For the past ten years or so I have felt a deep and growing compunction
against giving routine immunizations to children. It began with the
fundamental belief that people have the right to make that choice for
themselves. Soon I found I could no longer bring myself to give the
injections even when the parents asked me to.
 

"The attempt to eradicate entire microbial species from the biosphere must
inevitably upset the balance of Nature in fundamental ways that we can
barely imagine. Such concerns loom ever larger as new vaccines continue to
be developed for no better reason than that we have the technical capacity
to make them, and to manipulate the evolutionary process itself." 
 

At bottom, I have always felt that the attempt to eradicate entire
microbial species from the biosphere must inevitably upset the balance of
Nature in fundamental ways that we can barely imagine. Such concerns loom
ever larger as new vaccines continue to be developed for no better reason
than that we have the technical capacity to make them, thus demonstrating
our right and power as a civilization to manipulate the evolutionary
process itself.

Purely from the viewpoint of our own species, even if we could be sure that
the vaccines were harmless, the fact remains that they are compulsory, that
all children are required to undergo them regardless of individual
susceptibility, to say nothing of the wishes of the parents or the children
themselves.

Most people can readily accept the fact that at times certain laws are
necessary for the public good that some of us strongly disagree with, but
the issue in this case involves the wholesale introduction of foreign
proteins or even live viruses into the bloodstream of entire populations.
For that reason alone, the public is surely entitled to convincing proof,
beyond any reasonable doubt, that artificial immunization is in fact a safe
and effective procedure in no way injurious to health, and that the threat
of the corresponding natural disease remains sufficiently clear and urgent
to warrant vaccinating everyone, even against their will if necessary.

Unfortunately, convincing proof of safety and efficacy has never been
given; and, even if it could be, continuing to employ vaccines that are no
longer prevalent or no longer dangerous hardly qualifies as an emergency.
Finally, even if such an emergency did exist and artificial immunization
could be shown to be an appropriate response to it, the decision to
vaccinate would remain essentially a political one, involving issues of
public health and safety that are far too important to be settled by any
purely scientific or technical criteria, or indeed by any criteria less
authoritative than the clearly articulated sense of the community that is
about to be subjected to it.

For all of these reasons, I want to present the case against routine
immunization as clearly and forcefully as I can. What I have to say is as
yet not quite a formal theory capable of rigorous proof or disproof, but
simply an attempt to explain my own experience, a nexus of interrelated
facts, observations, reflections, and hypotheses that are more or less
coherent and, taken together, make intuitive sense to me. I offer them to
the public because the growing refusal of parents to vaccinate their
children is seldom articulated or taken seriously. The truth is that we
have been taught to accept vaccination as a kind of sacrament of our loyal
participation in the unrestricted growth of scientific and industrial
technology, utterly heedless of the long-term consequences to the health of
our own species, let alone to the balance of Nature as a whole. For that
reason alone, the other side of the case urgently needs to be heard.
 
 

Are the Vaccines Effective?
There is widespread agreement that the time period since the common
vaccines were introduced has seen a remarkable decline in the incidence and
severity of the natural diseases corresponding to them. But the facile
assumption that the decline is also attributable to them remains unproven,
and continues to be questioned by eminent authorities in the field. With
whooping cough, for instance, both the incidence and severity had already
begun to decline precipitously long before the vaccine was introduced,
[note 1] a fact which led the epidemiologist C. C. Dauer to remark, as far
back as 1943:

If mortality [from pertussis] continues to decline at the same rate during
the next fifteen years [as in the last fifteen], it will be extremely
difficult to show statistically that [pertussis vaccination] had any effect
in reducing mortality from whooping cough. [note 2] 
Much the same is true not only of diphtheria and tetanus. but of TB,
cholera, typhoid, and other common scourges of a bygone era, which negan to
disappear rapidly at the end of the nineteenth century, doubtless partly in
response to improvements in sanitation and public health, but in any case
long before antibiotics, vaccines, or any specific medical initiatives to
combat them. [note 3] Similar reflections prompted the celebrated
microbiologist René Dubos to observe that microbial diseases have their own
natural history, with or without drugs and vaccines, in which symbiosis and
asymptomatic infections are far more common than overt disease:

It is barely recognized but nevertheless true that animals and plants as
well as men can live peacefully with their most notorious enemies. The
world is obsessed by the fact that poliomyelitis can kill or maim several
thousand unfortunate victims every year. But more extraordinary is the fact
that millions upon millions of young people become infected by polio
viruses yet suffer no harm from the infection. The dramatic episodes of
conflict between men and microbes are what strike the mind. What is less
readily apprehended is the more common fact that infection can occur
without producing disease. [note 4] 
The principal evidence that the vaccines are effective dates from the more
recent period, during which the dreaded polio epidemics of the 1940's and
1950's have never reappeared in the developed countries, and measles,
mumps, and rubella, which even a generation ago were among the commonest
diseases of childhood, have become far less prevalent in their classic
acute forms since the MMR vaccine was introduced into common use.

But how the vaccines have accomplished these changes is not nearly as well
understood as most people assume it is. The disturbing possibility that
they act in some other way than by producing a genuine immunity is
suggested by the fact that the diseases in question have continued to break
even in highly vaccinated populations, and that in such cases the observed
differences in incidence and severity have often been far less dramatic
than expected, and in some cases not measurably significant at all.

In a recent British outbreak of whooping cough, for example, even fully
vaccinated children contracted the disease in substantial numbers, and the
rate of serious or fatal complications was reduced only slightly. [note 5]
In another pertussis outbreak, 46 of the 85 fully vaccinated kids studied
eventually came down with the disease. [note 6] In 1977, 34 cases of
measles were reported on the campus of UCLA in a student population that
was 91% "immune," according to careful serological testing. [note 7] In
Pecos, New Mexico, during a period of a few months in 1981, 15 out of 20
reported cases of measles had been vaccinated, some of them quite recently.
[note 8] A recent survey of sixth-graders in a fully-vaccinated urban
community demonstrated that about 15% of this age group are still
susceptible to rubella, a figure essentially identical with that of the
pre-vaccine era. [note 9] Finallly, although the yearly incidence of
measles in the U. S. has fallen sharply from about 400,000 cases in the
early 1960's to about 30,000 cases by 1974-76, the death rate remained
exactly the same; [note 10] and, with the peak incidence now in adolescents
and young adults, the risk of pneumonia and liver enzyme abnormalities has
risen to 3% and 20%, respectively. [note 11]

The usual way to explain these discrepancies is simply to concede that
vaccines confer only partial or temporary immunity, which sounds reasonable
enough, since they consist either of live viruses rendered less virulent by
serial passage in tissue culture, or bacteria or bacterial proteins that
have been killed or denatured by heat, such that they can still elicit an
antibody response but no longer initiate the full-blown acute disease.
Because the vaccine is therefore a "trick," simulating the true or natural
immune response developed in the course of the actual disease, it is
certainly plausible to expect that such artificial immunity will tend to
wear off rather easily, and perhaps even require additional booster doses
at intervals throughout life to maintain optimal effectiveness.

But such an explanation would itself be disturbing enough for most people.
Indeed, the basic fallacy inherent in it is painfully evident in the fact
that there is no way to predict how long this partial or temporary immunity
will last in any given individual, or how often it will need to be
restimulated, because the answers to these questions clearly depend on the
same mysterious variables that would have determined whether and how
severely the same person, unvaccinated, would have contracted the disease
in the first place.

In any case, a number of other observations argue just as strongly that
this explanation cannot be the correct one. First, it has been clearly
shown that when children vaccinated against the measles again become
susceptible to it, booster doses have little or no effect. [note 12]
Moreover, in addition to producing pale or mild copies of the natural
disease, nearly all vaccines also produce a variety of symptoms and
ailments of their own, some of them more serious, involving deeper
structures, more vital organs, showing less tendency to resolve
spontaneously, and often more difficult to recognize as well.
 

Part 2

"The vaccine-related ailments we are aware of represent only a small part
of the problem, and many others will be identified once we look for them.
But even these few make it less and less plausible to suppose that vaccines
produce a natural or healthy immunity that lasts for some time but then
wears off, leaving patients unharmed and unaffected by the experience." 
 

Thus in a recent outbreak of the mumps in supposedly immune schoolchildren,
several patients developed unusual symptoms such as vomiting, anorexia, and
erythematous rashes without parotid involvement, and the diagnosis required
extensive serological testing to exclude other diseases. [note 13] The
syndrome known as "atypical measles" is just as vague and covers a
sufficiently broad spectrum to be easily confused with other infections or
missed altogether, [note 14] even when it is thought of, and even though
the illness may be considerably worse than the wild type, with severe pain,
pneumonia, clotting defects, and generalized edema. [note 15] Indeed, I
have the sense that the vaccine-related ailments we are presently aware of
represent only a very small part of the problem, and that many others will
be identified once we take the trouble to look for them. But even the few
that have been described make it less and less plausible to suppose that
vaccines produce a natural or healthy immunity that lasts for some time but
then "wears off," leaving patients miraculously unharmed and unaffected by
the experience.
 
 

Personal Experiences with Vaccine-Related Illness
I would like to present a few vaccine-related cases, in part to show how
varied, chronic, and difficult to trace they can be, but also to begin to
address the crucial question that is so rarely asked, namely, how the
vaccines actually work, and what effects they actually produce inside the
human body.

In January of 1977, I saw an 8-month-old girl for recurrent fever of
unknown origin, shortly after her third episode. These were brief but
intense, lasting 48 hours at most, but usually reaching 105°F. During one
episode she was hospitalized for tests, but her pediatrician found nothing
out of the ordinary, and otherwise the child appeared to be quite well and
growing and developing normally. The only peculiar thing I could learn from
the mother was that all three episodes had occurred almost exactly one
month apart, and, on consulting her calendar, that the first one had come
just one month after the third and last of her DPT injections, which had
also been given at monthly intervals. With the help of these calculations,
the mother then also remembered that the child had had equally high fevers
within hours of each shot, but the doctor had ignored them as common
reactions to the vaccine. On the slender thread of that history with
nothing else to go on, I gave the girl a single oral dose of
homeopathically diluted DPT vaccine, and she never had another episode and
has remained well since. 
This case illustrates how homeopathic remedies prepared from vaccines can
be used not only to treat but also to confirm the diagnosis of
vaccine-related illnesses, which, even when strongly suspected, might
otherwise be very difficult to substantiate. Secondly, because fever is
indeed the commonest known complication of the DPT vaccine and the child
remained quite well in between the attacks, her response appeared to be a
relatively healthy and vigorous one, disturbing in its recurrence, but
quite simple to cure. Indeed, it mainly prompted me to wonder how the
vaccine acts in those tens and hundreds of millions of children who show no
obvious response to it at all.

Since then I have seen quite a few other cases of children with recurrent
fevers of unknown origin associated with a variety of chronic complaints
such as irritability, tantrums, and increased susceptibility to
tonsillitis, sinusitis, and ear infections that were similarly traceable to
the pertussis vaccine and successfully treated with the homeopathic DPT
nosode.

In June of 1978, a 9-month-old girl was brought in with a fever of 105°F.
and very few other symptoms. Like the first case, this child had had two
such episodes in the past, but at irregular intervals. Already somewhat
ambivalent about giving her any vaccines at all, the parents had belatedly
consented to the first DPT, but no more, since the first episode had
occurred roughly two weeks afterward. In spite of the usual acute fever
remedies and other supportive measures, the temperature held at 104-105°
for 48 hours, so I decided to investigate further. The only notable finding
was an extremely high white-cell count of 32,000 per cu.mm., of which 25%
were neutrophils, many with toxic granulations,43% lymphocytes, 11%
monocytes, and 21% young and immature forms. Knowing nothing else about the
child, a pediatrician friend to whom I showed the slide immediately
recognized it as pertussis. As before, I gave a single oral dose of the
homeopathic DPT nosode, and the fever came down abruptly within an hour or
so, and the child has remained well since. 
This case was disturbing mainly because of the high white count, which was
nearing the leukemia range, the abnormal blood picture, and the absence of
any cough or respiratory symptoms, which again suggest that introducing the
vaccine directly into the blood may in fact promote deeper, more systemic
pathology than allowing the pertussis organism to set up typical symptoms
of local inflammation at the normal portal of entry.

In August of 1978, one of my teachers, a GP of over 40 years'experience,
invited me to see one of his patients, a 5-year-old boywith chronic
lymphocytic leukemia, which had first appeared soonafter a DPT vaccination.
Though he had treated the child successfully with homeopathic remedies on
two previous occasions, with shrinkage of the liver and spleen back almost
to normal size and a dramatic improvement in the blood picture, full
relapse had occurred both times within a week or two of each successive
booster. 
That vaccines might somehow be implicated in childhood leukemia was an idea
shocking enough in itself, but it also completed the line of reasoning
opened up by the previous cases. For leukemia is precisely a cancerous
process of the blood and blood-forming organs (liver, spleen, lymph nodes,
bone marrow), which are also the principal sites of the immune system.
Insofar as the vaccines are able to produce serious effects at all, the
blood and the major immune organs are certainly the logical place to begin
looking for them.

But perhaps even more shocking to me was the fact that the boy's own
parents were so reluctant to make the connection, even when it was staring
them in the face and literally threatening their son's life. It was this
case that convinced me once and for all of the need for serious discussion
of vaccine-related illness, since rigorous experimental proof of these
matters will require years of painstaking investigation and a high level of
public commitment to back it up that so far has not been made.

Regarding the MMR vaccine, my experience has thus far been limited to a few
cases.

In December of 1980 I saw a 3-year-old boy with a month-long history of
swollen glands, loss of appetite, indigestion, and stomach aches, the
latter often quite severe and accompanied by belching, flatulence, and
explosive diarrhea. In addition to nasal congestion and redness of the
eyelids, the parents also reported unusual behavior changes, such as
extreme untidiness, wild and noisy playing, and waking at 2 a. m. to get
into their bed. 
  
The only remarkable features of the physical examination were several
enlarged, tender lymph nodes behind the ear and at the base of the skull,
locations favored by rubella, mononucleosis, and a few other infections,
and markedly swollen tonsils. This fact reminded the mother that the boy
had received the MMR vaccine in October, about two weeks before the onset
of his illness, with no apparent reaction to it at the time. Based on this
possibility, I gave the child a single dose by mouth of the homeopathic
nosode made from the rubella vaccine, and the symptoms disappeared within
48 hours and did not come back. 
  
The following April, the parents brought him back for a mild fever and a
three-week history of intermittent pain and soreness in and in front of the
right ear, with stuffy nose and other vague cold symptoms. Upon examination
the whole right side of the face appeared swollen and tender, especially
the cheek and the angle of the jaw, and the right eye was also red and
congested. Looking abit like a mild case of the mumps, he responded very
well to acute remedies and has been in good health since. 
First, this boy is a sort of prototype of the ordinary rubella vaccine
case: after two weeks, about the same interval as the normal incubation
period for rubella, a nondescript illness develops and slowly becomes more
severe than the natural disease in the same age group, with sore, swollen,
lymph nodes or abdominal or joint pains, for example, but very little rash
or fever. If the rubella component is suspected on account of the unusual
pattern of lymph node involvement, the diagnosis may be confirmed by a
favorable response to the rubella nosode. Even more interesting was the
second illness, where parotid involvement suggests a delayed activation of
the mumps vaccine component, and thus raises the frightening possibility of
"mixed" or composite responses to two, three, or more combined vaccines
either simultaneously or over time.

In April of 1981 I first saw a 4-year-old boy for chronic bilateral
soreness and enlargement of the parotids and lymph nodes around and behind
the ears, which had begun about a year earlier, when the MMR vaccine was
given, and continued with no sign of improvement. Moreover, during that
same period he had become much more prone to upper respiratory infections,
although they were not particularly severe. Since the mother was two months
pregnant and the boy not ill at the time, I was in no hurry to treat him,
but not long after the birth he developed acute bronchitis, with recurrent
swelling and tenderness of the nodes. After a dose of homeopathic rubella,
the acute illness, cough, and swollen glands promptly subsided, but two
weeks later he was back with a hard, tender nodule in the right cheek near
the angle of the jaw and some pain on chewing or opening the mouth. At that
point I gave him the mumps nosode, and he has been well ever since. 
As in the first case, the striking feature is the gradual or lingering
pattern of the condition, with a definite tendency to become chronic and
increased susceptibility to other illnesses and to weak, low-grade
reactions in general, in contrast to the vigorous responses typical of
acute diseases like measles and mumps when they are acquired naturally.

How Do Vaccines Work?
It is dangerously misleading and indeed the exact opposite of the truth to
claim that a vaccine makes us "immune" or protects us against an acute
disease, if in fact it only drives the infection deeper into the interior
and causes us to harbor it chronically, with the result that our responses
to it become weaker and weaker, and show less and less tendency to heal or
resolve themselves spontaneously. To consider that possibility, I will
examine the process of coming down with and recovering from a typical acute
disease like the measles, in contrast to what we can observe after giving
the measles vaccine.

As is well known, measles is primarily a virus of the respiratory tract,
both because it is acquired by inhalation of infected droplets in the air,
and because these droplets are produced by coughing and sneezing of
patients with the disease. Once inhaled by a susceptible person, the virus
then undergoes a long period of silent multiplication, first in the
tonsils, adenoids, and accessory lymphoid tissues of the nasopharynx, later
in the regional lymph nodes of the head and neck, and eventually, several
days later, passes into the blood and enters the spleen, the liver, the
thymus, and the bone marrow, the visceral organs of the immune system.
[note 16] Throughout this "incubation period," lasting from 10 to 14 days,
the patient usually feels quite well, and experiences few if any symptoms.
[notes 17]

By the time that the first symptoms appear, circulating antibodies are
already detectable in the blood, while the height of the symptomatology
coincides with the peak of the antibody response. [note 18] In other words,
the illness we know as "the measles" is precisely the attempt of the immune
system to eliminate the virus from the blood, mainly by sneezing and
coughing, i. e., via the same route that it entered in the first place.

Moreover, the process of coming down with and recovering from an acute
illness like the measles involves a general mobilization of the entire
immune system, including

1) inflammation of previously sensitized tissues at the portal of entry;

2) activation of white cells and macrophages that find and destroy the
foreign elements;

3) release of special serum protein fractions to expedite these operations;

and numerous other mechanisms, of which the production of specific
antibodies is only one, and by no means the most important.

This splendid outpouring leaves little room for doubt that acute illnesses
are in fact the decisive experiences in the normal, physiological
maturation of the immune system as a whole. For not only will children who
recover from the measles never again be susceptible to it; [note 19] such
an experience must also prepare them to respond even more promptly and
effectively to whatever other infections they may acquire in the future.
Indeed, the ability to mount a vigorous, acute response to organisms of
this type must be reckoned among the fundamental requirements of general
health and well-being.
 

"When the attenuated measles virus is injected into the blood, it bypasses
the normal portal of entry, producing no incubation period, no local
sensitization, and no generalized response. We have introduced the virus
directly into the blood and given it free access to the major organs with
no way of getting rid of it." 
 

In contrast, when the artificially attenuated measles virus is injected
directly into the blood, it bypasses the normal portal of entry, producing
at most a brief, mild inflammatory reaction at the injection site, but no
incubation period, no local sensitization, no real possibility of
eliminating it via the same route, and no generalized immune response to
prime the immune system in the future. Indeed, by cheating the body in this
fashion, we have accomplished precisely what the evolution of the immune
system seems to have been designed to prevent: we have introduced the virus
directly into the blood and given it free, immediate access to the major
immune organs without any obvious way of getting rid of it.

To be sure, we have also achieved the production of specific antibodies
against the virus, which can be measured in the blood, but now only as an
isolated technical feat, with no massive outpouring and no general
improvement in the health of the organism. Indeed, I fear, exactly the
opposite is true: the exorbitant price we have to pay for these antibodies
is for the maintenance of the virus in the cells of the immune system for
prolonged periods of time, maybe permanently, which in turn presupposes a
generalized weakening of our capacity to mount an effective response not
only to measles, but to other acute infections as well.

Far from producing a genuine immunity, then, I fear that vaccines act by
suppressing or interfering with the immune response as a whole, as
radiation, chemotherapy, steroids, and other anti-inflammatory drugs do.
Artificial immunization isolates antibody production, a single aspect of
the immune process, and allows it to stand for the whole, in somewhat the
same way that chemical suppression of an elevated blood pressure is taken
as a valid substitute for healing the patient whose blood pressure happens
to be elevated. My suspicion is that vaccines also make it more difficult
to mount a vigorous, acute response to infection in general, by
substituting a much weaker chronic response with little or no tendency to
heal itself spontaneously.

Moreover, adequate models already exist to predict and identify the types
of chronic disease that are likely to result from viruses and other foreign
proteins remaining permanently within the cells of the immune system. It
has been known for decades that live viruses, for example, can remain
latent for years within the host cells without continually or indeed ever
provoking acute disease. In most cases, this is achieved by attaching their
own genetic material as an extra particle or "episome" to that of the host
cell and reproducing along with it, allowing the host cell to continue its
normal functions for the most part, provided it follows encoded
instructions to synthesize viral proteins at the same time. [note 20]
 
 
 

Latent viruses have already been implicated in three distinct kinds of
chronic disease, namely,

1) recurrent acute diseases, such as herpes, shingles, warts, etc.; [note 21]

2)"slow-virus" diseases, which are subacute or chronic, usually
progressive, and often fatal, such as kuru, Creuzfeldt-Jakob disease,
subacute sclerosing panencephalitis (SSPE), and perhaps Guillain-Barré
syndrome; [note 22] and

3) some tumors, both benign and malignant. [note 23]

In all of these forms, the latent virus survives as a foreign element
within the target cell, so that the immune system must continue to make
antibodies against it to the extent that it can still respond to it at all;
but with the virus permanently integrated into the genetic material of the
host cell, these antibodies will now have to be directed against the cell
itself. The persistence of live viruses and other foreign antigens within
the host thus cannot fail to provoke autoimmune phenomena, because
destroying the infected cells is now the only possible way for this
constant antigenic challenge to be removed from the body. Since routine
vaccination introduces live viruses and other highly antigenic material
into the bloodstream of virtually every living person, it is difficult to
escape the conclusion that a significant harvest of autoimmune diseases
must surely result.

As Sir Macfarlane Burnet observed many years ago, the various components of
the immune system all work together as if designed to help the organism to
distinguish "self" from "non-self," i. e., to help us recognize and
tolerate our own cells while identifying and eliminating foreign substances
and life forms as completely as possible. [note 24] As the most familiar
examples he cites our ability not only to mount an acute response to
infection, but also to reject transplanted tissues or "homografts" from
others of the same species, both of which achieve complete and permanent
removal of the offending substance from the organism.
 

"Latent viruses, autoimmune phenomena, and cancer exemplify varying degrees
of chronic immune failure, wherein it becomes equally difficult for the
immune system to recognize its cells as unambiguously its own or to
eliminate its parasites as unequivocally foreign." 
 

If he is correct, then latent viruses, autoimmune phenomena, and cancer
evidently represent simply different aspects of the same basic dilemma,
which the immune system cannot escape or resolve. For all of them exemplify
varying degrees of chronic immune failure, states in which it becomes
equally difficult for the immune system to recognize its cells as
unambiguously its own and to eliminate its parasites as unequivocally foreign.

In the case of the measles vaccine, for example, introducing the attenuated
live virus directly into the blood may well provoke an antibody response to
it for a considerable period of time, which is the whole point of giving
it, after all. But once the virus becomes latent in the cell, the serum
concentration of circulating antibodies is very likely to wane, because
they seldom cross the cell membrane and are also powerfully
immunosuppressive in their own right. [note 25] Indeed, the probable effect
of circulating antibody after that would only be to keep the virus confined
within cells and thus prevent any acute inflammatory response to it, until
eventually, perhaps under cumulative stress or emergency circumstances,
this precarious balance collapses, and antibodies are produced in large
numbers against the cells, resulting in tissue destruction and other
autoimmune phenomena. In this sense, latent viruses are like biological
"time bombs," set to explode at an indeterminate time in the future. [note 26]

Autoimmune diseases have always seemed obscure, aberrant, and bizarre
because nobody has ever proposed a valid reason why living organisms would
suddenly begin to attack and destroy their own tissues. They make a lot
more sense, and must indeed be reckoned as "healthy," if destroying
chronically infected cells is the only way to eliminate their persistent
and even more serious threat to life.

If that is true, then tumor formation could also be understood as simply
another more advanced stage of chronic immune failure, as the host,
weakened by the strain of attempting to make antibodies against itself,
gradually becomes less and less able to withstand it, and eventually the
chronically infected and genetically transformed cells, no longer
unequivocally "self" or "non-self," begin to free themselves from the
normal restraints of "histocompatibility" within the architecture of the
surrounding tissues and to multiply more or less autonomously at their
expense. Tumors might then be described as "benign" insofar as the loss of
histocompatibility remains strictly limited to their cell type or tissue of
origin, and "malignant" to the extent that it spreads to other cell types,
tissues, and organs, and even more remotely to other areas in the body.
 

"If these speculations are accurate, the net effect of artificial
immunization will have been to trade off the acute epidemic diseases of
past centuries for the weaker, less curable chronic diseases of today,
whose cumulative suffering continues to appreciate throughout life, and to
introduce the new possibility of ongoing genetic recombination within the
cells of the race." 
 

In any case, if these speculations turn out to be accurate, the net effect
of artificial immunization will have been merely to trade off the acute,
epidemic diseases of past centuries for the weaker but far less curable
chronic diseases of today, whose accumulated suffering and disability
continue to appreciate through life, like a high-interest mortgage loan. In
the process, we have also introduced limitless new evolutionary
possibilities for the future of ongoing in vivo genetic recombination
within the cells of the race.
 
 

The Individual Vaccines Reconsidered
While the foregoing was addressed to the vaccination process in general,
the equation looks a bit different for each of the vaccines and diseases in
question and merits separate consideration.

Currently administered as a single intramuscular injection at 15 months of
age, the triple MMR vaccine is composed of attenuated, live measles, mumps,
and rubella viruses. Boosters are recommended only for women of
childbearing age, when the risk of congenital rubella syndrome is thought
to warrant it, although the effectiveness of the repeat dose is highly
questionable.

Before the vaccine era, all three diseases were contracted by most
schoolchildren before the age of puberty, of whom the vast majority
recovered completely, with lifelong immunity and no complications. But they
were not always so harmless. Measles, in particular, can devastate a
population encountering it for the first time. Carrying it with them into
Mexico undoubtedly contributed to the Spaniards' conquest of the Aztec
Empire, in which entire villages were decimated by epidemics of smallpox
and measles, leaving only small remnants of cowed and weakened survivors to
face the bearded horsemen from across the sea. [note 27] In more recent
outbreaks among isolated, primitive peoples, the death rate among measles
cases averaged 20 to 30%.[note 28]

In most of these "virgin-soil" epidemics, not only measles but also polio
and other similar diseases exact their highest toll of death and serious
complications among adolescents and young adults in the prime of life,
leaving relatively unharmed the group of school-age children before the age
of puberty. [note 29] This means that the evolution of a disease like
measles from a dreaded killer to a routine disease of childhood is
accomplished by the development of "herd" immunity in young children, such
when exposed they can activate nonspecific defense mechanisms already in
place, resulting in the prolonged incubation period and isially benign,
self-limited course described above.

Under these circumstances, the rationale for vaccinating young children
against measles is simply that a very small number of deaths and serious
complications still occur, mainly pneumonia, encephalitis, and the rare but
dreaded subacute sclerosing panencephalitis (SSPE), a "slow-virus" form of
the disease with a reported incidence of 1 in every 100,000 cases. [note
30] Pneumonia, by far the commonest complication, is for the most part
benign and self-limited, [note 31] and even bacterial pneumonia developing
on top of it can be treated effectively.

Now that the death rate from the disease has become so low, the risk of
serious complications so minor, and the benefit to kids recovering from it
so great, the vaccine, even if it reduced these risks still further, would
not be worth the high probability of autoimmune diseases, cancer, and
whatever else may result from the propagation of latent measles virus in
human tissue culture for life. Ironically, what it has already done is to
reverse the natural evolutionary process back to its point of origin, where
the disease is seen once again primarily in adolescents and young adults,
[note 32] and results in more complications and a usually nastier and more
disabling clinical course than it does in younger children.

As for the claim that the vaccine has helped to eliminate measles
encephalitis, in my own small general practice I have already seen two
children with major seizure disorders which the parents were quite certain
had arisen from bad reactions to the measles vaccine, alhough they would
never have been able to prove the connection in a court of law and had
never even considered the possibility of compensation. Such cases are never
included in the official statistics and are therefore routinely omitted
from most surveys of the problem. Indeed, merely injecting the virus into
the blood would naturally promote the development of visceral complications
involving the lungs, liver, and brain, for all of which measles has a known
affinity.

Similarly, the case for immunizing against mumps and rubella seems even
more tenuous, for exactly the same reasons. When contracted by children
before the age of puberty, it too is a benign, self-limiting disease,
recovery from which almost always confers lifelong immunity. The principal
complication is meningoencephalitis, of which mild or subclinical forms are
not uncommon, but the death rate is extremely low, as is the risk of
serious or permanent impairment. [note 33]

The mumps vaccine is prepared and administered in exactly the same way as
the measles, usually in the same injection, and the dangers associated with
it are likewise comparable. Unfortunately, as a result of vaccination it
too has become largely a disease of adolescents and young adults, [note 34]
age groups which tolerate it much less well. Its commonest and most
notorious complication is acute epididymoorchitis, which occurs in 30 to
40% of males affected past the age of puberty, and usually results in
atrophy of the testicle on the affected side, [note 35] but the virus has
shown a predisposition to attack the ovary and pancreas as well. The
greatest favor we could do for our children would be to expose them to
measles and mumps when they are six or seven, which would not only protect
them from contracting more serious forms of these diseases when they grow
older, but also assist their immunological maturation with minimal risk. It
almost goes without saying that this is very close to the actual historical
evolution of these illnesses before the MMR was introduced.

The same discrepancy is evident in the case of rubella, or "German
measles," which in young children is an illness so mild that it often goes
undetected, [note 36] while in adolescents and young adults it is more apt
to be associated with arthritis, purpura, and other signs of deeper
involvement. [note 37] The sole impetus for developing a vaccine was the
recognition of congenital rubella syndrome, involving viral damage to the
developing embryo in utero during the first three months of pregnancy,
[note 38] and the peak of CRS incidence traceable to the rubella outbreak
of 1964. Once again, mandatory vaccination has transformed an almost
entirely benign, self-limiting illness into a considerably nastier disease
among teenagers and young adults of reproductive age, precisely the group
that most needs to be protected from it. By far the most effective way to
prevent CRS would be simply to expose our children to rubella in grade
school: reinfection does sometimes occur, but much less commonly than after
vaccination. [note 39]

In the case of diphtheria and tetanus, the equation looks rather different.
First, both diseases are serious and at times fatal, even with the finest
treatment: this is especially true of tetanus, which still carries a
mortality rate of 20 to 50%. Second, both vaccines are prepared not with
living diphtheria and tetanus organisms, but only from poisonous substances
elaborated by them, which remain highly antigenic even when inactivated by
heat, and protect not against infection per se, but against the systemic
effect of these toxins, without which both infections would be of minor
significance.

It is easy to understand why parents would want to protect their children
against these diseases, if safe and effective vaccines were available, and
since both diphtheria and tetanus toxoid have been in use for a long time,
with a very good safety record on the whole, there has never been much
public outcry against them. On the other hand, both diseases are readily
controlled by good sanitation and careful attention to wound hygiene, and
both have been disappearing rapidly from the developed world since long
before the vaccines were introduced.

Diphtheria still occurs sporadically in the United States, often in areas
with significant reservoirs of unvaccinated children, but the toxoid is not
very protective once the disease actually breaks out, "susceptibles" being
no more likely to come down with it than their fully immunized classmates.
Thus in the Chicago outbreak of 1969, 25% of the cases had been fully
immunized; 12% had received one or more doses of toxoid and serologically
tested as fully immune; and 18% tested partly immune by the same criteria.
[note 40] So once again we must face the probability that the toxoid has
produced not a genuine immunity to the disease, but rather some sort of
chronic immune tolerance to it, by harboring highly antigenic residues
somewhere within the cells of the immune system, with probable long-term
suppressive effects on the immune mechanism in general. This risk is
further compounded by the fact that all three of the DPT vaccines are
alum-precipitated and preserved with Thiomersal, an organomercury compound,
to retard their metabolic breakdown and excretion, so that the antigenic
challenge they pose will continue for as long as possible. The truth is
that we do not know and have never even attempted to discover what actually
becomes of these foreign substances inside the human body.

Precisely the same difficulties complicate the generally favorable record
of tetanus toxoid, which has clearly had at least some impact on the
decline of this dreadful disease in its classic form, yet presumably also
survives in the body for years or decades as a potent foreign antigen, with
long-term effects on the immune system and elsewhere that as yet we can
only imagine.

Like diphtheria and tetanus, whooping cough as a public health threat had
already begun to decline precipitously well before the pertussis vaccine
was introduced. Moreover, the latter has not been very effective, as even
its proponents concede, and both the extent and the severity of its side
effects have been disturbingly high. Its power to damage the central
nervous system, for example, has received increasing attention since
Stewart and his colleagues reported an alarmingly high incidence of
encephalopathy and serious convulsive disorders in British children that
were directly traceable to the pertussis vaccine. [note 41] My own cases,
of which a few were reported earlier, suggest that hematological
disturbances may be equally prevalent. In any event, the complications that
are known clearly represent only a small fraction of the total, and the
vaccine has become controversial even in the United States, where medical
opinion has remained virtually unanimous in favor of vaccines generally,
while several other countries, such as West Germany, have discontinued it
as a routine practice. [note 42]

Clinically, whooping cough is extremely variable in severity, ranging from
asymptomatic, mild, or in apparent infections, which are quite common, to
very rare and sometimes fatal cases in young infants less than 5 months
old, in whom the mortality is said to approach 40%.[note 43] In children
over a year old, it is rarely fatal or even all that serious, and
antibiotics have little to do with the outcome. [note 44]

Much of the pressure to immunize at present must therefore be ascribed to
the higher death rate in young infants, which has led to the terrifying
practice of giving this most dangerous of vaccines to babies at 2, 4, and 6
months, when their mothers' milk could have protected them from all
infections about as well as it can ever be done, [note 45] and its effect
on the developing blood and nervous systems could well be catastrophic. For
all of these reasons, the practice of mandatory immunization against
pertussis should be discontinued immediately, and studies undertaken to
assess and compensate the damage that it has already done.

Poliomyelitis and the two main polio vaccines present an entirely different
situation. The standard Sabin vaccine is trivalent, consisting of
attenuated live polio viruses of each of the three strains associated with
paralytic disease, and seems quite safe, partly because it is administered
orally, the same way the infection is acquired, thus allowing recipients to
develop a kind of natural immunity at the normal portal of entry, the GI
tract.

On the other hand, the wild-type poliovirus elicits no symptoms of any kind
in over 95% of the people exposed to it, even under epidemic conditions,
[note 46] and only 1 or 2% of those who become symptomatic ever progress to
the neurological picture of poliomyelitis, with its destructive lesions in
the motor tracts of the spinal cord and medulla oblongata. [note 47]
Poliomyelitis thus cannot develop without a particular anatomical
susceptibility in the host. Even in the full-scale epidemics of the 1950's,
the attack rate of the poliovirus remained very low, and the number of
cases resulting in death or permanent impairment remarkably small, in
comparison with the huge number of people exposed and at risk for it. [note
48]

Since the virus was more or less ubiquitous in the pre-vaccine era, and
could be found routinely in samples of city sewage wherever it was looked
for, [note 49] effective natural immunity to it was already about as close
to being universal as it could ever be, and it remains highly doubtful if
any artificial substitute could equal or even approximate that result.
Indeed, because the virulence of the wild-type virus was so low to begin
with, it is difficult to see what further attenuation of it could possibly
accomplish other than weaken the natural vigor of the immune response at
the same time. For the fact remains that even the attenuated virus is still
alive, and the people who were anatomically susceptible to the wild type
are presumably still susceptible to it now, so that some of them will
develop paralytic disease from the vaccine, [note 50] while others may
continue to harbor the virus in latent form, perhaps within the same target
cells.

Seemingly the only advantage of giving the vaccine, then, would be to
introduce the virus during infancy, when its virulence would normally be
lowest anyway, [note 51] a benefit more than offset by the risk of
weakening the immune response, as above. In any case, even for the polio
vaccine, which is about as safe as any vaccine can ever be, the whole
matter is clearly one of enormous complexity, and well illustrates the
hidden pitfalls and miscalculations inherent in the temptation to beat
nature at her own game, by trying to eliminate a problem that can't be
eliminated, namely, the susceptibility to disease itself. Perhaps the day
may come when we can face the consequences of having fed live viruses to
babies by the hundreds of millions, and can admit that we should have left
well enough alone by addressing the art of healing the sick when we have
to, instead of the technology of erasing the possibility of sickness when
we don't have to and can't possibly succeed in any case.
 
 

Vaccination and the Path of Medical Technology
In conclusion, I want to go back to the essentially political aspects of
the vaccine question, to our common obligation as citizens in a democratic
polity to reason and deliberate together about matters of mutual concern
and to reach a clear and wise decision about how we choose to live. Now
that I have stated my views on the safety and effectiveness of the usual
childhood vaccines, I hope that others of differing views will come forward
and do the same. That is why I am deeply troubled by the air of fanaticism
in which vaccines are imposed on the public and serious discussion of them
is ignored or stifled by the medical authorities as if the question had
already been settled definitively and for all time. In the words of Sir
Macfarlane Burnet,

It is our pride that in a civilized country the only infectious diseases
that anyone is likely to suffer are either trivial or easily cured by
available drugs. The diseases that killed in the past have been rendered
impotent, and general principles of control have been developed that should
be applicable to any unexpected outbreak in the future. [note 52] 
Apart from the truth or falseness of these claims, they exemplify the smug
self-righteousness of a profession that worships its power to manipulate
and control Nature itself, and of a society in which, as Robert Mendelsohn
has said, "we are quick to pull the trigger, but slow to examine the
consequences of our actions." [note 53] Indeed, in the case of vaccines,
one would have to say methodically slow. In 1978, for example, when charged
by Congress to formulate guidelines for Federal compensation of
"vaccine-related injuries," the American Academy of Pediatrics issued the
following restrictions on eligibility:

1) Compensation should be made available to any child or young person under
the age of 18 years, or a contact of such person of any age, who suffers a
major reaction to a vaccine mandated for school in his or her state of
residence.

2) Such a reaction should have been previously recognized as a possible
consequence of the vaccine given.

3) Such a reaction should have occurred no more than 30 days following the
immunization. [note 54]

These restrictions would automatically exclude all of the chronic diseases
and anything other than the very few adverse reactions that have been
identified and documented thus far, which clearly represent only a small
fraction of the problem.

Nor can the government or medical establishment be considered ignorant of
the possibility that worries every parent, that vaccines cause cancer and
other chronic diseases. Precisely that spectre was raised by Prof. Robert
Simpson of Rutgers in a 1976 seminar for science writers:

Immunization programs against flu, measles, mumps, polio, and so forth may
actually be seeding humans with RNA to form latent proviruses in cells
throughout the body. These latent proviruses could be molecules in search
of diseases: when activated under proper conditions, they could cause a
variety of diseases, including rheumatoid arthritis, multiple sclerosis,
systemic lupus, Parkinson's disease, and perhaps cancer. [note 55] 
Unfortunately, this is the sort of warning that very few people are willing
or able to take seriously at this point, least of all the American Cancer
Society or the American Academy of Pediatrics. As René Dubos has said, we
all want to believe in "the miracle," regardless of the evidence:

Faith in the magical power of drugs often blunts the critical senses and
comes close to a mass hysteria at times, involving scientists and laymen
alike. Men want miracles as much today as in the past. If they do not join
one of the newer cults, they satisfy this need by worshipping at the altar
of modern science. This faith in the magical power of drugs is not new. It
has helped to give medicine the authority of a priesthood, and to recreate
the glamor of ancient mysteries. [note 56] 

"We worship the victory of technology over Nature as a bullfight celebrates
the triumph of human intelligence over the brute beast. That is why we do
not begrudge the drug companies their profits and volunteer the bodies of
our children for their latest experiments. Vaccination is a sacrament of
our participation in medical science, an auto-da-fé in the name of
civilization itself." 
 

The idea of eradicating measles or polio has become attractive to us simply
because the power of medical science makes it seem technically possible: we
worship every victory of technology over Nature, just as the bullfight
celebrates the triumph of human intelligence over the brute beast. That is
why we do not begrudge the drug companies their exorbitant profits and
gladly volunteer the bodies of our children for their latest experiments.
Vaccination is essentially a religious sacrament of our own participation
in the miracle of medical science, a veritable auto-da-fé in the name of
modern civilization itself.

Nobody in their right mind would seriously entertain the idea that if we
could somehow eliminate one by one measles and polio and all of the known
diseases of mankind, we would really be any the healthier for it, or that
other diseases at least as terrible would not quickly take their place.
Still less would a rational being imagine that the illnesses from which we
suffer are "entities" separable from the individuals who suffer them, or
that with the appropriate chemical or surgical sacrament the separation can
literally be carried out. Yet these are precisely the miracles we are
taught to believe in and the idolatries to which we in fact aspire. We
prefer to forget the older and simpler but more difficult truths, that the
susceptibility to illness is deeply rooted in our biological nature, and
that the signs and symptoms of disease are the attempt of our own life
energy to overcome whatever we are trying to overcome, trying, in short, to
heal ourselves.

The myth that we can find technical solutions for all human ailments looks
attractive at first precisely because it bypasses the problem of healing,
which is a genuine miracle in the sense that it can always fail to occur.
We are all truly at risk of illness and death at every moment; no amount of
technology can change that. Yet the mission of technical medicine is
precisely to try to change that, by standing always in the front line
against disease, and by attacking and destroying it wherever and whenever
it shows itself.

That is why, with all due respect, I cannot accept the sacraments of Merck,
Sharp & Dohme or have faith in the miracles of the Centers for Disease
Control. For myself, I prefer to stay with the miracle of life itself,
which has given us not only illness and disease but also the arts of
medicine and healing, through which we can acknowledge our pain and
vulnerability and at times, with the grace of God and the help of our
fellow humans, experience a sense of health and well-being that goes beyond
tribe or country. That is my religion, and though I will gladly share it, I
do not force it on anyone.
 
 

Postscript on Immunizations:
Directions for Future Research
In "The Case Against Immunizations," my intention was simply to understand
my own experience, to develop a coherent and plausible line of reasoning
that could make sense out of what I had read and thought about, and out of
what my patients were telling me. [note 57] The next step is to address the
issue of experimental verification, to try to sketch out how to look for
valid and repeatable evidence for the safety, efficacy, and mode of action
of the common vaccines.

In rereading my article, I was surprised to discover that even the more
speculative ideas in it could in fact be tested quite easily, using only
the standard research techniques now in common use, which naturally makes
me even more curious why such studies were not carried out long ago.
Moreover, as I indicated in the text, a number of investigators have
already entertained these ideas and even made them public. The obvious
reason why they have not been taken seriously is that they are heretical,
that even taking the time to study them would require a "paradigm shift" of
some magnitude. [note 58]
 
 

How Effective Are the Vaccines?
In the text I argued that, if vaccines act by suppressing the immune
system's normal capacity to mount an acute response to infection, then

1) a mere drop in the incidence of the acute disease can no longer be
accepted as a measure of true immunity; and

2) neither can the presence or concentration of specific antibodies, for
the same reason as the diseases in question continue to break out even in
serologically highly immune populations.

What would be a far more interesting and relevant measurement would be the
degree to which a vaccine protects against the acute disease when it
actually does break out, which could be readily ascertained by looking at
its attack rate and severity among those fully or partly "immunized," as
compared with their unvaccinated friends and neighbors. Although saying
nothing about the possibility of immunosuppression, such a study would at
least give a truer measure of the vaccine's power to do what its proponents
want them to do.

I cannot resist pointing out that all research of this kind requires a
sizable group of unimmunized people, courtesy of the same parents who are
refusing to vaccinate their kids despite the concerted efforts of the
medical and public health authorities to intimidate and punish them. The
same result could of course be achieved far more efficiently simply by
making the vaccines optional, as they are in West Germany, Sweden, the UK,
and other developed countries, and thus allowing the experimental and
control groups in effect to select themselves. Conversely, our frantic
efforts to secure 100% compliance with the present mandate succeed only in
making such studies impossible.

A closely related kind of study would be to measure the effectiveness of
revaccination at varying intervals after the original series, giving rise
in this case to two control groups:

1) the same unvaccinated group, as before, and

2) another group of children previously vaccinated whose parents decided
not to give them the subsequent booster dose.

Such a study would also measure the incidence and severity of the wild-type
or acute disease when it does break out, rather than merely the titer or
level of circulating antibody, which is probably far less relevant. On the
basis of the preliminary investigations I cited in the text, my hunch is
that both the primary and booster doses of vaccine give considerably less
protection in these situations than either a simple drop in incidence or a
rise in antibody titer would indicate. Furthermore, both kinds of study
could easily be carried out in suitable animal populations, using vaccines
against important diseases peculiar to each species, like canine distemper,
leptospirosis, feline leukemia, and so forth, inasmuch as our basic concern
remains the efficacy and mode of action of vaccines in general.

The third possibility would be to consider the relationship between
specific antibody levels and "immunity" in the larger sense, as outlined
above. This could be done relatively simply by measuring baseline antibody
titers at regular intervals in everybody, and then retrospectively
comparing them in a subgroup of vaccinated kids who later developed the
disease with another comparable subgroup who did not. Finally, both could
be compared with identical subgroups among the unvaccinated, all or most of
whom would presumably show no measurable titers at all prior to exposure.
 
 

How Do the Vaccines Act?
As I argued in the text, the problem with such studies is that they all
systematically ignore the crucial possibility that vaccines may also act
immunosuppressively and thus provoke or elicit a variety of chronic
diseases more or less insidiously over long periods of time. This is
precisely why the question of their effectiveness ultimately cannot be
studied in isolation, without also addressing their mechanism of action in
a more comprehensive fashion. Indeed, the narrow issue of "effectiveness"
is itself quite misleading, since it tends to focus our attention on the
classic acute disease, and to ignore the broad spectrum of biological
responses associated with bacteria, viruses, and the vaccines derived from
them, including latent, subclinical, and chronic infection as well. In
particular, we are already well acquainted with many situations in which
inability to develop acute disease represents the exact opposite of good
health, i. e., a condition of chronic immune tolerance rather than true
immunity.

At the most basic level, we need to study the effect of vaccines both
acutely and over the long term on various paramaters of general health and
illness. In the case of the pertussis vaccine, for example, careful
prospective studies could measure the incidence and severity of blood and
CNS abnormalities after vaccination at the usual times and at standard
intervals before and after. This could be done relatively inexpensively by
performing complete blood counts (CBC's), brief neurological exams, and
simple behavioral and psychological assessments on self-selected groups of
vaccinated and unvaccinated children.

As a supplement to the above, a number of clinical variables could also be
followed at the time of "well-child" and other pediatric visits, such as
the incidence and severity of important childhood illnesses like URI's,
tonsil, throat, sinus, and ear infections, growth and developmental
retardation, swollen glands, and the like, in vaccinated and unvaccinated
kids over a period of years. The same format would also make it possible to
sort out patterns of morbidity peculiar to each particular vaccine. Once
again, the crucial importance of large groups of unvaccinated subjects is
evident. With regard to pertussis, my clinical experience so far strongly
suggests that the vaccinated group would show a much higher incidence and
morbidity from chronic and recurrent infections, with significantly higher
rates of complications and disability (myringotomy, hearing loss, poor
school performance, etc.).

Finally, the same children could be followed through latency and
adolescence to ascertain the prevalence and severity of the whole gamut of
chronic ailments, including eczema and asthma, rheumatoid arthritis and
systemic lupus, ulcerative colitis and Crohn's disease, MS and other
degenerative diseases, hyperactivity and learning disabilities, school and
behavior problems, and leukemia and other forms of cancer. I hope I'm
wrong, but once again my clinical impression suggests that the vaccinated
group would fare significantly worse in all of these categories.

Another more limited study could trace the effect of vaccines on the
prevalence and morbidity of other acute infections to which these same
children were exposed (influenza, hepatitis, mono, Lyme disease, etc.), to
determine whether and to what extent the vaccination process interferes
with the immune system's ability to develop an acute response to infection.
In this case, there would be two control groups:

1) unvaccinated kids who were later exposed to influenza, hepatitis, mono,
and the like; and

2) unvaccinated kids who contracted and recovered from vaccine-preventable
diseases (measles, mumps, or whatever) prior to their exposure to
influenza, mono, hepatitis, etc.

Here I could simply confess a theoretical bias that both control groups,
while perhaps as likely to contract the diseases in question, would show
less acute and chronic morbidity as a result of it than their vaccinated
counterparts, a bias for which I would gladly substitute more accurate
information.

It would also be comparatively simple to design acceptable animal studies
along these same lines, to consider the possibility of vaccines acting
immunosuppressively. After vaccinating or not vaccinating a given species
against the diseases routinely targeted for that animal, we could then
measure, for example, leucocyte and macrophage activity both in vivo and in
vitro in response to various challenges, such as exposure to unrelated
infections, allergens, and chemicals. Other possibilities might include
comparing standard liver-function tests and the ability of the spleen and
bone marrow in both vaccinated and unvaccinated animals to reject
homografts or to respond to hemorrhage or blood transfusion if necessary.

Finally, on the cellular level, cytogenetic studies could also show the
effect of vaccination on karyotype and chromosome morphology, beginning
with "target" cells for which the vaccine has a known affinity (e. g.,
liver parenchymal cells in hepatitis, parotid acinar cells in mumps, etc.).
With the help of electron microscopy, painstaking examination could also
detect the presence of viral DNA or RNA "episomes" or particles inside
these same cells, and confirm the suspicion of latency and chronic
infection in the case of the live vaccines at least.

In any case, regardless of which studies are actually carried out, the
point is that the technology to do them already exists. The only obstacle
to their being done is our own refusal to acknowledge the likelihood that
vaccines are not simply "wonder drugs" producing specific antibodies and
nothing more, but complex, biological agents whose effects on the human
organism are virtually unknown and urgently need to be investigated.
 

--END--
© 2000 by Richard Moskowitz, M. D.
 

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

Notes
1. Mortimer, E., "Pertussis Immunization," Hospital Practice, October 1980,
p. 103. [back]

2. Ibid., p. 105. [back]

3. Dubos, R., Mirage of Health, Harper, 1959, p. 73. [back]

4. Ibid., pp. 74-75. [back]

5. Stewart, G., "Vaccination Against Whooping Cough: Efficiency vs. Risks,"
Lancet, 1977, p. 234. [back]

6. Medical Tribune, Jan. 10, 1979, p. 1. [back]

7. Cherry, J., "The New Epidemiology of Measles and Rubella," Hospital
Practice, July 1980, pp. 52-54. [back]

8. Unpublished data from the New Mexico Health Department. [back]

9. Lawless, M., "Rubella Susceptibility in Sixth-Graders," Pediatrics 65:
1086, June 1980. [back]

10. Cherry, op. cit., p. 49. [back]

11. Infectious Diseases, January 1982, p. 21. [back]

12. Cherry, op. cit., p. 52. [back]

13. Family Practice News, July 15, 1980, p. 2. [back]

14. Ferrante, J., "Atypical Symptoms? It Could Still Be Measles," Modern
Medicine, Sept. 30, 1980, p. 76. [back]

15. Cherry, op. cit., p. 53. [back]

16. Phillips, C., "Measles," in Vaughan, et al., Nelson's Pediatrics, 11th
Ed., Saunders, 1979, p. 857. [back]

17. Davis, B., et al., Microbiology, 2nd Ed., Harper, 1973, p. 1346. [back]

18. Ibid. [back]

19. Ibid., p. 1342. [back]

20. Ibid., p. 1418. [back]

21. Hayflick, L., "Slow Viruses," Executive Health Report, Feb. 1981, p. 4.
[back]

22. Ibid., pp. 1-4. [back]

23. Davis, op. cit., pp. 1418-1449. [back]

24. Burnet, M., The Integrity of the Body, Atheneum, 1966, p. 68. [back]

25. Talai, N., "Autoimmunity," in Fudenberg, Basic Clinical Immunology, 3rd
Ed., Lange, 1980, p. 222. [back]

26. Hayflick, op. cit., p. 4. [back]

27. McNeill, W., Plagues and Peoples, Anchor, 1976, p. 184. [back]

28. Burnet and White, Natural History of Infectious Disease, Cambridge,
1972, p. 16. [back]

29. Ibid., pp. 90, 121, et passim. [back]

30. Stegman, A., "Slow Virus Infections," in Vaughan, op. cit., p. 937. [back]

31. Phillips, op. cit., p. 860. [back]

32. Infectious Diseases, April 1979, p. 26. [back]

33. Phillips, "Mumps," in Vaughan, op. cit., p. 891. [back]

34. Hayden, G., et al., "Mumps and Mumps Vaccine in the U. S.," Continuing
Education, Sept. 1979, p. 97. [back]

35. Phillips, "Mumps," op. cit., p. 892. [back]

36. Phillips, "Rubella," op. cit., p. 863. [back]

37. Ibid., p. 862. [back]

38. Glasgow and Overall, "Congenital Rubella Syndrome," Vaughan, op. cit.,
p. 483. [back]

39. Phillips, "Rubella," op. cit., p. 865. [back]

40. Cited in Mendelsohn, R., "The Truth about Immunizations," The People's
Doctor, April 1978, p. 1. [back]

41. Stewart, op. cit., p. 234. [back]

42. Mortimer, op. cit., p. 111. [back]

43. Feigin, R., "Pertussis," in Vaughan, op. cit., p. 769. [back]

44. Ibid., p. 769. [back]

45. Barness, L., "Breast Feeding," in Vaughan, op. cit., p. 191. [back]

46. Burnet and White, op. cit., p. 91ff. [back]

47. Davis, op. cit., p. 1290ff. [back]

48. Ibid., p. 1280. [back]

49. Burnet and White, op. cit., p. 93. [back]

50. Fulginiti, V., "Problems of Poliovirus Immunization," Hospital
Practice, Aug. 1980, pp. 61-62. [back]

51. Burnet and White, op. cit., p. 95. [back]

52. Burnet, op. cit., p. 128. [back]

53. Mendelsohn, op. cit., p. 3. [back]

54. Quoted in Wehrle, P., "Vaccines, Risks, and Compensations,"Infectious
Diseases, Feb. 1982, p. 16. [back]

55. Quoted in Mendelsohn, op. cit., p. 1. [back]

56. Dubos, op. cit., p. 157. [back]

57. Moskowitz, R., "The Case Against Immunizations," Journal of the
American Institute of Homeopathy 76:7, March 1983. [back]

58. Cf. Kuhn, T., The Structure of Scientific Revolutions, 2nd Ed.,
University of Chicago, 1970, Chapters 1 and 2. [back]