Response to 'Dr. Walt' on 'Vaccines: Separating fact from fiction'

[Guest guest]

Dear Dr. Walt Larimore,

Attached is a draft response to your recent

article posted at:

http://www.drwalt.com/blog/2008/11/05/vaccines-separating-fact-from-fiction/

that:

a. is titled: >Vaccines: Separating fact from fiction

and

b. purports to separate the facts from fiction about

vaccines, although the article contains little

factual information on any vaccine.

********************************************

*FAIR USE NOTICE: This posting may contain *

*some copyrighted (©) material the use of *

*which has not always been specifically *

*authorized by the copyright owner. Such *

*material is made available for educational*

*purposes, to advance recipient's *

*understanding of human rights, democracy, *

*scientific, moral, ethical, social justice*

*and other issues. It is believed that this*

*is posting a 'fair use' of any such copy- *

*righted material as provided for in Title *

*17 U.S.C. section 107 of the US intellec- *

*tual property law. This material is being*

*distributed without profit. *

********************************************

Should your site not allow attachments, a rough draft

of the text of this response is included with this

e-mail.

After indented introductory remarks, each part of

the text is quoted and then followed by indented

responses; and CAPITALIZATION is used where the

actual responses used underlining:

A Draft Response To:

" Vaccines: Separating fact from fiction "

INTRODUCTION

Lest any take this reviewer's responses as those

of someone who is anti-vaccine, this reviewer

again reiterates that, given the scientific

information available, he currently supports national

vaccination programs for those vaccines that have

truly been proven to be both generally safe and,

at least, societally cost-effective, provided the

individual parent's, guardian's, or competent citizen's

constitutional right to " due process of law " is NEITHER

abridged NOR ignored.

Having made clear his position as an advocate for:

a. Banning the use of mercury compounds in medicine

to safen vaccines,

b. Vaccine safety, and

c. Medically cost-effective vaccines,

this reviewer will now respond to the statements made

in this article by " Dr. Walt " .

>

>When it comes to the arguments about the safety of

>vaccines, what's a worried mom to do? Between the scary

>claims about shots themselves and the scary news about

>what can happen without them, you might feel like you

>need a Ph.D. in immunology, toxicology, and biostatistics

>to make sense of it all. Never fear, Dr. Walt is here.

>The bottom line: No medical intervention is 100 percent

>risk-free, and no one but you can choose what's right

>for your child. My job is to help that decision come a

>little easier, so here goes:

>

The author begins by stating some general concerns

that a " worried mom " might have in the context of

his view of the current situation.

Yet, he proposes to calm these moms' fears by providing

the reader with his views on vaccines ( " Never fear, Dr.

Walt is here " ).

Then, the author begins with a standard medical " bottom

line " disclaimer worthy of the Surgeon General:

" No medical intervention is 100 percent risk-free " to

which he appends a generalization, " no one but you can

choose what's right for your child " .

Unfortunately, his generalization glosses over the

reality that, in the area of vaccination, your states'

public health officials, and NOT " you " , have dictated

your vaccination options by MANDATING that your child

receive certain VACCINATIONS (while providing some sort

of medical, religious [in 48 states and the military],

and, in about 18 to 20 states, providing some form of a

conscientious/philosophical exemption) by certain times

AS A PRECONDITION FOR YOUR BEING ABLE TO SEND YOUR

CHILD TO SCHOOL, OR, in some cases, EVEN TO A CHILDCARE

FACILITY.

Currently, you can fully maintain your right to " choose

what's right for your child " only by home schooling your

children.

However, in some states, public health officials and

the healthcare establishment are lobbying for laws to:

a) restrict your right to home school your own

children and/or require home schooled children to

be vaccinated.

>

>More Information:

>

>To help you out, I found an excellent article from

>Parenting.com that highlights four of the concerns

>I hear regularly. You can find out more in my book,

>God's Design for the Highly Heathy Child, but this

>article is a good introduction.

>

>Parenting.com dug through the science to get the

>facts. So, here we go!

>

In general, this reviewer finds that articles

based on the information reported in some popular

on-line magazine, like " Parenting.com " in this

case, are poor sources, at best, for factual

information on " science " , though these magazines

are good sources for anecdotal accounts of the

personal experiences of some individuals.

Thus, though the author purports to be separating

the facts from the fictions about vaccines, this

reviewer finds that many of the statements made in

this article are at odds with the information pro-

vided by: a) U.S. Center for Disease Control and

Prevention (CDC) reports, the Vaccine Adverse

Events Reporting System database jointly maintained

by the CDC and the U.S. Food and Drug Administration

(FDA), and c) independently verified articles pub-

lished in peer-reviewed journals where the findings

are based on other than retrospective records reviews

of patient-records datasets, which CANNOT themselves

be independently reviewed.

Therefore, this reviewer must respectfully conclude

that this article does NOT separate vaccine fact from

vaccine fiction.

>

>When Shutters's 13-month-old daughter, Averie, was

>born, she followed the recommended vaccine schedule for

>two months. Then she did some research and decided to

>hold off on additional shots until Averie turned 9 months

>old. " I liked the idea of my breast milk giving her the

>immunities she needs and allowing her body to work for her

>instead of some medicine, " says the stay-at-home mom from

>Indianapolis, Indiana. " She isn't in daycare, and we don't

>travel overseas. I had concerns about injecting her for

no reason. "

>

>Eventually Shutters found a doctor who would immunize

>according to her schedule: " We broke up the MMR [which

>protects against measles, mumps, and rubella] into three

>separate shots spread out over a year, and we're skipping

>the chicken pox shot, " she says. " Instead, I'd love to

>find a kid who has chicken pox so we could expose Averie

>naturally. "

>

First, this reviewer finds this anecdotal story

interesting but puzzlingly incomplete.

Missing are the reasons that Shutters " followed

the recommended vaccine schedule for two months " and

what happened at, or after, the two-month vaccinations

Averie received to cause to: a) do some research

and " hold off on additional shots until Averie

turned 9 months old " .

Moreover, though this reviewer has NO problem with the

actions taken by Shutters, he hopes that her

splitting up the live-virus MMR vaccine and spreading

it over a year gave the measles vaccine last because

the measles virus in the vaccine significantly

suppresses the child's immune system for about a year.

Furthermore, since the causative virus for chickenpox,

herpes varicella zoster, is the same virus that causes

shingles, this reviewer is surprised that the author

of this article, a medical doctor who is board certi-

fied in family practice, did NOT mention this fact so

that Shutters and other mothers might know that

they can also expose their children to herpes varicella

zoster by exposing them to a child or an adult with an

early-stage shingles case.

Finally, this reviewer is surprised that the author did

NOT disclose the fact that the childhood vaccination

program for varicella is NOT even societally cost-

effective since more than one dose of vaccine is now

being recommended and, based on the more than 30,000

annual cases observed and the need for periodic

exogenous boosting after the initial chickenpox case

to maintain the child's immunity to a recurrence as

shingles, NOT even an effective disease-control

strategy for herpes varicella zoster infection.

>

>If Shutters's approach to vaccination sounds familiar,

>that's because it is. In fact, most moms don't have

>to look far beyond their circle of friends to find a

>family with serious concerns. It's not difficult to

>understand why. For one, it can be torture to watch

>your child get jabbed repeatedly with a needle. Com-

>bine that discomfort with a steady stream of negative

>publicity - celebrity diatribes, alarmist news and

>Internet reports, ripped-from-the-headline TV shows

>- and the wariness seems warranted.

>

While the author's narrative here begins by stating

the factual " serious concerns " that parents have

( " a family with serious concerns " ), he attempts to

attribute these " serious concerns " to " wariness "

caused by external factors rather than addressing

the real risks and adverse outcomes associated with

the current recommended national vaccination programs

in the USA.

>

>Yet underneath all the debate and impossibly good

>intentions (after all, everyone hopes to be doing the

>best for their child no matter how or whether they

>immunize), there are some solid facts about the

>benefits of shots that cannot be ignored. " We live

>thirty years longer now than we did a century ago,

>thanks to purified water - and vaccines, " says

>Offit, M.D., chief of infectious diseases at the

>Children's Hospital of Philadelphia in Pennsylvania.

>

After parenthetically stating the obvious, " after

all, everyone hopes to be doing the best for their

child no matter how or whether they immunize " , the

author asserts, " there are some solid facts about

the benefits of shots that cannot be ignored " .

Yet all this author offers to support his assertion

is an unsubstantiated quotation, " We live thirty

years longer now than we did a century ago, thanks

to purified water - and vaccines " from a known

vaccine apologist, " Offit " , who simply

attributes some unspecified part of the asserted

30-year increase in life span from the early 1900s

to " vaccines " .

Having claimed that there are " some solid facts

about the benefits of shots " , the author supports

his " benefits of shots " claim with a single unsup-

ported quotation, attributed to a known vaccine

apologist, that only suggests a single benefit (some

part of a putative 30-year increase in life span,

where, as stated by this author, even Offit

seems to attribute the majority of the increase to

" purified water " ).

Thus, the author fails to provide any supporting

evidence of " benefits " and the one purported benefit

is an unsupported claim by an avowed vaccine apolo-

gist where it appears the " purified water " is the

major contributor to this one benefit.

>

>But as soon as compliance wanes, the protection we

>have against many devastating, and sometimes fatal,

>diseases wanes right along with it. This year's

>measles outbreak - the biggest in nearly a decade -

>may be the first warning shot, says Dr. Offit. Nearly

>all of the 131 people affected so far, many of them

>children, were purposely not vaccinated against the

>disease, according to a new report from the Centers

>for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), in Atlanta,

>Georgia.

>

Here, the author again begins by making vague genera-

lizations:

" But as soon as compliance wanes, the protection we

have against many devastating, and sometimes fatal,

diseases wanes right along with it " ,

which fail to mention:

1. The type of waning compliance being addressed,

2. The types, and their duration, of the protec-

tions that wane, or

3. The names of the " many devastating, and sometimes

fatal, diseases " for which there is guaranteed

protection.

Moreover, the author fails to note that " we " do NOT

have FDA-licensed vaccines for many other devastating,

and sometimes fatal, diseases (e.g., syphilis and

tuberculosis), NOR has the CDC recommended national

vaccination programs for some of the diseases for

which there is an FDA-approved vaccine (e.g., cholera).

For example, consider some of the data from " Table 1.

Reported cases of notifiable diseases,* by month ---

United States, 2006 " and, for deaths, some of the 2004

data from " Table 12. Deaths from selected notifiable

infectious diseases United States 2002 --- 2004 " in the

CDC's " Summary of Notifiable Diseases --- United States,

2006 " [1]:

[1] McNabb SJN, Jajosky RA, Hall-Baker PA, DA,

Sharp P, Worsham C, WJ, Aponte JJ, GF,

Nitschke DA, Rey A, Wodajo MS. Summary of Notifiable

Diseases --- United States, 2006. MMWR, 2008 March 21;

55(53): 1-94.

Reported Reported Deaths

Disease Cases 2006 (2004)

Acquired immunodeficiency NR NR (13,063)

syndrome (AIDS)

Anthrax 1 NR (0 of NR)

(vaccine only given to adults in military at present)

Botulism

foodborne 20 NR (0 of 16)

infant 97 NR

other (wound 48 NR

& unspecified)

Brucellosis 121 NR (0 of 114)

Chancroid 33 NR (0 of 30)

Chlamydia trachomatis, 1,030,911 NR (0 of 949462)

genital infection

Cholera 9 NR (0 of 5)

(vaccine only on

outbreak)

Coccidioidomycosis 8,917 NR (100 of 6,449)

Cryptosporidiosis 6,717 NR ( 1 of 3,577)

Cyclosporiasis 137 NR

Diphtheria " 0 " NR (0 of " 0 " )

(5+ doses)

Domestic arboviral diseases, neuroinvasive and

nonneuroinvasive

California serogroup 69 NR (0 of 112)

virus disease,

neuroinvasive 65

nonneuroinvasive 4

eastern equine encephalitis 8 NR (2 of 6)

virus disease

Powassan virus disease 1 NR

St. Louis encephalitis 10 NR (2 of 12)

virus disease,

neuroinvasive 7

nonneuroinvasive 3

West Nile virus disease, 4,269 NR

neuroinvasive 1,495

nonneuroinvasive 2,774

western equine encephalitis NR NR (0 of " 0 " )

virus disease

Ehrlichiosis 1,455 NR (0 of 875)

human granulocytic 646

human monocytic 578

human, other or 231

unspecified agent

Giardiasis 18,953 NR (1 of 20,636)

Gonorrhea 358,356 NR (2 of 330,132)

Haemophilus influenzae,

invasive disease

all ages, all serotypes 2,436 NR (11 of 2,085)

<5 years of age

serotype B (3 doses) 25

nonserotype B 175

unknown serotype 179

Hansen disease (leprosy) 66 NR (5 of 105)

Hantavirus pulmonary 40 NR (0 of 24)

syndrome

Hemolytic uremic syndrome, 288 NR (27 of 200)

postdiarrheal

Hepatitis A, acute (3 ds) 3,579 NR ( 58 of 5,683)

Hepatitis B, acute (4+ ds) 4,713 NR (556 of 6,212)

Hepatitis B, chronic NR NR ( 87 of NR)

Hepatitis B virus, NR NR

perinatal infection

Hepatitis C, acute 766 NR ( 99? of 720?)

(Hepatitis C, chronic) ----- NR (487 of NR)

Human immunodeficiency NR (See AIDS deaths)

virus (HIV) infection

Influenza cases NR NR

Influenza-associated ----- 43 ( 51 of NR)

pediatric mortality

(2 doses initially, then

1 dose/yr)

Legionellosis§ 2,834 NR ( 72 of 2,093)

Listeriosis 844 NR ( 57 of 753)

Lyme disease 19,931 NR ( 6 of 19,804)

Malaria 1,474 NR ( 8 of 1,458)

Measles (2+ doses) 55 NR ( 0 of 37)

Meningococcal disease, 1,194 NR ( 138 of 1,361)

invasive§

serogroup A, C, Y & 318[ 58.56%]

W-135 (2+ doses)

serogroup B 193[ 35.54%]

[no vaccine for

type " B " ]

other serogroup 32[ 5.90%]

total seotyped 543[ " 100.0% " ]

serogroup unknown 661

Mumps (2+ doses) 6,584 NR ( 0 of 258)

Pertussis (5+ doses) 15,632 NR ( 16 of 25,827)

Plague 17 NR ( 1 of 3)

Poliomyelitis, paralytic " 0 " NR ( 0 of " 0 " )

Psittacosis 21 NR ( 0 of 12)

Q fever 169 NR ( 1 of 70)

Rabies

animal 5,543 NR

human 3 NR ( 3 of 7)

(vaxed after exposure)

Rocky Mountain 2,288 NR ( 5 of 1,713)

spotted fever

Rubella (2+ doses) 11 NR ( 1 of 10)

Rubella, congenital 1 NR ( 5 of 10)

syndrome

Salmonellosis 45,808 NR ( 30 of 42,197)

Severe acute respiratory

syndrome--associated " 0 " NR

coronavirus (SARS-CoV)

disease

Shiga toxin-producing 4,432 NR ( 4 of NR)

Escherichia coli (STEC)

Shigellosis 15,503 NR ( 0 of 14,627)

Smallpox " 0 " " 0 " ( 0 of " 0 " )

(currently 0 doses)

Streptococcal disease, 5,407 NR ( 121 of 4,395)

invasive, group A

Streptococcal toxic-shock 125 NR

syndrome

Streptococcus pneumoniae,

invasive disease

age <5 years (3 doses) 1,861 NR ( 13 of 1,162)

Streptococcus pneumoniae,

invasive disease, drug-

resistant all ages 3,308 NR

Syphilis

all stages 36,935 NR ( 43 of 33,401)

primary & secondary 9,756 NR

congenital (<1 yr) 349 NR

Tetanus (5+ doses) 41 NR ( 4 of 34)

Toxic-shock syndrome 101 NR ( 71 of 95)

(other than streptococcal)

Trichinellosis 15 NR ( 0 of 5)

Tuberculosis 13,779 NR ( 657 of 14,517)

Tularemia 95 NR ( 1 of 134)

Typhoid fever 353 NR ( 0 of 322)

Vancomycin-intermediate

Staphylococcus aureus

infection (VISA) 6 NR

Vancomycin-resistant

Staphylococcus aureus

infection (VRSA) 1 NR

Varicella infection 48,445

(morbidity) (1+ doses)

Varicella (mortality) " 0 " ( 19 of 32,951)

Yellow fever " 0 " " 0 " ( 0 of NR)

-----------

where there is a U.S.-licensed vaccine foe some

diseases (...) but NONE for other diseases - some

of which are endemic to the USA, and have thousands

of annual cases and a mortality that is greater

than 1% (e.g., Coccidioidomycosis: 6 - 9-thousand

cases annually and a mortality greater than 1.5 %).

Moreover, the author also fails to note that, for

whatever reasons, in spite of levels of compliance

exceeding 90% in childhood, the vaccine components

for mumps in the MMR vaccine and for pertussis in

the DTaP/Tdap vaccines do NOT provide effective

control for these diseases since thousands of cases

of each disease occur annually in the USA.

To support his generalization, the author next states:

" This year's measles outbreak - the biggest in nearly

a decade - may be the first warning shot, says Dr.

Offit. Nearly all of the 131 people affected so far,

many of them children, were purposely not vaccinated

against the disease, according to a new report from

the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC),

in Atlanta, Georgia. "

an observation that miscasts: a) multiple isolated

measles outbreaks as a single " measles outbreak " and

the 131 cases as if that were a significant number in

a nation of more than 306 million people (or about 0.043

case of measles per 100,000 residents in the USA in 2008)

when it is obvious that 131 cases are NOT a significant

number.

Moreover, considering that the recommended vaccine is

the Merck MMR® II live measles, mumps and rubella vaccine,

the concern about these few measles cases is obviously

misplaced because, though the CDC typically reported

roughly 230 - 390 cases of mumps each year in the period

from 1999 to 2005 [2], NO similar concern was raised in

for mumps in 2006 when the number of reported mumps

cases suddenly jumped to 6,536 mumps cases, or more than

15 times higher than the 387 cases of mumps reported in

1999.

[2] From 1999 to 2005, there were 387, 338, 266, 270, 231,

258 and 314 reported mumps cases, respectively, in

each of the years from 1999 through 2005.

Based on the CDC's MMWR reports for cases by age range

(in the " Summary of Notifiable Diseases, " Table 3 " data

for 2006 and 1999) tabulated below:

Age

Rnge=> <1 yr 1-4 yr 4-14 yr 15-24 yr 25-39 yr 40-64 yr >=65 yr Unkn

Total

Year Cases Cases Cases Cases Cases Cases Cases Cases Cases

(/100K) (/100K) (/100K) (/100K) (/100K) (/100K) (/100K)

2006 18 351 1,097 2,270 1,283 1,329 198 98 6,584

(0.44) (2.72) (2.72) (5.39) (2.10) (1.39) (0.54)

1999 4 61 156 42 62 44 7 11 387

(0.11) (0.41) (0.40) (0.11) (0.10) (0.06) (0.02)

Ratio 4.00 6.63 6.80 49.0 21.0 23.2 27.0 --- ---

of

Incidences

2006/1999

the largest increase in cases occurred in the 15-24-year

olds, the very group that: a), for males, having mumps

is most likely to render them sterile and , if the

vaccine were effective and provided truly long-term

protection, should still have been protected.

Perhaps, the 15-fold increase in mumps cases in 2006

was NOT worth mentioning or similarly reporting because

a significant percentage of those getting mumps had

received 2 doses of the MMR II vaccine and should have

been protected but obviously were NOT.

Perhaps, this is also the reason that students entering

or in some colleges are being asked to get another MMR

vaccination even though another shot is NOT yet being

recommended by the CDC and, if one were to be recom-

mended, the MMR vaccination program would also probably

cease to be societally cost effective.

Perhaps, it might be better for male children to have

mumps in their early school years when there is NO

risk of sterility rather than to be vaccinated and be

at risk of sterility should they contract mumps after

puberty as about 2,000 males between the ages of 14

and 40 did in 2006.

Having put the measles outbreaks in perspective, this

reviewer will now examine the facts, and NOT the

hyperbole introduced by the author of this article,

by examining the CDC report [3] to which the author

alludes.

[3] Grigg MA, Brzezny AL, Dawson J, Rietberg K, DeBolt C,

Linchangco P, S, S, Vernon M, Counard C,

Chugh R, S, Green K, Petit C, Vercillo J,

Cesario S, Hunt K, Conover C, s J, McMahon K,

Redd SB, Gallagher KM, Armstrong GL, LJ,

Seward JF, Rota PA, Rota JS, Lowe L, Bellini WJ.

Update: Measles --- United States, January--July 2008.

MMWR, 2008 August 22; 57(33): 893-896.

First, the actual report begins (...):

" Sporadic importations of measles into the United

States have occurred since the disease was declared

eliminated from the United States in 2000 (1).

During January--July 2008, 131 measles cases were

reported to CDC, compared with an average of 63 cases

per year during 2000--2007.* This report updates an

earlier report on measles in the United States during

2008 (2) and summarizes two recent U.S outbreaks

among unvaccinated school-aged children. Among those

measles cases reported during the first 7 months of

2008, 76% were in persons aged <20 years, and 91%

were in persons who were unvaccinated or of unknown

vaccination status. Of the 131 cases, 89% were

imported from or associated with importations from

other countries, particularly countries in Europe,

where several outbreaks are ongoing (3,4). The fin-

dings demonstrate that measles outbreaks can occur

in communities with a high number of unvaccinated

persons and that maintaining high overall measles,

mumps, and rubella (MMR) vaccination coverage rates

in the United States is needed to continue to limit

the spread of measles.

Measles cases in the United States are reported by

state health departments to CDC using standard case

definitions† and case classifications. Cases acquired

outside the United States are categorized as impor-

tations. Those acquired inside the United States are

considered importation associated if they are linked

epidemiologically via a chain of transmission to an

importation or have virologic evidence of importa-

tion.§ Other cases are classified as having an unknown

source. In the United States, recommendations for MMR

vaccination include a single dose at age 12--15 months

and a second dose at the time of school entry (5).

Vaccination as early as age 6 months is recommended

for U.S. children traveling abroad and is sometimes

recommended within U.S. communities during outbreaks

of measles.

During January 1--July 31, 2008, 131 measles cases

were reported to CDC from 15 states and the District

of Columbia (DC): Illinois (32 cases), New York (27),

Washington (19), Arizona (14), California (14),

Wisconsin (seven), Hawaii (five), Michigan (four),

Arkansas (two), and DC, Georgia, Louisiana, Missouri,

New Mexico, Pennsylvania, and Virginia (one each).

Seven measles outbreaks (i.e., three or more cases

linked in time or place) accounted for 106 (81%) of

the cases. Fifteen of the patients (11%) were hos-

pitalized, including four children aged <15 months.

No deaths were reported.

Among the 131 cases, 17 (13%) were importations:

three each from Italy and Switzerland; two each from

Belgium, India, and Israel; and one each from China,

Germany, Pakistan, the Philippines, and Russia. This

is the lowest percentage of imported measles cases

since 1996 (Figure 1). Nine of the importations were

in U.S. residents who had traveled abroad, and eight

were in foreign visitors. An additional 99 (76%) of

the 131 cases were linked epidemiologically to

importations or had virologic evidence of importation.

The source of measles acquisition of 15 cases (11%)

could not be determined.

Among the 131 measles patients, 123 were U.S. resi-

dents, of whom 99 (80%) were aged <20 years (Table).

Five (4%) of the 123 patients had received 1 dose of

MMR vaccine, six (5%) had received 2 doses of MMR

vaccine, and 112 (91%) were unvaccinated or had

unknown vaccination status. Among these 112 patients,

95 (85%) were eligible for vaccination, and 63 (66%)

of those were unvaccinated because of philosophical

or religious beliefs (Figure 2). "

As the proverbial potter who puts the handles on the

pot where he wants them, the author focuses on the

cases in the " not vaccinated " group while ignoring the

reality that, though vaccinated, there were 11 people

(or about 9.6%) of the 114 who contracted a case of

measles in the USA (the other 17 contracted it in a

foreign country).

In addition, the report's tabulated data:

[[TABLE NOT INCLUDED HERE]]

while interesting, fails to provide the data on:

a. The number of vaccinated individuals who

had contact with the primary case in each

outbreak but did NOT get measles,

b. The number of unvaccinated individuals who

were exposed to the primary case and did NOT

get measles,

c. The number of vaccinated and unvaccinated

contacts to the initial case source who had

protective and/or significant levels of anti-

bodies to the contact's strain of measles

and/or the MMR vaccine's strain of measles,

and

d. The information on the source of the measles

for the isolated single cases in " DC, Georgia,

Louisiana, Missouri, New Mexico, Pennsylvania,

and Virginia " and/or the reasons the CDC could

NOT determine a source of the measles disease

in fifteen cases.

Moreover, the report failed to provide the logic

used to classify each " Unknown vaccination status "

measles case.

Furthermore, based on an examination of the report's

cryptically titled " FIGURE 2 " ,

[[ " FIGURE 2 " NOT INCLUDED]]

this reviewer notes: a) the number of foreign visi-

tors must have been the " 8 " NOT included in the

report's " Table " , which reflected 123 of the 131

CDC-reported cases and , because 17 were " imported "

cases ( " 17 [13%] were importations: three each from

Italy and Switzerland; two each from Belgium, India,

and Israel; and one each from China, Germany,

Pakistan, the Philippines, and Russia " ), 9 of the

" importations " were U.S. residents returning to the

USA from a trip to a foreign country.

>

> " We have to take this seriously, " says Anne Schuchat,

>M.D., director of the CDC National Center for

>Immunization and Respiratory Diseases. " I do not want

>to see the day where thousands of kids get this disease

>and die when we have the tools to prevent it. "

>

Based on the outcomes observed, for the " 131 " measles

cases in these outbreaks, only 15 (11.45%) were

hospitalized and there were no deaths, this reviewer

finds that Ann Schuchat's " fear mongering " assertion

of a " day where thousands of kids get this disease

and die " is: a) NOT supported by the facts and

baseless in today's USA.

Given the current treatment tools (i.e., dietary

supplementation with vitamins A, C, and D-3 to boost

immune system performance and reduce the risk of

measles' severe side effects and antibiotics to

fight the secondary pneumonia infections that can

follow measles' infection), which we now have, no

otherwise healthy child should die in the USA even

if the number of children contracting measles were

to increase to thousands of children annually.

Given the preceding realities, this reviewer finds

that the author also seems to be guilty of indirect

fear mongering when he repeats this obvious vaccine

apologist's unsupported statements.

>

>But, here are four of the most common concerns parents

>have:

>

Here, this responder agrees that the stated

concerns in the remainder of this article are

some of " the most common concerns parents have " .

However, this responder also notes that this

author fails to address all of the concerns

contained in the author's headings and, for the

concerns he does address, the author NEITHER

provides NOR cites evidence that fully supports

the author's assertions.

>

>The worry: Vaccines cause autism

>

>What's behind it: This claim first came to the

>forefront in 1998, after a British study linked

>the MMR vaccine to 12 children with autism. Prior

>to this, there had been some concern that thimerosal,

>a mercury-based preservative common in many vaccines

>at the time, also may have been partly or totally to

>blame for some cases of autism.

>

Here, the author's statements are, at best, confusing.

Worse, they distort the actual historical record.

First of all, the theory: " Vaccines cause autism "

actually appears to have been introduced in a 1976

article, [Autistic syndrome (Kanner) and vaccination

against smallpox (author's transl)][Article in German]

Klin Padiatr. 1976 Mar; 188(2): 172-80 (with the PubMed

[http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sites/entrez] abstract

located using the search terms " autism vaccine " ), which

contains the following text (...):

" Klin Padiatr. 1976 Mar;188(2):172-80. …

[Autistic syndrome (Kanner) and vaccination against

smallpox (author's transl)][Article in German]

Eggers C.

… 3-4 weeks following an otherwise uncomplicated

first vaccination against smallpox a boy, then aged

15 months and last seen at the age of 5 1/2 years,

gradually developed a complete Kanner syndrome. The

question whether vaccination and early infantile

autism might be connected is being discussed. A

causal relationship is considered extremely unlikely.

But vaccination is recognized as having a starter

function for the onset of autism. "

Moreover, this theory was mentioned in three other

articles published well before the 1998 article

referred to here:

1. Coulter HL. Author responds to review of

vaccination, social violence, and criminality.

J Autism Dev Disord. 1993 Jun; 23(2): 422-424,

2. Moeschler JB, Charman CE, Berg SZ, Graham JM

Jr. Rett syndrome: natural history and manage-

ment. Pediatrics. 1988 Jul; 82(1): 1-10, and

3. Stubbs EG. Autistic children exhibit undetec-

table hemagglutination-inhibition antibody

titers despite previous rubella vaccination.

J Autism Child Schizophr. 1976 Sep; 6(3): 269-

274.

Furthermore, the author's: " … in 1998, after a

British study linked the MMR vaccine to 12 children

with autism " clearly misstates both the " FINDINGS "

and the " INTERPRETATION " in that Lancet article [4],

titled " Ileal-lymphoid-nodular hyperplasia, non-

specific colitis, and pervasive developmental dis-

order in children " , which the researchers clearly

reported in the article's abstract (...):

" FINDINGS: Onset of behavioural symptoms was asso-

ciated, by the parents, with measles, mumps, and

rubella vaccination in eight of the 12 children,

with measles infection in one child, and otitis

media in another. All 12 children had intestinal

abnormalities, ranging from lymphoid nodular hyper-

plasia to aphthoid ulceration. Histology showed

patchy chronic inflammation in the colon in 11

children and reactive ileal lymphoid hyperplasia

in seven, but no granulomas. Behavioural disorders

included autism (nine), disintegrative psychosis

(one), and possible postviral or vaccinal encepha-

litis (two). There were no focal neurological

abnormalities and MRI and EEG tests were normal.

Abnormal laboratory results were significantly

raised urinary methylmalonic acid compared with age-

matched controls (p=0.003), low haemoglobin in four

children, and a low serum IgA in four children.

INTERPRETATION: We identified associated gastro-

intestinal disease and developmental regression in

a group of previously normal children, which was

generally associated in time with possible environ-

mental triggers. "

and only identified " associated gastrointestinal

disease and developmental regression in a group of

previously normal children, which was generally

associated in time with possible environmental

triggers " .

In simple terms, this study:

· Linked the novel gastrointestinal disease being

studied with developmental regression in some

previously normal children,

· Noted this apparent association was time-linked

with possible environmental triggers plural -

NOT a singular trigger like an initial MMR vacci-

nation -, and

· Did NOT link " the MMR vaccine to 12 children with

autism " as the article's author states that it

did.

Apparently, one of the reasons this paper came to the

forefront was: The healthcare establishment in the

United Kingdom (U.K.) needed something to distract

the public from the fiasco created by their recommen-

ding an MMR vaccine that contained the highly toxic

Urabe strain of mumps, where the public backlash to

the harm caused by this vaccine was already causing

the MMR vaccination levels in the U.K. to drop.

This paper gave them the pretext needed to transfer

the blame for the drop off in MMR uptake from: the

government's craven decision to recommend using the

toxic Urabe-mumps-strain-containing MMR vaccine in

the U.K. to: Some irresponsible researchers who

" linked " the MMR vaccine to autism even though these

researchers themselves clearly did NOT claim they had

found any such link.

Moreover the author's next statement:

" Prior to this, there had been some concern that

thimerosal, a mercury-based preservative common

in many vaccines at the time, also may have been

partly or totally to blame for some cases of autism. "

is a masterpiece in both misrepresentation and under-

statement.

Factually, the author, as many other vaccine apologists

do, intentionally confuses the use of Thimerosal (used,

since the 1930s, as a preservative in some vaccines and

other biological drug formulations containing it without

toxicological proof of safety) with what Thimerosal, a

trade name for sodium ethylmercury thiosalicylate, is:

· A highly toxic, highly water soluble organic mercury

compound that is:

· 49.55-weight-percent (-wt%) mercury,

· A human carcinogen, mutagen, teratogen and

immune-system disruptor at biological concen-

trations below 1 part per million, and

· Converted in the body into bioaccumulative

mercury species that, in humans, accumulate

in the brain, hair, heart, kidneys, skin, teeth,

vascular system, and other tissues, and

· A marginal compound, at best, for use in a vaccine

formulation as a preservative because, at preser-

vative levels, Thimerosal:

· Readily and non-reversibly breaks down into

ethylmercury chloride, ethylmercury hydroxide

and sodium thiosalicylate when it is dissolved

in saline, the basic constituent for the liquid

vaccine formulations in which it is used,

· Readily binds to the sulfur-containing antigenic

materials in most vaccines and

· Rapidly denatures the viruses in the current

live-virus vaccines.

Next, the author's " common in many vaccines at the time "

conceals the reality that Thimerosal is currently being

used at preservative levels (without the required

proofs of toxicological safety) in nine (9) vaccines

that are currently FDA-approved for use in children,

including the 2008 - 2009 principal formulation for

Sanofi's Fluzone® and the only available formulation

for Novartis' Fluvirin®, the only two (2) inactivated-

influenza vaccines approved for administration to those

under 18 years of age.

Further, the author's " … there had been some concern

that thimerosal … also may have been partly or totally

to blame for some cases of autism " conceals the

reality that there is an overwhelming and growing body

of toxicological and other evidence that Thimerosal

mercury poisons developing children exposed to

Thimerosal-containing vaccines to the point that some

of them (perhaps up to 2 % in the USA who were direc-

tly [by being injected with Thimerosal-preserved and

Thimerosal-containing vaccines from birth onwards]

and/or indirectly [when their mother is injected with

a Thimerosal-preserved vaccine or dosed with another

Thimerosal-preserved drug product (e.g., some FDA-

approved nasal spray formulations]) develop the

clinical neurological and behavioral symptoms of

subacute mercury poisoning that are used to diagnose

an autism spectrum disorder (ASD).

>

>The facts: So far, ten studies involving thousands

>of children have failed to find any connection

>between the MMR and autism. Plus, the original paper

>suggesting a connection between the two was formally

>retracted by 10 of its 13 authors in 2004. …

>

First, since the 1998 article was published in the

Lancet, not " ten studies " but more than 200

articles, notes, letters, and reviews, including

eight published so far in 2008, have been indexed

in PubMed on both sides of the MMR-autism link/no

link controversy - clearly indicating that the

jury is still out on the issue of a link between

the measles component in the MMR vaccine and

autism as well as the nature of that purported

link.

Moreover, the failure of any number of epidemi-

ological studies, including those alluded to by

the author, " to find any connection between the

MMR and autism " cannot be used to rule out a

possible link.

Finally, the author's assertion:

" Plus, the original paper suggesting a connec-

tion between the two was formally retracted

by 10 of its 13 authors in 2004 "

is simply false.

Factually, the 10 authors' letter [5] only re-

tracted the " INTERPRETATION " , as the title of

this letter clearly indicates, of the " FINDINGS "

in the 1998 paper and, tellingly, this partial

retraction occurred in 2004 - 6 years after

the original publication - coincidentally at

the time the U.K. medical establishment began

its on-going " investigation " into the fitness

to practice medicine of the authors who refused

to retract this " INTERPRETATION " .

[5] Murch SH, A, Casson DH, Malik M,

Berelowitz M, Dhillon AP, Thomson MA,

Valentine A, Davies SE, - JA.

Retraction of an interpretation. Lancet. 2004

Mar 6; 363(9411): 750.

>

>As for the thimerosal issue, there's a bit more

>backstory worth explaining: First, it's absolutely

>true that mercury can be harmful. The kind in

>contaminated fish and water builds up in the body

>when ingested and can cause severe nerve damage.

>However, the type of mercury that's in thimerosal

>doesn't accumulate in the body. 'It's never been

>linked to any adverse effect,' says

>Schaffner, M.D., professor of preventive medicine

>at Vanderbilt University Medical Center, in

>Nashville, Tennessee.

>

As vaccine apologists, as this author and

Schaffner appear to be, find the truth to be in-

convenient, they simply make inaccurate " expert "

statements.

The author's initial statement about mercury:

" First, it's absolutely true that mercury can

be harmful "

is a half-truth because no safe level has been

proven for any level of injected mercury-con-

taining solution in developing children.

The author's third statement:

" However, the type of mercury that's in

thimerosal doesn't accumulate in the body. "

is simply false.

Factually, although Thimerosal and its mercury-

containing breakdown products do rapidly leave

the blood after a Thimerosal containing solu-

tion is injected into animals and children,

some studies have shown that the mercury in

Thimerosal does accumulate in the body - in-

cluding in the brain.

Moreover, Schaffner's quoted remark:

" It's never been linked to any adverse effect "

is again simply false.

Many studies in developing fertilized eggs [6],

hamsters [7], mice [8], monkeys [9], pheasants

[10], pigs [11], and rats [12] as well as mostly

fatal direct infant exposures [13],[14] and

indirect exposures [15] in Iraqi children

nursed by mothers who, while nursing after

giving birth, unknowingly consumed wheat con-

taminated with an ethylmercury-containing

fungicide have all shown serious adverse effects,

including severe birth defects and death, in

those studied that were clearly linked to " the

type of mercury " , organic " ethylmercury " , in

Thimerosal.

[6] Digar A, Sensharma GC, Samal S. Lethality and

teratogenecity of organic mercury (Thimerosal)

in the chick embryo. J Anat Soc India 1987;

36:153-159.

[7] te J, Remuzgo F, Ávalos B, Chiquinta J,

Ponce B, Avendaño R, Maya L. Neurotoxic ef-

fects of thimerosal at vaccines doses on the

encephalon and development in 7 days-old ham-

sters. An Fac Med Lima 2007; 68(3): 222-237.

[8] Hornig M, Chian D, Lipkin WI, IMMEDIATE COM-

MUNICATION, Neurotoxic effects of postnatal

thimerosal are mouse strain dependent. Mol

Psychiatry. 2004 Sep; 9(9): 833-845.

[9] Burbacher TM, Shen DD, Liberato N, Grant KS,

Cernichiari E, and son T. Comparison of

blood and brain mercury levels in infant

monkeys exposed to methylmercury or vaccines

containing Thimerosal. Environ Health Perspec.

2005; 113: 1015-1021.

[10] Spann JW, Heath RG, J. F. Kreitzer JF, Locke

HN. Ethyl mercury p-toluene sulfonanilide:

lethal and reproductive effects on pheasants.

Science. 1972; 175: 328-330

[11] Tryphonas L, Nielsen NO. Pathology of chronic

alkylmercurial poisoning in swine. Am J

Veterinary Research. 1973; 34(3): 379-392.

[12] Goncharuk GA. Experimental investigations of

the effect of organomercury pesticides on

generative functions and on progeny. Hyg.

Sanit. 1971; 36: 40-43.

[13] Axton JMH. Six cases of poisoning after a

parenteral organic mercurial compound

(merthiolate). Postgrad Med J. 1972; 48:

417-421.

[14] Fagan DG, Pritchard JS, son TW, Greenwood

MR. Organ mercury levels in infants with

omphaloceles treated with organic mercurial

antiseptic. Archives of Disease in Childhood.

1977; 52: 962-964.

[15] Damluji SF, Tikriti S. Mercury poisoning from

wheat. Br Med J. 1972 Mar 25; 1(803): 804.

In addition, comparative studies [9],[11],[16],

[17],[18],[19],[20] using various mercury com-

pounds have found some effect and toxicity dif-

ferences but they have not found that ethylmer-

cury compounds are significantly less toxic than

methylmercury compounds.

[16] Orct T, Blanusa M, Lazarus M, Varnai VM, Kos-

tial K. Comparison of organic and inorganic

mercury distribution in suckling rat. J Appl

Toxicol. 2006 Nov 1; 26(6): 536-539.

[17] Magos L, Brown AW, Sparrow S, E, Snowden

RT, Skipp WR. The comparative toxicology of

ethyl- and methylmercury. Arch Toxicol. 1985;

57(4): 260-267.

[18] Chao ES-E, Gierthy JF, Frenkel GD. A Comparative

Study Of The Effects Of Mercury Compounds On

Cell Viability And Nucleic Acid Synthesis In

HeLa Cells. Biochemical Pharmacology. 1984; 33:

1941-1945.

[19] Engley FB, Jr. Mercurials as disinfectants.

Evaluation of mecurial antimicrobic action and

comparative toxicity. Soap and Chemical

Specialties. 1956 Dec.: 200, 201, 203, 205,

223, 224 and 225.

[20] Morton HE, North LL, Engley FB, Jr. The

bacteriostatic and bacteriocidal actions of

some mercury compounds on hemolytic Strepto-

cocci In vivo and in vitro studies. JAMA

1948; 136(1): 37-41.

Apparently, Schaffner was either unaware

of the facts and failed to do an appropriate

literature search, or was apparently making a

knowingly false statement, if the author quoted

him accurately here.

>

>Plus, autism rates have continued to rise even after

>drug companies voluntarily phased out the preservative

>from all vaccines given to kids (with the exception

>of some flu shots) in 2001. Clearly, we are far from

>understanding everything we need to about the range

>of autistic disorders. And that's why " the possible

>link between vaccines and autism has been taken very

>seriously, " says Dr. Schuchat. " But at this point,

>after so many studies, it's safe to say these two

>hypotheses have been eliminated as possible causes. "

>

Here the author's:

" Plus, autism rates have continued to rise even

after drug companies voluntarily phased out the

preservative from all vaccines given to kids

(with the exception of some flu shots) in 2001 "

begins with several knowing misrepresentations of

the facts concerning " autism rates " and the

presence of Thimerosal in vaccines.

HAVE USA AUTISM RATES CONTINUED TO RISE?

First of all, the CDC has NOT even attempted to

rigorously track autistic disorder (the disorder

defined by Dr. Leo Kanner and commonly referred

to as " autism " ) cases across the USA and has

chosen to only do essentially limited records-

review surveys for an autism spectrum disorder

(ASD), which, in the USA, commingles children

with a diagnosis of: a) autistic disorder,

pervasive developmental disorder - not otherwise

specified (PDD-NOS) or c) Asperger's syndrome.

Further, the CDC apparently did NOT even attempt

to correct the survey data for underascertainment

or for sampling bias.

Given the preceding actualities, this reviewer

understands:

· Though increasing, the disjoint point estimates

that have appeared are essentially ASD point

estimates and

· The apparent increases are linked to better

ascertainment of cases in most instances with

an uncorrected 2002 " national " 14-site survey

rate of about 1 in 150 in 2002 eight-year olds

- culminating in the most recent (2008) and

highest estimates coming from a Minneapolis

school district (1 in 56 children in school)

or for the Somali refuges' children in that

school district (1 in 28) where vitamin D

deficiency may have increased the apparent

vaccination-related incidence rate for an ASD

diagnosis in these highly vaccinated school-

age Somali children.

However, the anecdotal evidence is that, while

ASD case rates may still be increasing, the

severity of the cases has been decreasing since

2002, and the distribution of cases is shifting

from: Mainly autistic disorder followed by PDD-

NOS toward: Mainly PDD-NOS followed by autistic

disorder.

Furthermore, a careful examination of the now-

hidden data on " autistic disorder " cases in the

California state department of health's monitor-

ing indicates that, if anything, the increases

seen after the 1999 - 2001 dip appear to be

related to: a) better ascertainment of the

existing cases, an influx in out-of-state

cases, and/or c) other diagnosis-related factors

because, incongruously, increases were seen in

the numbers of cases in the age categories

beyond age 8.

Thus, lacking any valid national underascer-

tainment-corrected prevalence rates for autism

(autistic disorder) by birth cohort for each

year from, for example, 1980 onwards in the USA,

this reviewer finds that it is NOT possible to

determine if autism (autistic disorder) is

currently increasing or decreasing in the USA.

Furthermore, even if the USA rate ASD cases in

2002 could be approximated by the CDC's survey

[21] of 8-year olds in 14 states, which reported

an ASD rate of about 67 per 10,000, and the most

recent data from Denmark indicates an ASD rate

of < 8 per 10,000, where most USA children would

have received Thimerosal-preserved vaccines from

birth and, if their mothers were Rh negative,

probably one or more Thimerosal-preserved Rho(D)

serum injections, it would appear that the 2002

ASD rate in USA 8-year-olds is apparently more

than 8 times higher than the comparable ASD rate

in Denmark, where: a) NO Thimerosal-containing

vaccines have been in their recommended vaccina-

tion programs since the early 1990s, there is

NO recommendation for influenza vaccination for

pregnant women and young children, c) most of the

children would therefore have received NO Thimerosal-

preserved vaccines or serums and d) their general ASD

rate appears to be about 7.7 per 10,000.

[21] Rice C, Baio J, VanNarden-Braun K, Doernberg N,

Kirby RS, Canino C, Swanson M, Pettygrove S,

Cunniff C, Meaney FJ, L, C,

Newschaffer C, Landa R, Trevathan E, Constantino

J, s J, Zahorodny W, Desposito F, Pinto-

J, Giarelli E, Levy S, J, Zimmerman

J, McMahon W, Becker-Cottrill B, Durkin M et al.

Prevalence of Autism Spectrum Disorders --- Autism

and Developmental Disabilities Monitoring Network,

14 Sites, United States, 2002. MMWR, 2007 February

9; 56(SS01); 12-28.

PHASE OUT OF THIMEROSAL IN USA VACCINES?

Factually, regarding Thimerosal in vaccines: though

the number of vaccine formulations containing any

level of Thimerosal has been reduced, several of today's

FDA-approved non-influenza vaccines [22] still contain

some level of Thimerosal (see reviewer's Table " 1 "

BELOW).

[22] http://www.fda.gov/cber/thimerosal/htm#t3.

Of the seventeen FDA-approved vaccine formulations

apparently still available or currently being stock-

piled for use, all but four (4) inactivated influenza

vaccines can be given to some children and all ten (10)

of the Thimerosal-preserved vaccines can be administered

to pregnant women and/or nursing mothers.

Furthermore, the potential harm from Thimerosal was

increased in 2002 when the CDC's Advisory Committee

on Immunization Practice (ACIP) began recommending

that inactivated-influenza vaccines be given to preg-

nant women [23] without toxicological proof of safety

to the developing human in the womb and in spite:

· All doses of the U.S.-licensed flu vaccine's

containing Thimerosal with almost all doses of

the 2002-2003 influenza vaccine for pregnant

women and children being Thimerosal-preserved,

and

· Published findings that Thimerosal-preserved flu

shots given to pregnant women significantly

increased their children's risk of being born with

serious birth defects [24]. [Note: Among other

adverse Thimerosal-preserved-influenza-vaccine-

related teratogenic effects, the study found that

Thimerosal exposure during the first 4 months of

pregnancy was associated with a statistically

significant standardized increased risk (SRR =

2.69) for birth defects.]

[23] Bridges CB, Fukuda K, Uyeki TM, NJ, Singleton

JA. Prevention and Control of Influenza Recommen-

dations of the Advisory Committee on Immunization

Practices (ACIP). MMWR 2002 Apr 12; 51(RR03): 1-31.

[24] Heinonen OP, Slone D, Shapiro S. Birth Defects and

Drugs in Pregnancy (Littleton: Publishing Sciences

Group, Inc., 1977).

Also, given the facts that Thimerosal's ethylmercury

components: a) cross the placental barrier [12] and

preferentially accumulate in the developing fetus

[25], it should be apparent to the unbiased reader

that injecting a mother with a Thimerosal-preserved

flu shot increases the risk of: a) mercury poisoning

and serious teratogenic effects (serious birth

defects) in her child.

[25] Gasset AR, Itoi M, Ishii Y, et al. Teratogenicities

of ophthalmic drugs. II. Teratogenicities and

accumulation of Thimerosal. Arch Opthalmol. 1975;

93: 52-55.

ABBREVIATED TABLE 1 -- FULL TABLE IN THE ATTACHMENT

(Missing the " Mercury per dose " column)

Table " 1. " March 2008 FDA-licensed Thimerosal-containing

Vaccines

[Taken From: FDA's " Table 3: Thimerosal and Expanded List

of Vaccines - (updated 3/14/2008) Thimerosal Content in

Currently Manufactured U.S. Licensed Vaccines " & Recent

approvals]

No. Trade Manufac Thimerosal

[8] Vaccine Name turer Concntrt'n[1]

1 DTaP Tripedia[2] Sanofi Pasteur, <= 0.00012%

Inc [sPI]

2 DTaPH TriHIBit SPI/Sanofi SA <= 0.00012%

(Tripedia+

ActHIB [2])

3 DT None SPI < 0.00012%

(single ds)

4/1 DT None Sanofi Pasteur, 0.01%

(available but Ltd [3]

not marketed)[3]

5/2 Td None Mass Public 0.0033%

Health

6 Td Decavac SPI <= 0.00012%

7/3 TT None SPI 0.01%

8 HepA/HepB Twinrix GlaxoKline < 0.0002%

Biologicals

(GSKB)

9/4 Influenza Afluria CSL Limited 0.01%

(multi-dose)

10/5 Influenza Fluzone SPI [6] 0.01%

11/6 Influenza Fluvirin Novartis Vaccines 0.01%

& Diagnostics Ltd

(NVDL)

12 Influenza Fluvirin NVDL < 0.0004%

(Preservative Free)

13 Influenza Fluarix GSKB < 0.0004%

14/7 Influenza FluLaval ID Biomedical 0.01%

Corporation

of Quebec

15/8 Japanese JE-VAX Research Foundat'n 0.007%

Encephalitis for Microbial

[7] Diseases of

Osaka University

(distributed by

SPI in USA)

16/9 Meningococcal Menomune SPI 0.01%

A, C, AC (multidose)

& A/C/Y/

W-135

17/10 Avian Influenza SPI 0.0098%

Influenza Virus (multidose with

[9] Vaccine, doses at 0 & 2

H5N1 months)

Table Footnotes

1. Thimerosal is approximately 50% mercury (Hg) by

weight. A 0.01% solution (1 part per 10,000) of

Thimerosal contains 50 µg of Hg per 1 ml dose or

25 µg of Hg per 0.5 ml dose.

2. Sanofi Pasteur's Tripedia may be used to recon-

stitute ActHib to form TriHIBit. TriHIBit is

indicated for use in children 15 to 18 months

of age.

3. This vaccine is not marketed in the US but it is

available.

4. ….

5. ...

6. Children under 3 years of age receive a half-dose

of vaccine, i.e., 0.25 mL (12.5 µg mercury/dose.)

7. Aventis Pasteur distributes JE-VAX. Children 1 to

3 years of age receive a half-dose of vaccine,

i.e., 0.5 mL (17.5 µg mercury/dose).

8. The second numbers are the count for the current

Thimerosal-preserved vaccine formulations that

have FDA approval.

9. Approved April, 17 but not in " Table 3 " as it is

currently only licensed for use in a pandemic

outbreak; approvals for children are pending or

deferred.

Therefore, it appears that the CDC officials have been

knowingly engaged in a shell game whereby the decrease

in the mercury-poisoning risk by removal of Thimerosal

from some vaccines and the reduction in others was, and

is, knowingly being offset by adding an ineffective

vaccine [26],[27],[28],[29],[30], the Thimerosal-pre-

served influenza vaccine that contains Thimerosal at

levels proven to be poisonous, teratogenic, mutagenic,

carcinogenic, and immune-system-disruptive in developing

and adult humans [31], to the recommended vaccination

schedules for pregnant women and children from 6 months

to 23 months of age in 2002, and increasing the age range

to 39 months in 2004, to 59 months in 2006, to 59/107

months in 2007 and, most recently, to 203 months in 2008.

[26] Geier DA, King PG, Geier MR. Influenza Vaccine: Review

of effectiveness of the U.S. immunization program, and

policy considerations. J Am Phys Surg 2006; 11(3):

69-74.

[27] Jefferson T, S, Demicheli V, Harnden A, Rivetti

A, Di Pietrantonj C. Assessment of the efficacy and

effectiveness of influenza vaccines in healthy chil-

dren: systematic review. Lancet 2005; 365:773-780.

[28] Simonsen L, Reichert TA, Viboud C, Blackwelder WC,

RJ, MA. Impact of influenza vaccination

on seasonal mortality in the US elderly population.

Arch Intern Med. 2005; 165: 265-272.

[29] Maeda T, Shintani Y, Nakano K, Terashima K, Yamada Y.

Failure of inactivated influenza A vaccine to protect

healthy children aged 6-24 months. Pediatr Int. 2004;

46: 122-125.

[30] Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Assessment

of the effectiveness of the 2003-04 influenza vaccine

among children and adults-Colorado, 2003. MMWR. 2004;

53: 707-710.

[31] a. 1-Sept-1993 - Lilly & Company Material Safety

Datasheet on Thimerosal.

b. 22-Dec-1999 - Lilly & Company Material Safety

Datasheet on Thimerosal.

c. 30-Sept-2001 - Gihon Laboratories Material

Safety Datasheet on Thimerosal.

d. 28-July-2003 - Merck Material Safety Datasheet

on Thimerosal.

Therefore, it is clear that drug companies have NOT

voluntarily phased out Thimerosal from all vaccines

given to children but rather phased it out of some,

reduced its level in others, and intentionally left

Thimerosal in some vaccine at preservative levels,

mostly at the 0.01% level.

To cover up the decrease in the level of harm as the

maximum Thimerosal exposure decreased, it is evident

that, in 2002, CDC officials knowingly added the

Thimerosal-preserved inactivated-influenza vaccine

to the recommended vaccination schedule for pregnant

women and children starting at 6 months of age:

· Without proof of safety to the requisite minimum

standard, " sufficiently nontoxic … " [32] and

· With the certain knowledge that injecting

Thimerosal-preserved flu shots into pregnant

women will increase the risk of severe birth

defects (specifically, cleft palate, hydrocephaly,

and pyloric stenosis) in their children24 as well

as the risk of mercury poisoning because the

specific dose to which the fetus will be exposed

will be significantly higher than the former

specific dose of Thimerosal in the " day of birth "

dose of a Thimerosal-preserved hepatitis B vaccine

(e.g., Merck's Energix® that was recommended

for all babies prior to 2000.

[32] Title 21 of the Code of Federal Regulations,

Section 610.15(a) [21 C.F.R. § 610.15(a)].

Obviously, the author's " phased out … from all vaccines

given to kids (with the exception of some flu shots) in

2001 " is false because, as this reviewer's Table " 1 "

shows, preservative levels of Thimerosal remain in

several vaccines which are approved for administration

to children.

While the author's next statements:

" Clearly, we are far from understanding everything we

need to about the range of autistic disorders. And

that's why 'the possible link between vaccines and

autism has been taken very seriously,' says Dr.

Schuchat " ,

are plainly true, they conceal the reality that, given

the actions by the CDC, vaccine makers and public health

officials outlined in the preceding narrative, " we "

all understand:

· The link between Thimerosal and " autism has been

taken very seriously, " and

· Knowing the seriousness of that link, the healthcare

officials, who are responsible for allowing this to

occur and continue, are doing their best to prover-

bially " muddy the waters " to obscure both the link

and the harm Thimerosal in vaccines and other drugs

has caused and is still causing.

Finally, given all of the preceding actualities, the

last statement:

" But at this point, after so many studies, it's safe

to say these two hypotheses have been eliminated as

possible causes " ,

is simply the regurgitation of another vaccine apolo-

gist's dismissive newspeak, which uses the expression

" it's safe to say " to hide the reality that the via-

bility of these two hypothesis has been repeatedly

established by the tens of studies that this author

and the people he quotes apparently cannot find or

refuse to read, much less, study even though this

reviewer, a vaccine safety and effectiveness advocate,

has had no similar difficulties.

>

>The worry: Too many shots too soon is risky

>

Here, the author begins by inappropriately com-

bining two separate vaccine concerns, " Too many "

vaccines at once and vaccination " too soon " into

a single concern, " Too many shots too soon … " .

THE " TOO MANY AT ONCE " CONCERN

>What's behind it: Late last year, the parents of

>9-year-old Hannah Poling won a lawsuit in which they

>claimed that their daughter's autism had been

>triggered by the five " catch-up " shots for nine

>diseases she received in one day. She got the

>injections in 2000, when she was 19 months old. The

>highly publicized case underscored fears - also

>raised by actress McCarthy, who has a son she

>believes has recovered from autism - that the

>practice of giving multiple vaccines at once is too

>much for a small child's body to handle.

>

Superficially, the author's remarks support the " too

many vaccines at once " concern.

However, instead of presenting this issue as a valid

concern, the author's rhetoric, " … highly publicized

case underscored fears … " and " also raised by actress

McCarthy, who has a son she believes has re-

covered from autism " , clearly attempts to undermine

the validity of this concern through the use of the

words " fears " and " believes " instead of more suppor-

tive words such as " concerns " and " thinks " .

Moreover, an examination of the author's statement

concerning Hannah Poling v. Sec. HHS finds it is

filled with inaccuracies.

The most glaring of these inaccuracies are tabu-

lated in the reviewer's Table " 2 " BELOW.

Moreover, leaving out the weakening expressions,

this reviewer agrees that this " highly publicized

case " also underscores the reality that " the prac-

tice of giving multiple vaccines at once " was

certainly " too much " for 19-month-old Hannah

Poling's " body to handle " .

Since there are many other cases where giving mul-

tiple vaccines in a single day has had similar

outcomes, it would appear that, under the medical

" precautionary principle " , multiple-vaccine " catch

up " programs should immediately be suspended.

Finally, these other " catch up " vaccination cases

clearly underscore the disconnect between primacy

of preserving our children's health and the hubris

of those who, knowing that multiple inoculation

has seriously injured some children, would still

risk a child's current health by making such

national inoculation recommendations.

Table " 2 " . A Comparison Of The Author's Claim And

Factual Reality

Author's Claim Factual Reality

" Late last year, the 1. There was no lawsuit - and

parents of 9-year- no administrative hearing.

old Hannah Poling 2. In 2002, the parents of

won a lawsuit … " then 4-year-old Hannah

Poling, born Dec. 27, 1998,

filed a " Vaccine Injury "

petition with the U.S.

Court of Federal Claims

(USCFC) as set forth in the

National Vaccine Injury

Compensation Program (NVICP)

[uSCFC Case: 02-1466V] that

alleged that their daughter's

subsequent autistic disorder

and recurring seizures had

been caused by the Thimerosal

in the vaccines she received

at 19-months of age.

3. In mid-2007, Hannah Poling's

case had been selected as one

of the three test cases in

the " Omnibus Autism Proceed-

ing " for the theory that

" Thimerosal in vaccines is a

causal factor for autism " -

these test cases were scheduled

to be heard in 2008.

4. In late 2007, before the medi-

cal experts for the Polings

were scheduled to file their

reports, medical personnel in

the Division of Vaccine Injury

Compensation (DVIC) of the U.S.

Department of Health and Human

Services (DHHS) [the respondent

to the parents' petition], after

reviewing her parents' petition,

her medical records and the

affidavits in her file conceded

that Hannah Poling's 19-month

vaccinations were a causal fac-

tor in Hannah's diagnosed

autistic disorder.

5. On November 9, 2007, the USCFC

issued a " RESPONDENT'S RULE 4©

REPORT " that formalized the

DVIC's findings in language that

was carefully worded to skirt

the Thimerosal and autism issues:

" In sum, DVIC has concluded that

the facts of this case meet the

statutory criteria for demon-

strating that the vaccinations

Hannah received on July 19, 2000,

significantly aggravated an

underlying mitochondrial dis-

order, which predisposed her to

deficits in cellular energy

metabolism, and manifested as

a regressive encephalopathy with

features of autism spectrum

disorder. Therefore, respondent

recommends that compensation be

awarded to petitioners in accor-

dance with 42 U.S.C. § 300aa-

11©(1)©(ii). "

6. Though, at this time, the DVIC

concluded that her seizure dis-

order was not vaccine-related,

in early 2008, after reviewing

the experts' filed reports, the

DVIC conceded that Hannah's

seizure disorder was vaccine

related and that Hannah's

" underlying mitochondrial dis-

order " was actually an underly-

ing mitochondrial dysfunction -

not an inherent disorder.

7. As of November 2008, the com-

pensation for Hannah Poling has

not been awarded and, though the

parents, parents' attorney and

the experts have waived all

privacy rights and petitioned

to have all records released to

the public and the U.S. Depart-

ment of Justice has concurred

that all these records are

releasable to the public, the

special masters overseeing the

vaccine cases have refused to

release the records.

Table " 2 " . A Comparison Of The Author's Claim And Factual

Reality (Continued)

Author's Claim Factual Reality

" … in which they 1. The Poling's petition claimed

claimed that their that Hannah Poling's clearly

daughter's autism regressive autistic disorder

had been triggered and her complex partial

by the five 'catch- seizure disorder had been

up' shots for nine caused by the preservative

diseases she level of Thimerosal in the

received in one DTaP and Hib vaccines that

day. " mercury poisoned Hannah and

caused the underlying mito-

chondrial dysfunction that was

observed and documented.

2. In addition, the Polings cited

the major vaccine components

themselves (diphtheria toxoid,

tetanus toxoid, the three

pertussis toxins, the Haemo-

phyllis influenzae serogroup B

antigen, three inactivated

polioviruses, the live measles,

mumps and rubella virus strains,

and the Herpes varicella zoster

virus) as contributory factors.

3. The experts' reports, a published

study and her medical records

established that, among her

medical conditions, Hannah Poling

had a diagnosed: a) mitochondrial

disorder, autistic disorder,

and c) complex partial seizure

disorder, all of which were, in

the main, the result of Hannah

Poling's having been mercury

poisoned by the two Thimerosal-

preserved vaccines she received at

19 months of age.

4. Hannah's mercury-poisoning-related

diagnoses were aggravated by the

14 vaccine antigen components in

the five inoculations Hannah re-

ceived for 9 diseases in one day.

5. There is no evidence Hannah had

any in-born mitochondrial disorder

or that she had mitochondrial

dysfunction before she was inocu-

lated at 19-months of age with 5

vaccines in a single " well baby "

visit.

>

>The facts: Hannah Poling was born with a disorder that

>affects her mitochondria (the structures within cells

>that produce energy). And though the family won the

>settlement on the theory that this underlying vulnera-

>bility could have made her more susceptible to vaccine

>injury, there's actually no proof that she - or any

>other child with mitochondrial disease - was in fact

>at any increased risk, says neurologist Shoffner,

>M.D., associate professor of biology at Georgia State

>University, in Atlanta, Georgia, one of the doctors

>who diagnosed Hannah's disorder. …

>

Since the actual scientific evidence, agreed to by

the medical personnel in the DVIC, after they re-

viewed the filed experts' reports, in their early

2008 concession that vaccines contributed to Han-

nah's " complex partial seizure disorder " , has

clearly established that Hannah Poling only devel-

oped her mitochondrial dysfunction, NOT a mito-

chondrial disorder, after her 19-month shots, the

author's " Hannah Poling was born with a disorder

that affects her mitochondria " is a patently false

statement.

In addition, the author's next statement, purpor-

tedly based on remarks by Shoffner who is

claimed to be " one of the doctors who diagnosed

Hannah's " non-existent mitochondrial disorder,

again replaces the factual record with his own

fabrications:

· " And though the family won the settlement " -

when the truth is medical professionals in

the DVIC conceded the case and the " settle-

ment " is still pending

· " … won the settlement on the theory that this

underlying vulnerability could have made her

more susceptible to vaccine injury " - when

the truth is the key theory: a) advanced by

Hannah Poling's parents, supported by the

scientific evidence, and c) used as the basis

for selecting the Poling case in 2007 as one

test case for the Omnibus Autism Proceeding's

" theory 2 " , that " Thimerosal in vaccines is a

causal factor for autism " and, thus, the two

Thimerosal-preserved vaccines given to Hannah

at 19-months of age were the major causal fac-

tor for the vaccine injuries that Hannah

Poling has been diagnosed to have (in the

probable order these injuries occurred): a)

mitochondrial dysfunction, regressive

autistic disorder, and c) complex partial

seizure disorder - with multiple antigens in

the shots she received at one time being

significant secondary exacerbating factors.

· " …more susceptible to vaccine injury, there's

actually no proof that she - or any other child

with mitochondrial disease - was in fact at any

increased risk " - when the facts are:

a. Injecting Thimerosal-preserved vaccines

into young children has been proven to

cause mitochondrial dysfunction,

b. The FDA has failed to compel and the vaccine

makers have refused to provide the required

proof that their Thimerosal-preserved vac-

cines are " sufficiently nontoxic … " [as re-

quired by 21 C.F.R. § 610.15(a)] and did not

put Hannah Poling or any other child " at any

increased risk " , and

c. Since failure to comply with 21 C.F.R. §

610.15(a), a current good manufacturing prac-

tice (CGMP) minimum for vaccine safety since

1968, renders any non-complying biological

drug product an adulterated drug under Title

21 of the United States Code Section 351,

paragraph " (a) " , subparagraph " (2) " , clause

" ( " [21 U.S.C. § 351(a)(2)([33]], it is,

and has been since 1968, illegal to put any

such drug product into commerce [34] much

less administer any such adulterated biologi-

cal drug product to anyone.

[33] With CAPITALIZATION added for emphasis: 21 U.S.C.

§ 351, " (a) Poisonous, insanitary, etc., ingre-

dients; adequate controls in manufacture … (2)(,

A DRUG or device SHALL BEE DEEMED TO BE ADULTERATED

- IF IT IS A DRUG AND THE the methods used in, or

the facilities OR THE CONTROLS USED FOR, ITS MANU-

FACTURE, PROCESSING, PACKING, OR HOLDING DO NOT

CONFORM TO OR ARE NOT operated or ADMINISTERED IN

CONFORMITY WITH CURRENT GOOD MANUFACTURING PRACTICE

TO ASSURE THAT SUCH DRUG MEETS THE REQUIREMENTS OF

THIS CHAPTER AS TO SAFETY and has the identity and

strength, and meets the quality and purity charac-

teristics, which it purports or is represented to

possess; … "

[34] 21 U.S.C. § 331(a):

" The following acts and the causing thereof are

prohibited:

(a) The introduction or delivery for introduction

into interstate commerce of any food, drug,

device, or cosmetic that is adulterated or

misbranded. "

>

> " There is no evidence that the contents of vaccines

>are the cause of autism or mitochondrial disorders, "

>he says. What's more, because even common illnesses

>like colds, the flu, and rotavirus can cause signi-

>ficant harm to these children, doctors strongly

>advise they receive all the recommended shots.

>

Apparently quoting Shoffner, the author writes:

" There is no evidence that the contents of vaccines

are the cause of autism or mitochondrial disorders "

even though, based on the preceding discussions,

there certainly is evidence that some of " the con-

tents of vaccines are " a causal factor for autism

spectrum disorders.

In addition, though there are no articles linking

Thimerosal, which is still a component in many FDA-

approved vaccines in the USA, to " mitochondrial

disorders " per se, there are numerous publications

showing that Thimerosal adversely affects mitochon-

drial function and/or causes mitochondrial dysfunc-

tion, the medical condition that Hannah Poling

actually developed after her 5 inoculations at 19

months of age, including:

1. Yel L, Brown LE, Su K, Gollapudi S, Gupta S.

Thimerosal induces neuronal cell apoptosis by

causing cytochrome c and apoptosis-inducing

factor release from mitochondria. Int J Mol

Med. 2005 Dec; 16(6): 971-977.

2. Humphrey ML, Cole MP, Pendergrass JC, Kiningham

KK. Mitochondrial mediated thimerosal-induced

apoptosis in a human neuroblastoma cell line

(SK-N-SH). Neurotoxicol. 2005 Jun; 26(3):

407-416.

3. Redondo PC, Salido GM, do JA, Pariente JA.

Effect of hydrogen peroxide on Ca2+ mobilisa-

tion in human platelets through sulphydryl

oxidation dependent and independent mechanisms.

Biochem Pharmacol. 2004 Feb 1; 67(3): 491-502.

4. Makani S, Gollapudi S, Yel L, Chiplunkar S,

Gupta S. Biochemical and molecular basis of

thimerosal-induced apoptosis in T cells: a

major role of mitochondrial pathway. Genes

Immun. 2002 Aug; 3(5): 270-278.

5. DM, KM, Garrett FE, Lauzon LL,

Lotfizadeh A, Koch RA. Release of Ca(2+) from

intracellular stores and entry of extracellular

Ca(2+) are involved in sea squirt sperm activa-

tion. Dev Biol. 1999 Nov 15; 215(2): 453-464.

6. Parys JB, Missiaen L, De Smedt H, Droogmans G,

Casteels R. Bell-shaped activation of inositol-

1,4,5-trisphosphate-induced Ca2+ release by

thimerosal in permeabilized A7r5 smooth-muscle

cells. Pflugers Arch. 1993 Sep; 424(5-6): 516-522.

7. Missiaen L, CW, Berridge MJ. Luminal Ca2+

promoting spontaneous Ca2+ release from inositol

trisphosphate-sensitive stores in rat hepatocytes.

J Physiol. 1992 Sep; 455: 623-640.

8. Missiaen L, CW, Berridge MJ. Spontaneous

calcium release from inositol trisphosphate-sen-

sitive calcium stores. Nature. 1991 Jul 18; 352

(6332): 241-244.

9. Liu TP. Ultrastructure of mitochondria in the

corpora allata of honeybees infected by Nosema

apis before and after treatment with anti-Nosema

drugs. Tissue Cell. 1990; 22(4): 511-515.

10. Collin HB, Carroll N. In vivo effects of thimero-

sal on the rabbit corneal endothelium: an ultra-

structural study. Am J Optom Physiol Opt. 1987

Feb; 64(2): 123-130.

11. Collin HB. Ultrastructural changes to corneal

stromal cells due to ophthalmic preservatives.

Acta Ophthalmol (Copenh). 1986 Feb; 64(1): 72-78.

12. Freitag H, Kadenbach B. Inhibition of malate

transport and activation of phosphate transport

in mitochondria by ethylmercurithiosalicylate.

FEBS Lett. 1980 Aug 11; 117(1): 149-151.

13. Freitag H, Kadenbach B. Ethylmercurithiosali-

cylate--a new reagent for the study of phosphate

transport in mitochondria. FEBS Lett. 1980 Jun 2;

114(2): 295-298.

14. Van Horn DL, Edelhauser HF, Prodanovich G,

Eiferman R, Pederson HF. Effect of the ophthalmic

preservative thimerosal on rabbit and human corneal

endothelium. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 1977 Apr;

16(4): 273-280.

A more-general PubMed search using the search terms,

" mercury, mitochondria " , returned more than 300

articles, which found that the exposure of living

systems to both inorganic and organic mercury compounds

adversely impacted the mitochondrial systems examined

at levels 50 times or more lower than the level of

mercury (0.005%; 50 ppm) in a typical Thimerosal-pre-

served vaccine.

Thus, the quoted assertion is not supported by the

facts that have clearly established causal links be-

tween some of the contents in some vaccines (the

measles virus and Thimerosal) and autistic spectrum

disorders, and, at best, misleading when it speaks

of the causal links between " contents of vaccines "

and " mitochondrial disorders " .

What's more, the author's final statement:

" What's more, because even common illnesses like

colds, the flu, and rotavirus can cause significant

harm to these children, doctors strongly advise

they receive all the recommended shots " ,

is a masterpiece in newspeak because it:

· Speaks of " colds " (for which there are no vaccines)

and " the flu " (for which there are no in-use

effective vaccines),

· Misrepresents " rotavirus " as a common illness when,

except in areas with poor sanitation, housing and

diet, rotavirus was NOT a common disease in the USA

until the societally non-cost-effective rotavirus

vaccines, which are NOT shots and which infect all

those inoculated with them with rotavirus, were

introduced, and

· Uses these diseases as justification for the

author's " doctors strongly advise they receive all

the recommended shots " .

In effect, this statement advocates increasing the

risk of serious vaccine injury for children with a

mitochondrial disorder and implies a promise that

the " recommended shots " will protect these mitochon-

drially damaged children from harm when though Hannah

Poling, who had NO mitochondrial disorder, was severely

damaged when she received 5 shots on the same day.

Hopefully, all who read this statement will see that

it is: a) illogical and misleading, not relevant to

the " too many shots at once " issue, c) financially

self-serving for the doctors, and d) financially

problematic for the parents.

>

>So what does all of this mean for parents of healthy

>kids? Not much - getting more than one shot at a time

>isn't the huge physical stress it seems to be. Their

>immune systems handle far greater challenges from

>everyday exposure to germs on shared toys, doorknobs,

>and the playroom floor.

>

This paragraph is simply a regurgitation of the un-

supported assertions of many other vaccine apologists.

In general, if, in response to getting more than one

shot at a time, the child has a significant adverse

reaction, then even that apparent physical stress

should NOT be ignored or, as the author does here,

downplayed.

Moreover, it is simply wrong to compare the injec-

tion of pathogens or other antigens into the body,

bypassing the immune system's outer layers, to

" everyday exposure to germs on shared toys, door-

knobs, and the playroom floor " , which do engage

these external layers of the human immune system.

If the author were simply a journalist, perhaps

this inappropriate comparison could be overlooked,

however, because the author is a medical doctor,

such " apples and oranges " comparisons would appear

to be reprehensible.

>

>As Dr. Offit explains it: Think about the bugs that

>caused your child's last ear infection. Each single

>bacterium has 2,000 to 3,000 components that stimu-

>late an immune response from the body. As those

>bacteria multiply, the challenge to the immune sys-

>tem increases exponentially. Your baby feels awful

>and likely has a high fever and lots of pain. The

>body pulls out the stops to fight it off. Now compare

>that to this: " The entire fourteen-shot course of

>childhood vaccinations contains only about 150 im-

>munological components altogether, " says Dr. Offit.

>This is about a tenth of the challenge posed by ex-

>posure to just one microscopic germ.

>

Not content with his own improper " apples and

oranges " comparison, the author next writes about

an inappropriate comparison that Offit, M.D.,

a well-known vaccine apologist and benefited patent

holder for Merck's Rotateq® vaccine, uses to mislead

people about the relative risk from all shots to

that of a lone unidentified bacterium.

First of all, this example glosses over the fact that

children are not simultaneously exposed to multiple

diseases, while the current national recommended

inoculation schedule permits the inoculation of chil-

dren under 2 years of age with vaccines containing

immune-system-reactive antigens for 8 to 13 diseases

as well as other antigenic materials (e.g., adjuvants,

Thimerosal, gelatin, and egg albumin).

Moreover, this example also ignores the fact that

injections bypass the external layers of the human

immune system so that the antigenic responses their

" immunological components " provoke do not occur in

the normal sequential order or the bodily environment

during an actual exposure to a disease.

In addition, for those vaccines that contain virtual-

ly insoluble inorganic aluminum hydroxyl polymers,

used as adjuvants to " stimulate " the immune system,

when engaged by the circulating macrophage branch of

the immune system, these adjuvants produce extended

cytokine release by the macrophages that are attemp-

ting to engulf and " digest " the injected virtually

insoluble aluminum hydroxyl polymeric materials they

encounter - and increase the risk of auto-immunogenic

reactions and disease in those injected with such

adjuvants [35],[36],[37],[38].

[35] Lach B, Cupler EJ. Macrophagic myofasciitis in

children is a localized reaction to vaccination.

J Child Neurol. 2008 Jun; 23(6): 614-619.

[36] AM, Bermingham N, Harrington HJ, Keohane C.

Atypical presentation of macrophagic myofasciitis

10 years post vaccination. Neuromuscul Disord.

2006 Dec; 16(12): 867-869. Epub 2006 Sep 26.

[37] Gherardi RK, Coquet M, Cherin P, Belec L, Moretto

P, Dreyfus PA, Pellissier JF, Chariot P, Authier

FJ. Macrophagic myofasciitis lesions assess long-

term persistence of vaccine-derived aluminum

hydroxide in muscle. Brain. 2001 Sep; 124(Pt 9):

1821-1831.

[38] Authier FJ, Cherin P, Creange A, Bonnotte B,

Ferrer X, Abdelmoumni A, Ranoux D, Pelletier J,

Figarella-Branger D, Granel B, Maisonobe T,

Coquet M, Degos JD, Gherardi RK. Central nervous

system disease in patients with macrophagic

myofasciitis. Brain. 2001 May; 124(Pt 5):

974-983.

In addition, unlike a natural bacterial infections

that start with a few bacteria that, when the body's

immune system does NOT recognize and attack them

first, can multiply exponentially, the injected

" immunological components " in vaccines are typically

in the millions to ensure that sufficient antibody

levels will be produced by each injection - even

though the antibody titer levels do NOT, per se,

guarantee disease immunity.

Furthermore, unlike most childhood diseases, except

chicken pox, where contracting the childhood disease

produces near lifetime immunity from future infec-

tion in almost everyone who has the disease, multi-

ple doses (currently, 2 to 5+ childhood inoculations

for each vaccine) are required to produce protection

with, in some cases, the " need " for " booster " doses

every " 10 " years to ensure extended protection - an

obvious cash windfall for the vaccine maker and the

healthcare establishment but, in many cases, a less-

than-societally-cost-effective medical intervention

for the public.

Finally, it is absurd to compare:

a. The human immune-system's reaction to a single

bacterium, regardless of how many thousand com-

ponents that may, when their level is high enough,

" stimulate an immune response from the body " with:

b. Its reaction to millions of copies of " immunolo-

gical components " in each vaccine dose.

>

>What's more, the bacteria and viruses used in vaccines

>are either killed or altered, says Myers, M.D.,

>author of " Do Vaccines Cause That?! " There are just

>enough to induce immunity, but not enough to make

>someone sick - and certainly not enough to overload

>the immune system of a healthy child. As with any

>medical intervention, side effects, including sore-

>ness, rashes, and fever, are possible, but most are

>mild and short-lived. In rare instances, some chil-

>dren experience fever-in-duced seizures following

>shots, but though these are frightening, they cause

>no permanent harm.

>

The initial statement attributed to " Myers,

M.D. " is obviously overly simplistic and misleading.

Factually, today's vaccines contain: a) modified

bacterial toxins (e.g., diphtheria and tetanus

toxoids in today's DTaP, DT, Td, and Tdap vaccines),

isolated toxic components (e.g., " purified " bac-

terial fragments isolated from killed lysed pertus-

sis cells in the DTaP and Tdap vaccines), c) syn-

thetic antigenic materials (e.g., the antigens is

the hepatitis B and HPV vaccines), d) polysaccha-

rides isolated from the cell walls of the disease

organism (e.g., Sanofi's Menomune® vaccine formulas),

e) polysaccharides conjugated to a toxiod (e.g.,

Sanofi's Menactra vaccine formulas), f) " attenuated "

live virus strains (e.g., the measles, mumps and

rubella strains in Merck's MMR® II vaccine formula-

tions), g) inactivated viruses (e.g., the inactiva-

ted polio and influenza vaccines), h) bioengineered

viruses (e.g., the cold-adapted live influenza

viruses in MedImmune's FluMist® vaccine formulations

and the five human-bovine hybridized viruses in

Merck's RotaTeq rotavirus vaccine formulation), and

i) cross-protective viruses (e.g., the live vaccina

virus vaccines used to protect those vaccinated from

contracting smallpox).

With respect to the author's:

" There are just enough to induce immunity, but not

enough to make someone sick - and certainly not

enough to overload the immune system of a healthy

child " ,

since the dose of vaccine typically given to a baby

is at best half of the dose given to an adult, and

the doses for children over three, weighing as little

as 6 kg (13.3 lb), are the same as the doses for

adults who typically weigh 40 kg (88 lb) or more,

the doses given are obviously more than " just enough

to induce immunity " .

Additionally, since some develop acute and chronic

medical conditions and a few die shortly after re-

ceiving a single vaccination, vaccinations are cer-

tainly " enough to make someone sick " and, in the

cases where immune-system-collapse is a causal fac-

tor in the sudden death of a previously healthy

child, most certainly was " enough to overload the

immune system of a healthy child " in such cases.

Based on: a) the preceding realities, the ad-

verse vaccination outcomes, including death, re-

ported to the Vaccine Adverse Events Reporting

System (VAERS) database, c) the thousands of cases

filed with the National Vaccination Injury Compen-

sation Program (NVICP) and d) the billions of

dollars paid out to compensate the families for

the vaccine-related harm done and the vaccine-

related deaths, it should be obvious that author's

statements here are, at best, knowing misrepresen-

tations.

>

>One common response to these concerns is to break up

>combination vaccines (which may contain up to five

>inoculations in one) or to spread them out. But that

>carries significant risks of its own. " Too often, an

>immunization delayed is an immunization missed, " says

>Dr. Schaffner. " It's hard enough for parents to keep

>track. " …

>

Here, after stating two rational approaches to re-

ducing vaccination risk ( " to break up combination

vaccines … or to spread them out " ), the author:

· Makes an unsubstantiated claim, that either of the

stated approaches " carries significant risks of

its own " , and

· Quotes vaccine-apologist Schaffner's concern that

a vaccination may be missed, " 'Too often, an im-

munization delayed is an immunization missed,'

says Dr. Schaffner. 'It's hard enough for parents

to keep track' "

as if these unstated risks or the worry that a vac-

cination will be missed were more important than

reducing the risk of serious vaccine injury or vac-

cine-related death - risks that the author does NOT

even mention here.

>

>More troubling, during the gaps, kids are suscepti-

>ble to catching serious diseases they could have

>been protected from. Vaccines are scheduled when

>they are for precise reasons: It's a balance between

>finding the time when the baby's immune system can

>respond and knowing when he's most in danger of

>catching the infection, says Dr. Schuchat. Give a

>shot late and a child is left unprotected at his

>most vulnerable time.

>

In response to what is obviously vaccination propa-

ganda, this reviewer simply asks how can anyone

think that it is medically appropriate to give the

hepatitis B vaccine at birth, 1 to 2 months, and

at 6 to 18 months (with an additional 4-month dose

if combination vaccines are used) to young children

who are in virtually no danger of catching hepatitis

B, knowing that: a) the protection provided will

" wear off " just at the time when they become sexually

active and at risk of IV drug use in their teens and

the risk of a serious adverse reaction, including

death and permanent injury, greatly exceeds the

risks associated with a healthy child's having

hepatitis B?

How is this attuned to the time when the child is

" most in danger of catching the infection " ?

Moreover, as the scheduling of today's national vac-

cination programs are presented here, it is clear

to this reviewer that the current vaccination pro-

grams are blind to and do not consider, as they sure-

ly should, the long-term risks of chronic disease

that accompany giving any vaccine to a child at birth

or before the child's immune systems have reached the

" 2-years post-partum " stage of development.

Finally, underneath the rhetoric, it seems clear that

the current national vaccination programs are current-

ly scheduled:

· At the behest of the vaccine makers (who demand

that there be a national program so that the

vaccine can be added to the NVICP - protecting

them from most lawsuits for the harm their vac-

cines may cause),

· For the scheduling convenience and financial

interests of those who administer the vaccines

(whose representative populate the CDC's Advisory

Committee On Immunization Practice [ACIP]), and

· For the long-term financial interests of all

facets of a healthcare establishment interested

in growing its customer base and increasing its

profitability with little or NO regard for the

overall fiscal and/or physical health of our

children and ourselves.

How else would national vaccination programs for new

vaccines with demonstrated clinical trial issues

(e.g., human-animal hybridized rotavirus vaccines

[with intussusception and Kawasiki's disease problems]

and the HPV vaccine [with fainting, seizure, and

Guillian-Barre issues]) be rolled out without any

actual in-use experience in the most-susceptible

general population segments?

How else would the program be continuing to recommend

DTaP at 2, 4 and 6 months when there is clear evidence

that delaying the start of the program for at least 2

months could significantly reduce the rate for chronic

asthma in children?

[Note: There is also clear evidence that there may be

no need for an early Diphtheria or Tetanus vaccination

program because:

a. There are NO longer any reported cases of diph-

theria in any age group in the population of the

USA - NOT even imported cases,

b. Almost all cases of tetanus occur in the elderly,

c. Tetanus only develops in deep puncture wounds

that are NOT properly disinfected,

d. There are effective antibiotics to treat both

diseases, and

e. Very few tetanus cases occur in farming communi-

ties of the Amish, who do NOT vaccinate.

Moreover, even with the current high levels of com-

pliance and a 5+ dose DTaP/Tdap vaccination program

that may NOT even be societally cost-effective,

from:

a. The thousands of cases annually [39],

b. The cyclic nature in the number of cases

reported, and

c. The reported healthcare providers' tendency to

diagnose chronic bronchitis instead of whooping

cough in both fully vaccinated older children

and adults,

it is apparent that the current pertussis vaccina-

tion program is NOT societally cost effective and

the move to replace tetanus-diphtheria (Td) boo-

sters with the Tdap vaccines, more expensive vac-

cines with one more component than the existing

tetanus-diphtheria booster vaccines presently used,

only serves to further line the pockets of the

vaccines' makers, fill the tax coffers of the

NVICP, and increase the patient pool for the

healthcare establishment because the Tdap vaccines

have a higher risks for serious side-effects than

the Td vaccines they are to replace.]

[39] For the period 1999 - 2006, the number of annual

pertussis cases reported was: 7,288, 7,867, 7,580,

9,771, 11,647, 25,827, 25,616, and 15,652,

respectively.

>

> Sears, M.D., author of The Vaccine Book:

>Making the Right Decision for Your Child, offers

>parents an alternative to the American Academy of

>Pediatrics schedule - but he does so with Dr.

>Schuchat's concerns in mind. There are certain

>vaccines, including those that protect against

>meningitis, rotavirus, and pertussis, that he does

>not recommend delaying for the same reason she

>gives. However, he willingly offers families the

>option of postponing hepatitis A and B as well as

>polio, mainly because these illnesses do not pose

>the same threat to infants as the others.

>

Here, the author is simply offering the views of

another vaccination advocate, Sears, MD,

who apparently also sees no problem postponing

the vaccines for polio and hepatitis A and B.

However, this passage offers little evidence that

the " too many vaccinations at once " issue is NOT

a valid concern that should be taken seriously.

THE " VACCINATION TOO SOON " CONCERN

Ironically, though the author presented the issue

as " The worry: Too many shots too soon is risky " ,

outside of his vague and unsupported:

" Vaccines are scheduled when they are for precise

reasons: It's a balance between finding the time

when the baby's immune system can respond and

knowing when he's most in danger of catching the

infection, says Dr. Schuchat. Give a shot late

and a child is left unprotected at his most vul-

nerable time. "

contained in his discussion of the reasons NOT to

break up or delay vaccination beyond the applicable

recommendations, he does NOT explicitly address the

" vaccination too soon " concern.

Although the evidence for the effect of delaying a

given vaccination series is sparse [40], and the evi-

dence for delaying the overall program until the

child is older (e.g., to 2 years) is indirect (e.g.,

in 1975, shifting from a U.S.-type program starting

at 2 months to a program starting at 2 years lifted

Japan's " first-year infant mortality " standing from

17th in major nations in the world to 1st a few years

later - where it has stayed) these findings clearly

indicate that vaccination of infants during their

first year of life is a net negative for their sur-

vival - the opposite of what would be the case if:

a) vaccination were effective in preventing disease

and the vaccination programs' only side effects

were minor in nature.

[40] Mc KL, Huq SI, Lix LM, Becker AB, Kozyrskyj

AL. Delay in diphtheria, pertussis, tetanus vac-

cination is associated with a reduced risk of

childhood asthma. J Allergy Clin Immunol. 2008

Mar; 121(3): 626-631. Epub 2008 Jan 18.

Based on the preceding realities, perhaps the author

did NOT want to address the " too soon " issue because,

at some level, he too recognized that the U.S. vac-

cination programs start too soon.

>

>The worry: Vaccines contain toxins

>

>What's behind it: Vaccines do contain a variety of

>substances besides the viral or bacterial components.

>There are preservatives as well as adjuvants, which

>are substances that help vaccines grab the attention

>of the immune system and prompt it to create anti-

>bodies. One adjuvant that some are focusing on is

>aluminum, which at chronic high levels can contribute

>to nerve, brain, and kidney damage.

>

Here, the author begins well by admitting that

vaccines " do contain a variety of substances

besides the viral or bacterial components " but

then fails to mention those substances that are

toxins or to identify which of these toxins are,

at the levels found in vaccines, potentially toxic

to some of those vaccinated who, for whatever

reasons, are more susceptible to these toxins even

at the " low " levels present in today's vaccines.

Moreover, he chooses to only mention two categories

of substances: 1) " preservatives " , which he does NOT

define or address, and 2) " adjuvants " , which he un-

derstandably defines as " substances that help vac-

cines grab the attention of the immune system and

prompt it to create antibodies " , since the dictionary

definition [41] for adjuvant is " a substance mixed

with a immunogen in order to elicit a more marked

immune response " , which properly portrays the role

of the adjuvant as a passive rather than an active

one.

[41] Webster's New Universal Unabridged Dictionary,

2001, page 25, column 3, " ad·ju·vant (aj' ? v?nt) "

or an equivalent dictionary.

Unfortunately, this superficial discussion ignores

other both added and adventitious ingredients, like

added proteins (e.g., albumin and gelatin) that,

when present in an injected vaccine containing an

adjuvant and/or other immunogens, may induce food

allergies or food intolerances in the person injec-

ted with a vaccine containing it and adventitious

animal viruses, phages, and prions that may be

present in some vaccines (e.g., simian virus 40

[sV-40] in viruses grown in monkey kidneys).

Moreover, though the author mentions and attempts

to discuss aluminum adjuvants, he does NOT mention,

much less address, any preservative, including the

most toxic bioaccumulating one, Thimerosal.

Given the author's approach, it is obvious that he:

· NEITHER intends to critically address the issue

of the toxins in vaccines

· NOR intends to admit:

a. There is NO real justification for the use

of a preservative in U.S. vaccines currently,

and/or

b. Given the increased-autoimmune-risk downside

of adjuvants and the ability to minimize

their level by increasing the concentration

of the specific immunogens, the use aluminum

adjuvants should be reduced as much as pos-

sible in the current vaccine formulations and

NOT used in any future vaccines.

Moreover, the author's final statement here:

" One adjuvant that some are focusing on is

aluminum, which at chronic high levels can

contribute to nerve, brain, and kidney damage " ,

exposes his lack of understanding that aluminum

adjuvants are NOT soluble aluminum hydroxyl

compounds but rather insoluble polymeric aluminum

hydroxyl materials.

>

>Because several new vaccines containing aluminum

>have been added to the schedule, some parents and

>doctors worry that the extra exposure might push

>levels out of the safety zone - particularly given

>that there's already aluminum pretty much every-

>where: in water, breast milk, formula, and the air

>we breathe. " I'm concerned that health officials

>haven't done any human-infant research to make sure

>the amount of aluminum in the vaccines is safe, "

>says Dr. Sears.

>

Since aluminum adjuvants are practically insoluble

in aqueous systems at the near pH 7.4 levels found

in the human body, the soluble aluminum concerns

expressed in this paragraph are misplaced concerns.

As this reviewer has previously outlined, and pro-

vided supporting documentation for, the presence of

these non-living insoluble polymeric hydroxyl

aluminum materials are, in conjunction with the

vaccine immunogens, the causal factor for the

various observed harms, which persists for extended

periods of time, to the human immune system and, by

this means, the use of these aluminum adjuvants

appears to fundamentally weaken the overall human

immune system and increase autoimmune disease risk.

Hopefully, as the understanding of the danger that

aluminum adjuvants represent becomes more widespread,

the public will rise up and demand that these harm-

ful aluminum adjuvants be removed from vaccines and,

if any adjuvant must be used, replaced with ones that,

after or as they cause immune-system activation for

the needed period of time, degrade into harmless

substances that are either excreted or otherwise

utilized by the body.

>

>The facts: Everyday exposure to aluminum is generally

>not considered hazardous - most adults ingest 7 to 9

>milligrams (mg) every day through food alone (up to 200

>mg if they pop antacids), and formula contains anywhere

>from .05 mg/L to .93 mg/L. Very little of the aluminum

>taken in orally is absorbed, and what does make it into

>the bloodstream is excreted within days. Although the

>aluminum in vaccines is, of course, injected, there

>doesn't seem to be evidence it poses any danger for

>healthy kids. The amount of aluminum injected is no

>more than .85 mg per dose, and the CDC, the Institute

>of Medicine, and the World Health Organization have all

>deemed the levels babies receive from shots to be safe.

>

First, the facts presented here are either NOT relevant

to injected aluminum adjuvants or, as this reviewer has

already established previously, the author's remarks are

incorrect.

Obviously, the author is wrong about injected aluminum

adjuvants, as the pertinent references cited earlier

have established, because there is a growing body of

evidence that the aluminum adjuvant used in a given

vaccine does pose a danger to some otherwise healthy

children and adults of all ages.

Furthermore, the author's statement:

" The amount of aluminum injected is no more than .85 mg

per dose, and the CDC, the Institute of Medicine, and

the World Health Organization have all deemed the

levels babies receive from shots to be safe " ,

is at odds with the applicable FDA CGMP regulation set

forth at 21 C.F.R. § 610.15(a), which, among other things,

states:

" An adjuvant shall not be introduced into a product

unless there is satisfactory evidence that it does

not affect adversely the safety or potency of the

product. The amount of aluminum in the recommended

individual dose of a biological product shall not

exceed:

(1) 0.85 milligrams if determined by assay;

(2) 1.14 milligrams if determined by calculation on

the basis of the amount of aluminum compound

added; or

(3) 1.25 milligrams determined by assay provided

that data demonstrating that the amount of

aluminum used is safe and necessary to produce

the intended effect are submitted to and

approved by the Director, Center for Biologics

Evaluation and Research or the Director, Center

for Drug Evaluation and Research (see mailing

addresses in §600.2 of this chapter). "

Clearly, U.S. vaccine manufacturers are allowed to have

up to 1.25 mg of aluminum in a polymeric aluminum

hydroxyl adjuvant in a vaccine dose and not the 0.85

mg of aluminum per dose stated by the author.

However, rather than allowing " the CDC, the Institute

of Medicine, and the World Health Organization " to

deem " the levels babies receive from shots to be safe " ,

the law requires scientifically sound evidence that the

added adjuvant " does not affect adversely the safety or

potency of the " biological drug product.

Given the existing body of evidence and the fact that

the amounts babies receive are " deemed … to be safe " ,

it clearly seems that, like the use of Thimerosal as

a preservative WITHOUT the requisite proof of safety,

the vaccine makers have been and are using a polymeric

aluminum hydroxyl material as an adjuvant WITOUT

" satisfactory evidence that it does not affect adverse-

ly the safety … of the product " .

Thus, until and unless safety can be established by

satisfactory long-term immunological studies for each

currently FDA-approved vaccine, this reviewer calls

on the Secretary of Health and Human Services, under

the Secretary's statutory authorities as set forth in

42 U.S.C. § 300aa-27, to:

q Review all of the vaccine formulations that use an

aluminum adjuvant,

q Where there are several such vaccines for a given

vaccination program, suspend the licenses for all

but the vaccines with the lowest level of aluminum

adjuvant under the statutory authority explicitly

granted to the Secretary in 42 U.S.C. § 300aa-

27(a)(2), and

q Under that same statutory authority:

· Order the makers of the vaccine formulations

with higher adjuvant levels to:

· Prove that the long-term immunological safety

of their vaccine is the same as the vaccine

with the least level of aluminum adjuvant to

have the suspension lifted on the vaccines

that have a higher level or

· Replace their current formulation with a

formulation that is safe and either has NO

adjuvant, a biodegradable adjuvant that has

been proven safe, or a level of aluminum

adjuvant that is NO higher than the level

in the vaccines whose licenses have NOT been

suspended, and

q When all the remaining approved non-suspended vac-

cine formulations for given vaccine type have, in

order of preference:

· No adjuvant,

· A biodegradable adjuvant that has been proven

safe, or

· The least practical level of a polymeric

aluminum hydroxy adjuvant,

permanently revoke the approvals and licenses for

all of the other less safe vaccine formulations

that use polymeric aluminum species as an adjuvant.

>

>However, if you still have concerns, you can ask your

>doctor to choose low- or no-aluminum vaccines when

>possible. In the instances when it's not, Dr. Sears

>will work with aluminum-wary parents by having them

>bring their babies in once a month between 2 and 7

>months of age (rather than bimonthly) so that they

>get just one aluminum-containing shot at a time. " If

>doctors don't meet worried parents halfway, the prob-

>lem of kids not getting vaccinated will continue, "

>says Dr. Sears.

>

First, given the unnecessary risk of long-term

immune-system damage that a vaccine containing an

adjuvant based on a polymeric aluminum hydroxy

material may cause in susceptible children and

the current lack of a rapid test to identify those

children, who are most susceptible, this reviewer

must suggest that such aluminum adjuvated vaccines

be avoided.

Moreover, while this reviewer agrees that spread-

ing out the doses of aluminum adjuvants a child

receives is: a) better than not doing so and a

viable near-term option, this reviewer thinks that

" no aluminum " vaccines are the better option.

Finally, in addition to proceeding as suggested for

vaccine formulations containing an aluminum-based

adjuvant, this reviewer again recommends that the

Secretary of HHS take action to restore the public's

confidence in the safety of vaccines by proceeding

to: a) permanently and irreversibly ban the use of

any level of Thimerosal in the manufacture of any

U.S.-licensed vaccine and irreversibly revoke

the licenses and approvals for Thimerosal-preserved

vaccines under the Secretary's statutory authorities

as set forth in 42 U.S.C. § 300aa-27(a)(2).

>

>The worry: It's healthier to contract some diseases

>naturally

>

>What's behind it: The immunity one develops against

>chicken pox and measles after having the illness is

>more complete than the protection from the shot.

>Because that fact is so appealing, chicken pox and

>measles parties - where parents intentionally expose

>a child to the viruses - have been around for years,

>and are now on the upswing.

>

Here the author is a master of understatement be-

cause, for the communicable childhood diseases and

the other communicable diseases for which there is

an FDA-licensed vaccine delivered by a shot/jab,

the immunity one develops against all these diseases

is " more complete than the protection from the shot " /

jab.

In addition, a woman's disease-acquired immunity

provides more complete immunity to the children she

bears.

Further, except for chickenpox, the immunity provided

by having these diseases and recovering from them

typically lasts much longer, typically for a lifetime,

than the protection provided by vaccination, which

lasts 10 years or less in most cases.

Moreover, while almost all who have these diseases

and recover have extended immunity, typically, less

than 95 % (and, in some instances, less than 80%)

develop intermediate-term immunity even when they

are " fully " vaccinated.

Thus, given the reduction in circulating " wild "

disease viruses, this reviewer understands the upswing

in " chicken pox and measles parties " , where educated

parents know that there is a current need to help

nature along.

>

> threw one after her husband,

>Burget, came down with shingles, an illness that's

>caused by the same virus behind chicken pox. The

>Brooklyn, New York, couple had elected NOT to

>vaccinate their then 2-year-old son, Hart, against

>chicken pox (he'd had all his other shots), and

>they seized the opportunity for the toddler to get

>it from his dad. The two shared lots of hugs and

>lots of cups - and sure enough, Hart picked up the

>pox. " He hardly itched. It was very mild - not like

>the horror stories we'd heard, " says . …

>

>Knowing other parents might want their kids exposed,

>the couple posted a notice on a local e-mail

>listserve inviting interested families to come over;

>two ultimately showed up for a playdate with Hart,

>during which sharing everything, including lollipops,

>was encouraged. The visiting kids didn't get sick,

>but their parents were highly grateful for the chance.

> " They brought presents, " says .

>

While this is one anecdotal story, it underscores:

a) the reality that chickenpox is a mild disease in

truly healthy children, and the need to have

" chickenpox " parties at the first sign of chickenpox

because those infected are most contagious shortly

before they break out in pox and for a brief period

thereafter.

In contrast, in Japan, where chickenpox is endemic

and only about 25% of the children are inoculated,

there is much less need for such parties because

almost 75% of the each year's cohort of children

contract chickenpox.

>

>The facts: The potential complications of both chicken

>pox and measles are far more dangerous than any posed

>by the shots. " Many young parents think these infec-

>tions are trivial, " Dr. Schaffner says, " which only

>means they've never seen a child seriously ill with

>either of them. " Consider this: Complications include

>seizures, pneumonia, or encephalitis (brain inflamma-

>tion); one or two of every thousand children who come

>down with measles die or are mentally impaired. In

>pregnant women, measles can cause miscarriage and

>premature birth. Chicken pox can lead to staph or

>strep infections.

>

Here, the author is simply distorting the facts in an

attempt to raise the parents' fear of their children's

contracting measles or chickenpox.

He does this by pointing to the severe adverse disease

outcomes, including death, experienced by a few chil-

dren, who, typically, are NOT truly healthy and/or NOT

appropriately treated when these children show the

first symptoms of either disease.

Yet, he fails to note that the maker of the U.S.-

licensed vaccines for measles and chickenpox has

knowingly failed to evaluate the potential of the

measles and chickenpox vaccines to be carcinogenic

and/or mutagenic, nor their potential to impair fer-

tility, while there is no evidence that this reviewer

has yet found that having measles or chickenpox in

childhood increases the children's carcinogenic or

mutagenic risk or impairs their fertility.

Moreover, the author is also being disingenuous be-

cause he fails to point out that the serious adverse

reactions, including other chronic diseases, associ-

ated with:

q The current live-virus vaccine for measles, the

Merck's MMR II vaccine in the USA, which, based

on the vaccine's package insert (leaflet),

include:

· BODY AS A WHOLE: Panniculitis; atypical mea-

sles; fever; syncope; headache; dizziness;

malaise; and irritability;

· CARDIOVASCULAR SYSTEM: Vasculitis;

· DIGESTIVE SYSTEM: Pancreatitis; diarrhea;

vomiting; parotitis; and nausea.

· ENDOCRINC SYSTEM: Diabetes mellitus;

· HEMIC AND LYMPHATIC SYSTEM: Thrombocytopenia;

purpura; regional lymphadenopathy; and leu-

kocytosis;

· IMMUNE SYSTEM: Anaphylaxis and anaphylactoid

reactions have been reported as well as re-

lated phenomena such as angioneurotic edema

(including peripheral or facial edema) and

bronchial spasm in individuals with or with-

out an allergic history;

· MUSCULOSKELETAL SYSTEM: Arthritis; arthralgia;

and myalgia;

· NERVOUS SYSTEM: Encephalitis; encephalopathy;

measles inclusion body encephalitis (MIBE);

subacute sclerosing panencephalitis (SSPE);

Guillain-Barré Syndrome (GBS); febrile convul-

sions; afebrile convulsions or seizures;

ataxia; polyneuritis; polyneuropathy; ocular

palsies; and paresthesia;

· RESPIRATORY SYSTEM: Pneumonitis; sore throat;

cough; and rhinitis;

· SKIN: s- syndrome; erythema

multiforme; urticaria; rash; measles-like rash;

pruritis;

· SPECIAL SENSES - EAR: Nerve deafness; and otitis

media;

· SPECIAL SENSES - EYE: Retinitis; optic neuritis;

papillitis; retrobulbar neuritis; and conjunc-

tivitis;

· UROGENITAL SYSTEM: Orchitis; and

· OTHER: Death from various, and in some cases

unknown, causes has been reported rarely fol-

lowing vaccination with the measles, mumps,

and rubella vaccine;

or

q The current live-virus vaccine for chickenpox,

Merck's Varivax®, which, based on the vaccine's

package insert (leaflet), include:

· Phase III Clinical Trials, First Dose, fol-

lowed for 42 days after dose:

· Varicella-like rash (injection site), 3.4%

at 8-19 days;

· Varicella-like rash (generalized), 3.8% at

5-26 days;

· (In >=1% in the clinical trial, in order of

decreasing incidence): upper respiratory

illness, cough, irritability/ nervousness,

fatigue, disturbed sleep, diarrhea, loss of

appetite, vomiting, otitis, diaper rash/con-

tact rash, headache, teething, malaise, ab-

dominal pain, other rash, nausea, eye com-

plaints, chills, lymphadenopathy, myalgia,

lower respiratory illness, allergic reac-

tions (including allergic rash, hives),

stiff neck, heat rash/prickly heat, ar-

thralgia, eczema/dry skin/ dermatitis, con-

stipation, and itching;

· (<1 %): Pneumonitis; and

· (<0.1%): Febrile seizures;

· Two Doses, 3 months apart, followed for 42

days after each dose:

· First dose: Varicella-like rash (injec-

tion site), 3% at 6-20 days;

· First dose: Varicella-like rash (gener-

alized), 5.5% at 7-21 days;

· Second dose: Varicella-like rash (in-

jection site), 1.0% at 0-6 days;

· Second dose: Varicella-like rash (gener-

alized), 0.9% at 0-23 days;

· Other: (>=1%, in order of decreasing

incidence): upper respiratory illness,

headache, fatigue, cough, myalgia, dis-

turbed sleep, nausea, malaise, diarrhea,

stiff neck, irritability/nervousness,

lymphadenopathy, chills, eye complaints,

abdominal pain, loss of appetite, ar-

thralgia, otitis, itching, vomiting,

other rashes, constipation, lower res-

piratory illness, allergic reactions

(including allergic rash, hives), con-

tact rash, and cold/canker sore.

· Additional adverse reactions:

· BODY AS A WHOLE: Anaphylaxis in indi-

viduals with or without an allergic

history.

· HEMIC AND LYMPHATIC SYSTEM: Thrombo-

cytopenia (including ITP).

· NERVOUS/PSYCHIQATRIC: Encephalitis;

cerebrovascular accident; transverse

myelitis; Guillain-Barré syndrome;

Bell's palsy; ataxia; non-febrile

seizures; aseptic meningitis; dizzi-

ness; and paresthesia.

· RESPIRATORY: Pharyngitis, and Pneu-

monia/Pneumonitis.

· Skin: s- syndrome;

erythema multiforme; Henoch-Schönlein

purpura; secondary bacterial infec-

tions of skin and soft tissue, inclu-

ding impetigo and cellulitis; and

herpes zoster.

And, since less than 10% of all vaccine adverse

events are reported to VAERS, the actual in-use

risk levels for these serious adverse vaccination

reactions are either underestimated or unknown.

>

>Dr. Myers has seen the effects of those infections

>firsthand. He recalls a 19-month-old whose parents

>decided he was getting too many shots at once and

>left off the chicken pox vaccine. " The boy came to

>our hospital with staph and strep skin infections.

>It required powerful antibiotics to save him. "

>

Here, the author reports an anecdotal story of a

case seen by a " Dr. Myers " that is offered as an

example of serious skin infection complications

implicitly from the child's having chickenpox even

though, based on the manufacturer's package insert,

the same skin-disease outcomes, or worse (e.g.,

s- syndrome), could have been found

had the child been vaccinated against chickenpox.

Lacking a complete medical history on this child,

NEITHER this reviewer NOR other readers can ascer-

tain: a) the health of the child prior to infection,

the reasons, if any, for the outcomes observed

and c) the reasons for the infections and/or their

progression to the point that the use of " powerful

antibiotics " was required.

>

>To be fair, most kids who get chicken pox will not

>end up in the hospital. But, like Dr. Myers's patient,

>a few will - and there's a good chance their parents

>never would have believed it could happen to them.

> " We'd all love to have absolute truths and guarantees,

>but that's not always attainable, " says Dr. Shoffner.

>Vaccines are no exception. " We have to make the best

>decisions we can with the best information available

>to us. "

>

Had the author truly wished " (t)o be fair " , he would

have pointed out that some children will also be

hospitalized from a serious reaction to the chickenpox

vaccine.

Finally, Dr. Shoffner quoted remarks:

" We'd all love to have absolute truths and guarantees,

but that's not always attainable " and

" We have to make the best decisions we can with the

best information available to us " ,

conceal the reality that, like the author here, those

in the Establishment who write articles like this one

and/or act as experts are careful to point out the worst

possible risks for the disease but loathe to speak to

the worst possible vaccine risks or ensure that all the

vaccine risk information is honestly presented so that

a parent could easily find valid estimates for each

disease and vaccination risk as well as those inter-

ventions that can be used to mitigate both sets of

risks.

Reviewer's Concluding Remarks

Given the substantiated information presented in this

review, it should be clear that the author, " Dr. Walt " ,

has either:

· Failed to separate fact from fiction because of the

author's lack of knowledge and understanding of the

facts themselves, or

· Knowingly chosen to write this article so that it

employs all of the attributes of doublespeak [42],

" the deliberate, calculated misuse of language " ,

to defend even the most problematic of today's

vaccination programs.

[42] In Doublespeak: From " Revenue Enhancement " to

" Terminal Living " - How Government, Business,

Advertisers, and Others Use Language to Deceive You,

a 1989 book by Lutz (Harper; ISBN 0-060-161-

34-5), the defining attributes of an article that

can be characterized as " doublespeak " include the

intentional use of language to: misinform; distort

reality; pretend to communicate; make the bad seem

good; avoid or shift responsibility; make the nega-

tive appear positive; create a false verbal map of

the world; limit, corrupt and prevent thought; make

the unpleasant appear attractive or tolerable, and/

or create incongruity between reality and what is

said or not said.

Hopefully, after reading this response to Dr. Walt's

article and verifying the accuracy of the information

provided or cited, the reader will, at least, know Dr.

Walt's article does little to separate fact from

fiction when it comes to:

· Vaccines,

· The CDC-recommended vaccination programs, and/or

· Proof of vaccination safety and effectiveness.

Information About The Author and This Responder/

Reviewer

If the reader wants to more information about Dr.

Larimore, they can visit his Internet web site:

http://www.drwalt.com/ and click on the " About

Dr. Walt " tab.

Should the reader wish to know more about this

responder/reviewer, they can visit his Internet

web site: http://www.dr-king.com/ and click on

the " Credentials " link. [Note: The current text

of many of Dr. King's pertinent articles on

vaccines and Thimerosal are posted on, and can

be downloaded from, the " Documents " section of

http://www.mercury-freedrugs.org/, the web site

of CoMeD.]