shaken Rat Syndrome inflicted by

laboratory staff: it is only when the same vaccine causes the same

reactions in babies, it is as a rule considered coincidental and only

temporally related or a result of Shaken Baby Syndrome inflicted on them

by their parents or other carers. Kirschner and Stein (1985) called this

hostile attitude of medical staff a form of medical abuse.

On page 971, Cherry et al. (1988) under the heading " development of

alternative B pertussis vaccines " write that " During the past several

decades, many laboratories attempted to identity and separate

significant protective antigens from those bacterial components that

account for adverse reaction. Until recently, this effort amounted to

a trial and error process that proved to be exceedingly difficult in

face of the array of biologically active products that could be derived

from B pertussis organisms..-Two of the extracted vaccines will be

described. The experimental vaccine of Pillemer et al. (319) was

partially purified by adsorption to human RBC stroma. In extensive

comparative field trials in the United Kingdom, it was highly protective

in children but caused significantly more systemic reactions than

available conventional whole-cell vaccines. It was not pursued further. "

We should not even have to go any further. Cherry et al. (1988) here

clearly and without a shadow of a doubt (at least in my mind) used the

word " caused " when describing the adverse systemic reactions which were

observed and documented as a result of this pertussis vaccine

administration in extensive comparative trials.

But let's read further:

" An extracted pertussis vaccine (TRiSolgen manufactured by Eli Lilly Co)

was marketed in the United States from 1962 to 1977 (for fifteen

years!). " There are few published data evaluating this product. The

antigen was chemically extracted from whole bacteria, cell debris was

removed by centrifugation and no additional purification steps were

taken. The vaccine was never well characterized, two published small

field trials provided information regarding reaction data and agglutinin

liters. 320, 321 Only one of these trials, was carried out in a

randomized, double-blind fashion, and in this study the

difference between the reaction rates following the extracted vaccine

varied only slightly from the comparative whole-cell vaccines. The local

reactions were less frequent with extracted vaccine, although the

systemic reactions were not significantly different.

In addition, there are no specific data concerning efficacy or frequency

of uncommon temporally related severe neurologic events with this

extracted vaccine. "

So, vaccines which were discontinued (after 15 years of use!) or never

reached the distribution do cause serious side effects and have never

been properly researched.

Also, ordinary systemic reactions are caused by the vaccine, but when it

comes to the 'severe neurologic events' they are suddenly only

temporally related. In other words, the vaccine causes only mild

reactions and the severe reactions are caused by nothing.

But Cherry et al.(1988) continued in their strange rhetoric. On page 972

(Development of Acellular Vaccines in Japan) they write under a

subheading (Transient Local and Systemic Reactions): " In general,

transient local and systemic reactions caused by acellular vaccines were

less frequent and milder when compared with Japanese conventional

whole-cell vaccines. A small number of children in the US received a

Japanese T-type component vaccine and similar mild reactions were

observed. " Well, no problem using the word 'caused' when it comes to

what they called transient local and systemic reactions.

However, when it comes to severe events, they suddenly change their

choice of words into " Temporally Related Severe Events " (p. 972). Cherry

et al. (1988) write here: " In the 5 year period from 1970 through 1974,

a period when standard whole-cell DTP immunization was started routinely

at 3 to 5 months, there had been a total of 57 severe temporally related

events and 37 deaths (9.5 severe reactions and 6.1 deaths per year)

including presumed vaccine-associated encephalopathy and other CNS

diseases, as determined by claims paid by the Japanese national

compensation system. When whole-cell vaccines were initiated at 24

months of age, in the six years between 1975 and 1980, there were eight

severe temporally related events (average 1.6 [per] year) and three

deaths. The whole-cell DTP vaccines used in'the latter period were

equivalent to those in prior use. Thus, the age of starting routine

immunization appears to be a far more important

determinant of temporally associated reactions than the switch from

conventional whole-cell vaccine to acellular vaccines " .

And then Cherry et al. (1988) continued:

" The conclusion can be drawn that either (1) DTP prepared with

whole-cell B pertussis is less likely to cause neurologic disease when

begun at 24 months or (2) the purported reactions in infants were in

large part unrelated<developmental events expected commonly in that age

group but attributed to vaccine because they were time related... The

rate of severe reactions does not differ significantly between the

acellular and whole-cell vaccine when used at 24 months of age. (Table

8). The decrease in severe reactions is slight, if any. The category

" sudden death " is also instructive in that the entity disappeared

following both whole-cell and acellular vaccines, when immunization was

delayed until a child was 24 months of age. " And further: " It is clear

that delaying the initial vaccination until a child is 24 months,

regardless of the type of vaccine, reduces most of the temporally

associated severe adverse events. Furthermore, analysis of cases with

paid claims in the Japanese national compensation system indicates many

of the putative cases to be related to other medical conditions " .

This paragraph is the source of controversy. As I see it. Cherry et al.

(1988) here clearly indicate that the shift of the start of vaccination

to 2 years reduced the incidence of (what they would describe as

temporal) severe adverse events. Without saying in which age group, one

can reasonably assume that he also meant the unvaccinated babies younger

than 2 years of age. All this must inevitably change the temporal into

causal; the continued use of the word temporal is inappropriate. This

interpretation is supported by the lack of decline in the incidence of

these reactions after DTP vaccination of 2 year-olds and the causal link

is very obvious.

As far as the infant death rate or SIDS rate and vaccination schedule is

concerned, it is quite clear that the shift of the lower vaccination

limit to 2 years resulted in Japan zooming from 17th to first place in

infant mortality rate: meaning from very high to the lowest rate in the

world. This could hardly be interpreted to mean that only the number of

vaccine deaths which were subject to compensation claims declined as the

proponents of vaccination claim.

As far as low vaccination compliance in the seventies and the incidence

of whooping cough is concerned. Noble et al. (1987) published a very

interesting graph on their Figure 21 (page 1352) which is showing that

whilst the vaccination compliance started

climbing up after 1976, so did the incidence of whooping cough. Far from

showing the effectiveness of vaccination, this figure 2 shows that

vaccination was at best irrelevant to the issue of the incidence of

whooping cough. Inappropriate correlations abound in this article, like

for example comparing the incidence of whooping cough in 1884 (the

epidemic year) with the incidence in 1970 (a non-epidemic year). Equally

unreliable are the data on adverse reactions to the acellular vaccine.

Indeed, when acellular vaccines were tested in the nineties in Sweden,

they expected 20 deaths and experienced 45 (plus one accidental death)

(Olin et al. 1997 and elsewhere). Also, the rate of side effects was

much higher than anticipated. This includes a large epidemic of whooping

cough within about 7 months into the trial, and in the children who were

given three trial doses, which prompted the discontinuation of the trial

before the planned date (Olin 1995). This shows that like the whole cell

pertussis vaccine, the acellular one causes whooping cough. When the US

mandated DPT vaccination in 1978, it resulted in the sustained

three-fold increase in the incidence of whooping cough particularly in

the well-vaccinated age group between 2 and 6 months (Hutchins et al.

1988). This explains the substantial increases in the incidence of

whooping cough in Japan after 1976, when

the vaccination compliance started climbing up. In fact, one must read

the figures 1 and 2 of Noble et al. (1987) correctly, as showing a fall

in the incidence with the falling vaccination compliance and the

increasing incidence with the upward climb in compliance. Any other

interpretation offends common sense.

Perhaps the most important statements in Noble et al. (1987) are on page

1355: " It is difficult to exclude pertussis vaccine as a causal factor

even when other etiologies are suspected, particularly when the adverse

events occur in close temporal association with vaccination " and on page

1356: " If acellular vaccines have produced a reduction in

the occurrence of serious reactions with sequelae in children over 2

years of age, the decrease is slight " .

My evaluation of the " Japanese SIDS Rebuttal " is that it is as bad as

they come, and it is poor on real facts and real analysis and rich in

abusive language and reasoning unworthy of a scientific analysis, not

withstanding compassion for the pain and documented suffering

vaccination causes to infants and all their recipients. The Skeptic

Magazine never published either the longer or the shorter version of my

response to Basser's original article. I am back to my original response

which is ignoring this type of literature and groups of people who are

not interested in the truth or real facts, but in silencing people who

express opinions and publish facts which are uncomfortable for them.

And last but not the least: Japan discontinued MMR vaccination in 1993,

and shortly afterwards, compulsory vaccination of any kind.

REFERENCES

Iwasa, Ishida, S., and Akama, K. 1985. Swelling of the brain in mice

caused by pertussis vaccine - its quantitative determination and the

responsible factors in the vaccine. Japan J Med Sci Biol; 38: 53-65.

Noble, G.R., Bernier, R.H., Esber, E.C., Hardegree, M.C., et al. 1987.

Acellular and whole-cell pertussis vaccines in Japan: report of a visit

by US scientists. JAMA; 257(10): 1351-1356.

, 1990. Press & Sun Bulletin (taken from Los Angeles Times);

March 1, 1990. Report: U.S. slips in fight to cut infant mortality.

Mason, J.O., 1991. Reducing infant mortality in the United States

through " healthy start " . Publ Health Reports (Sep-Oct).

McFarlane, A., 1982. Infant deaths after four weeks. Lancet (Oct 23).

Fine, P.E., and son,. J., A., 1982. The recurrence of whooping

cough: possible implications for assessment of vaccine efficacy. Lancet

(March 20): 666-669.

The Byron Shire Echo (June 22, 1994). SIDS cases quadruple in 13 years.

Scheibner, V., 1998. Shaken Baby Syndrome - the vaccination link. Nexus

(August-September): 35-38 & 88.

Cherry, J.S., Brunell, P.A., Golden, G.S., and Karzon, D.T., 1988.

Report of the task force on pertussis and pertussis immunization.

Pediatrics (suppl): 939-984.

Madsen, T., 1933. Vaccination against whooping cough. JAMA; 101:

187-188.

Werne, J., & Garrow, I,. 1946. Fatal anaphylactic shock: Occurrence in

identical twins following second injection of diphtheria toxoid and

pertussis antigen. JAMA;131:730-735.

Griffith, A., H., 1978. Reactions after pertussis vaccine: A

manufacturer's experience and difficulties since 1964. Br Med J; 1:

809-815.

Bernier, R.,H., , J.AS., Dondero, T.J., Jr. 1982.

Diphtheria-Tetanus-Pertussis vaccination and sudden infant deaths in

Tennessee. J Pediatr; 1982; 101: 419-421.

Baraff, L.J., Ablom, W.J., Weiss, R.C., et al. 1983. Possible temporal

association between diphtheria-tetanus- toxoid-pertussis vaccination and

sudden infant death syndrome. Pediatr Infect Dis; 2: 7-11.

Mortimer, E.A., Jr., , P.K., and Adelson, L. 1983. DTP and SIDS.

Pediatr Infect Dis; 2: 492.

Wilkins, J., 1988. What is 'significant' and DTP reactions. Pediatrics;

81(6): 912-913.

Torch, W.S., 1982. Diphtheria-pertussis-tetanus (DPT) immunization: a

potential cause of the Sudden Infant Death Syndrome (SIDS). Neurology;

32(4): A169 abstract).

Torch, W.C., 1986 a. Characteristics of diphtheria-pertussis-tetanus

(DPT) postvaccinal deaths and DPT-caused Sudden Infant Deaths Syndrome

(SIDS): a review. Neurology (suppl 1); 36: 148 (abstract).

Torch, W.C., 1986 b. Diphtheria-pertussis-tetanus (DPT) imunization may

be an unrecognized cause of Sudden Infant Death (SIDS) and Near-Miss

Syndrome (NMS): 12 case reports. Neurology (suppl 1); 36: 149

(abstract).

Steinman, L., Weiss, A., Adelman, N. et al. 1985. Pertussis toxin is

required for pertussis vaccine encephalopathy. Proc Nati Acad Sci USA;

82: 8733-8736.

Kirschner,R.H., and Stein,R.J., 1985. The mistaken diagnosis of child

abuse. A form of medical abuse? Am J Dis Child; 139: 873-875.

Pillemer, L., Blum, L., and Lepow, I.H. 1954. Protective antigen of

Haemophilus pertussis. Lancet; 1: 1257-1260.

Olin, P., Rasmussen, F., Gustafsson, L., Hallander, H.O., et al. 1997.

Randomised controlled trial of two-component, three-component, and

five-component acellular pertussis vaccines compared with whole-cell

pertussis vaccine. Lancet; 350: 1569-1577.

Olin, P., 1995. Acellular vaccines-a question of efficacy. J Hosp

Infect; 30:503-507.

Hutchins, S.S., Cochi, S.L.,, Brink, E.W., et al. 1988. Current

epidemiology of pertussis in the United States. Tokai J exp din Med; 13

(suppl): 103-109.