IMMUNISATION

IS TT WORTH THE RISK?

By Carl Scully, MP
State Member for Smithfield

October 1992

Childhood mortality from measles and whooping�cough. 1871� 1971 England and Wales.

2.000

1.000�

Whooping�cough \

\\ Sulphonamide

100

Whooping�cough
immunization

I\ Measles
10� immunization

— i
1871 1891 І9П 19.11 1951 1971
 p

Id

ti
Ì

"First, do no harm"

� Hippocrates

!lf-(

pi?]

t»
rå

ь
и
b
 CONTENTS

Page

1. INTRODUCTION 1
2. SUMMARY AND OVERVIEW 3
3. COMPULSORY IMMUNISATION 18
1. Proof of Immunisation 18
2. Who should be excluded? 18
3. What happens now? 20
4. Is there a real "free" choice? 21
5. How can parents make a proper
assessment of the risks and
benefits of vaccines? 23
6. What are the consequences of
exclusion? 25
7. Should individual citizens pay
for the cost of a public health
measure? 27
8. Is the rationale for the
legislation questionable? 29
9. What more should be done? 31

4. THE HISTORY OF INFECTIOUS DISEASES 32

1. Diseases Generally 32
2. Smallpox 37
3. Scarlet Fever 44
4. Tuberculosis 45
5. Infectious Diseases: What really
reduced their severity? 48
 11

5. THE THEORY OF GERMS 53

1 1. The Cause or Conditions of Disease 53
2. The Body's Immune System 60
f (i) The Body's Natural Defence
Mechanism 60
(ii) Vaccines and the Body's immune
system � a conventional view 61
(iii) Vaccines and the Body's immune
system. An alternative view 62
(a) Naturally acquired measles 63
(b) Vaccinated measles 64

6. IMMUNISATION: A RISK BENEFIT ANALYSIS 67

7. WHOOPING COUGH 77
1. The Symptoms of the Disease 77
2. What are the side effects of the
vaccine 78
3. The Pertussis Vaccine and Cot Death 89
4. Whooping Cough: Does the Vaccine
give immunity? 105
(a) Vaccine failure 105
(b) Waning Immunity 107
(c) Is there a more effective
vaccine? Ill
(d) Does a decline in the uptake
'¡Щ
of vaccine lead to the higher
incidence of Whooping Cough? 112
(e) Why do epidemics still occur
with a high or low rate of
vaccination? 118
(f) Has the pertussis vaccine
reduced the severity of
Whooping Cough infection? 119
5. Whooping Cough � is it treatable? 130
6. The Whooping Cough Vaccine � where
to now? 132
Cm}

p^\
8. DIPHTHERIA AND TETANUS 135
1. Diphtheria 135
(a) How Serious is it now? 135
(b) The History of Diphtheria 136
2. Tetanus 142

3. The side effects of the diphtheria-

tetanus vaccine 144
4. Conclusion 146

MEASLES 147
1. The Risks of serious consequences
from Measles 147
2. The Historical Experience 152
3. Measles Vaccine: Adverse Reactions
from the vaccine 155
4. Measles Vaccine: Does it cause
degenerative diseases? 157
5. Does the Vaccine give immunity? 166
6. Measles Vaccine: Conclusion 171
10. MUMPS 174
Conclusion 175

11. RUBELLA fGERMAN MEASLESÏ 177

1. Is it a serious disease? 177
2. Does the vaccine give immunity? 178
3. What are the adverse consequences
of the Vaccine? 187
4. Obstetricians resist vaccination
for Rubella 196
5. Does the vaccine prevent congenital
Rubel-la? 198
6. Conclusion 201
ai

IV
pi

12. POLIOMYELITIS 203

1. The Disease and its History 203
2. The Vaccine 208
3. Conclusion 212

13. MEDICINE AS A MEANS OF SOCIAL CONTROL 214

14. CONCLUSION 229
BIBLIOGRAPHY 233
APPENDIX A
Letter from the former Minister for
Health the Hon. J. Hannaford, MLC 245
APPENDIX В
Exclusion poli f the National Health
and Medical K^earch Council 246

^)

pi

i
I*P1

иl'
I
fÄI

1. INTRODUCTION

V
i

-I

LS
 1

CHAPTER 1
INTRODUCTION

The State Government proposal to require proof of immunisation

prior to a child entering a school or child care centre
invites a detailed analysis of the whole immunisation debate.

In this paper I attempt to present the case against mass

immunisation generally and against this legislative proposal
in particular.

The role of vaccines in eradicating disease, their safety and

effectiveness are considered in detail particularly with
respect to Whooping Cough, Measles and Rubella.

The theory of what causes disease and its relevance to

immunisation is also discussed at length. In attacking mass
immunisation and aggressive marketing strategies used to
promote it such as this legislation, I accept that I will be
accused of attacking the Holy Grail of modern medicine. I
disclose at the outset my firm belief that mass immunisation
should be discontinued.

I believe that immunisation is not necessarily as safe or as

effective as many public health officials would have us
believe and certainly not the best means by which individuals
can reduce the incidence of disease. I hold this belief just
as firmly as Scientists did in the middle ages who regarded
the earth as round and not flat.
 P^

The late U.S. Pediatrician, Dr. Robert Mendlesohn had this to

say on the question of challenging preconceived views on the

virtues of immunisation:
"The greatest threat of childhood disease lies in i
the dangerous and ineffectual efforts made to }
prevent them through mass immunisation.
Щ
I know, as I write that line, that this concept is
one that you may find difficult to accept. i
Immunisations have been so artfully and aggressively m
marketed that most patients believe them to be the
"miracle" that has eliminated many once feared
diseases. Consequently, for anyone to oppose them ¿J
borders on the foolhardy. For a Pediatrician to H
attack what has become the * bread and butter' of J
pediatric practise is equivalent to a priest denying ']
the infallibility of the Pope. И
Knowing that, I can only hope that you will keep an
open mind while I present my case. Much of what m
you have been led to believe about immunisations
simply isn't true. I not only have grave
misgivings about them; If I were to follow my deep
convictions in writing this chapter, I would urge H
you to reject all inoculations for your child. I J
won't do that, because parents in about half the
States have lost the right to make that choice. "4
Doctors, not politicians have successfully lobbied \
for laws that force parents to immunise their !
children. as a prerequisite for admission to я
school. '

&Щ

I accept that it is difficult to even contemplate an argument

against immunisation when all the ideology available to the **j

medical fraternity and public health bureaucrats are used to

justify it. I

All I ask is that in reading this paper you keep an open mind
I

and at least consider the possibility that what you have been
told, and not learnt, may in fact be wrong or misleading.

Mendlesohn, R "How to Raise a Healthy Child in Spite

of your Doctor" Contemporary Books 1984 pp. 209�210.
 2. SUMMARY AND OVERVIEW

l'
pi
l'

I
 3
CHAPTER 2
SUMMARY AND OVERVIEW
The State Government proposes to legislate so as to ensure
that each child in this State is immunised prior to being
enrolled at a school or a child care centre.

There will be grounds for objection but these may be more

illusory than real. This whole issue invites a serious
consideration of the whole immunisation debate and the
desirability of promoting immunisation as a public health
tool.

Immunisation did not cause the dramatic decline in the

severity of infectious diseases earlier this century. Most
of the decline in deaths from these diseases occurred in the
century prior to vaccinations being introduced.1 Improved
nutrition, sanitation, water supply and housing had a far more
dramatic effect on these diseases that vaccinations have ever
had.2

Despite the historical evidence, immunisation is usually

presented as the magic cure which has almost eradicated from
society previous significant causes of death. This
misleading assertion is then used as one of the justifications

Joint Committee on Vaccination and Immunisation,

Whooping Cough, Department of Health and Social
Security U.K. p. 85.
See Burnet Sir M. f The Natural History of Infectious
Diseases, Cambridge, 3rd edition, 1962, p. 16
 4
for expandi • immunisation. When the rate of decline of
fatalities from infectious diseases in the pre vaccine era is
compared to the post vaccine era then the marvel of vaccines
is not so apparent.3

Once it is established that vaccines did not affect the

decline in severity of infectious diseases, they are then
credited with at least reducing their incidence. The
incidence of whooping cough and measles did decline
dramatically after the introduction of vaccination but they
had already been substantially declining in any case in the
pre vaccine era. As the rate of decline was more dramatic
after the introduction of vaccines, these are then given as
the sole reason for the substantial decline. The factors
which have almost eliminated the fatalities from infectious
diseases are given no credit for reducing the incidence of the
same disease.4 This, of course, is simply absurd.

The proposal to require all parents to provide documentary

proof with respect to immunisation is an aggressive medical
procedure. This is being pursued as a public health measure
because it is believed that if enough people are immunised

See for example Joint Committee on Vaccination and

Immunisat ion,op. cit., at pp. 85-86
And also Lovett, L.A., Immunity - Why not keep it at
p. 12
See for example, NSW Department of Health,
"Immunisation - Benefits Outweigh Risks", Public
Health Bulletin Vol. 2, No. 5 at p. 42
 5
then the risk of disease will be minimal.5 The traditional
doctor/patient relationship whereby each individual's health
is treated according to specific need is subsumed by a public
health policy which dictates that every child everywhere
should be immunised against infectious diseases.

There are risks in having yourself or your child vaccinated.

These vary from the trivial to the very serious. These risks
are usually significantly underplayed by health bureaucrats
and doctors when promoting immunisation while at the same time
the risk of serious consequences following the disease is
given dramatic promotion.6

Health bureaucrats usually compare the small risk associated

with every single child that is vaccinated to the larger risk
of the child who actually contracts the disease. As the risk
is much lower with the vaccine, it is then promoted as having
"benefits which outweigh the risks".7 However, without even
knowing the real risk of contracting the disease in the first
place, two incomparables are being compared to give a
misleading picture more favourable towards immunisation than

Anderson R.M., May R.M., "Vaccination and herd

immunity to infectious diseases", NATURE Vol. 318,
No. 28 Nov 1985 at pp. 323-329.
See for example, NSW Department of Health "Benefits
and Risks of Immunisation", 1991 at pp. 1-12
And also, Tribe P., "Why Pertussis Immunisation",
Australian Family Physician, Vol. 18, No. 8, Aug
1989, 'et pp. 985-990.
See for example, NSW Department of Health,
"Immunisation Benefits Outweigh the Risks", op. cit.
 6

might otherwise be the case.8 Prior to mass immunisation a

child stood a good chance of contracting measles, mumps or
rubella and the overwhelming majority recovered without
complications. In the case of whooping cough, it was much
less likely for a child to contract the disease which, in any
case, is usually quite treatable*9 The likelihood of
contracting tetanus was even more remote and in the case of
diphtheria10 or polio11 extremely unlikely. Parents should
ask. themselves what is the risk of contracting the disease and
then having contracted the disease, what is the risk of
serious consequences. These two risk factors should then be
compared to the risks of being vaccinated.

Few parents know that live viruses (although in a weakened

state) are used for the polio, measles, mumps and rubella
vaccines. Many studies have revealed in a number of cases
these live viruses can persist in the body for a considerable

ibid
Barrie H., "Campaign of Terror", American Journal of
the Dissabled Child", Vol. 137, Sept 1983, pp. 922-
923;
Davis, et al, "Microbiology", 3rd edition, Harper
International, p. 700.
Mendlesohn R., "How to Raise a Healthy Child in
Spite of your Doctor".
•»
Moskowitz R., "Immunisation: A Dissenting View", in
Dissent in Medicine, p. 152;
Burnet Sir M., op. cit., pp. 232-233.
мл

7
period of time.12 This persistence has been linked to
arthritis, chronic diseases and possibly even cancer.13 An
eminent U.S. Surgeon, Dr. George Crile has even gone so far as
"Щ 14
to state:

"I think that live vaccines are very dangerous ... I

would never have one ... I think that vaccinating
with living viruses is almost by definition
dangerous."

The whooping cough vaccine has probably received the most

pri
adverse publicity of any vaccine. I believe this is for good
reason and I have devoted a considerable section of this paper
just to it. Some studies have suggested a link between the
15
vaccine and Sudden Infant Death while other studies have

12
. Ronne, T "Measles Virus infection without Rash in
pi Childhood is related to disease in Adult Life" the
Lancet, Sat 5 Jan 1985 at pp. 1�5;
Chantier J.К., et al, "Persistent Rubella Virus
infection Associated with Chronic Arthritis in
Children" The New England Journal of Medicine, Oct
31, 1985, Vol. 313 No. 18 at pp. 1117�1123;
Щ
Bottiger M., Heller L., "Experiences from
vaccination and revaccination of teenage girls with
three different Rubella vaccines", Journal of
Biological Standardisation, 1976, 4 at pp. 107�114
at p. 113
13
. Moskowitz R., "Immunisation a Dissenting View" in
Dissent in Medicine, Contemporary Books, Chapter 8,
pp. 133�167;
Mendlesohn R., "Immunisation Against Disease: A
га Medical time bomb?" in How to Raise a Healthy Child
.. in spite of your Doctor, Contemporary Books, 1984
Chapter 19 pp. 209�230
Crile G., Letter to Dr. Mendlesohn referred to in
14
.
"The People's Doctor", Vol. 8, No. 12, p. 6.
is Centre for Disease Control, "DPT Vaccination and SID
� Tennessee", Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report
1979: 28: 131�2;
Barra f'y L.J., et al, "Possible Temporal Association
between Diphtheria�Tetanus Toxoid�Pertussis Vaccine
and Sudden Infant Death" Paediatric Infectious
Disease Vol. 2 No. 1;

гп
 8
either rejected such a link16or conceded that it may be a
contributing factor.17

Measles and rubella vaccines are also dealt with at length.

I have also discussed vaccines with respect to diphtheria,

tetanus and polio. Few people would be aware that the polio
vaccine has been directly linked with causing polio in a small
number of cases with respect to vaccine recipients and in
close family contacts of such recipients.18 In fact the
small number of polio cases in recent years in the United
States has been directly blamed on he vaccine itself.19

To fully appreciate the theory of immunisation it is essential

to understand the orthodox view of what causes disease as
opposed to the alternative one.

Scheibner V and Karlsson L., "Cot Death and

Vaccination Link", Natural Health Society Vol. 4,
No. 5 Aug/Sept 1991 pp. 2�4
Roberts S.C., "Vaccination and Cot deaths in
Perspective", Archives of Disease in Childhood 1987,
62, at pp. 754�759. NB: This article refers to a
number of studies which failed to find a link
between vaccination and SID.
Taylor E.M., Emery J.L., "Immunisation and Cot
Deaths", The Lancet, Sept 25th, 1982 at p. 721
Esteves К., "Safety of oral poliomyelitis vaccine:
Results of a WHO inquiry", Bulletin of the World
Health Organisation, 66(6): 739�746 (1988).
Fulginiti A., "The problems of Poliovirus
Immunisation" Hospital Practice, Aug 1980 at pp. 61�
67;
Mendlesohn R., "Confessions of a Medical Heretic"
at p. 232
 9

The orthodox view claims that disease is contracted solely or

primarily from contact with a virus or bacteria. A vaccine
directed at a particular virus or bacteria will then prevent
the disease.20 If we catch the measles, or the flu or
whooping cough solely because of contact with a virus, then
immunisation directed at this.virus should prevent the disease
from occurring.

The alternative view readily accepts that viruses and bacteria

exist but states that the symptoms of disease only appear when
each particular individual creates the conditions necessary
for them to appear. According to this view, lifestyle and
such things as good nutrition, pure water, exercise, plenty of
sleep, minimising stress and emotional trauma, no smoking and
limited alcohol consumption have more to do with the
likelihood of contracting disease than coming into contact
with a particular virus or bacteria.21

Catching a virus rather than creating disease conditions is

Nossal G. Sir, "Vaccines as Historys Most Cost

effective Public Health Tools" in Highlights in
Science ed. H. Messel, Pergamon Chapter 11.
Kalokerinos A., and Dettman G., "Second Thoughts
about Disease - A Controversy and Bechamp
Revisited";
Kalokerinos A., "Every Second Child" 1974;
Mendlesohn R., "How much Science is there in Modern
Medicine. A Dissenting View" in Dissent in
Medicine, Contemporary Books at pp. 14-17;
Allen H, "The Germ Theory Challenged" in Don't Get
Stuck! The Case against Vaccinations and Injections,
Natural Hygiene Press, Chapter 2 at pp. 3-18
 10
the dominant consideration of the medical profession and
public health officials. If a panacea is found to eliminate
disease symptoms then individuals need not take responsibility
for their own health and address the means by which they can
reduce disease conditions. In other words, a needle is
presented as the easy means by which the risk of disease is
removed without having to alter one's lifestyle.22 If this
is an accurate description of the manner in which immunisation
is promoted and received then its continued practice is worthy
of very close scrutiny.

If the removal of disease conditions had such a dramatic

effect in reducing the number of deaths from infectious
disease, then, why would they also not have at least some if
not a significant impact on the incidence of the disease
itself. Likewise, if such things as nutrition, hygiene, water
and housing were important last century in combating
infectious disease, then surely they would also be of equal
importance today.

An example is that of the incidence and fatality rate of

measles which has been found to be linked with Vitamin A
deficiency23 just as a link has been suggested between the

n
. Mendlesohn R., "Confessions of a Medical Heretic pp.
234-253.
23
. NSW Department of Health, Public Health Extracts,
1991, Vol. 2 No. 3;
Hussey^G.D., Klein M., "A Randomised Controlled
Trial of Vitamin A in Children with severe Measles",
New England Journal of Medicine 1990, 323, 3, at pp.
160-164
 11
incidence of whooping cough and low socio�economic status.24
A vitamin С deficiency has also been linked with the incidence
of disease.25 The correlation between the incidence of disease
and poor health with low socio�economic factors is well
known.26 Further, a recent study in Denmark demonstrated
I
that vigorous physical exercise substantially lowered the risk
of early death.27

I believe the distinction between cause and disease conditions

is a critical one and for this reason I have dealt at some
length with the theory of disease in Chapter 4.

Vaccinations are usually presented as a guaranteed means by

which a vaccine recipient will be immune from a particular
infectious disease.28 However, not all vaccine recipients
f
Stewart G., and Bassili W., "Immunological
24
.
evaluation of Immunisation and other factors in the
control of Whooping Cough", The Lancet, Feb 28, 1976
pp. 471�473 at p. 471;
Mendlesohn R., How to Raise a Healthy Child in Spite
of your Doctor at p. 220
2S
Kalokerinos A., Every Second Child 1974
26
For example, Caplan G.A. and Salonen J.T., "Socio-
economic conditions in Childhood and Ishaemic heart
disease during middle age" British Medical Journal
1990, 301, pp. 1121�1123.
27 Van Saase J., et al, "Longevity of men capable of
prolonged vigorous physical exercise" British
Medical Journal 1990, 301, pp. 22�29.
p 28
. Department of Health "Immunisation" 1983 HC
Publication No. (HP) 83�112;
"Immunisation, Special Report" Choice Magazine, Aug
1990 pp. 8�14;
National Health and Medical Research Council
"Recommended minimum exclusion periods from school,
pre�school and child care centre of Infectious
 12
obtain immunity from a vaccine. These are usually termed as
"vaccine failures". In the case of whooping cough, at least
20% and possibly as many as 50% of vaccine recipients fail to
get immunity from the vaccine.wIf that is not enough then by
the age of 12 most if not nearly all vaccinated children will
have no immunity against whooping cough.30 A fall in the
whooping cough vaccination rate in the mid 1970s in England
and Wales from 80% to 30% did not increase the likelihood of
an epidemic or shorten the period between them.31 This
confounded the theory of epidemics and confirmed that the
vaccine is nowhere near as effective as public health
officials would have us believe. Vaccine failure and waning
immunity in the case of the whooping cough vaccine are
confounded by the fact that the vaccine only provides some
protection for some people for a limited time only in respect

Diseases Care and Contacts" June 1992;

Fairfield City Council "Immunisation", pamphlet
issued at Immunisation Clinics to parents at the
time of vaccination of their child or children.
Penny R., "Understanding the Immune Process",
Current Therapeutics, Aug 1989, Vol. 30 No. 8;
Burgess M., "Immunisation Update: Risks and benefits
in Current Paediatric Practice", Harcourt Brace &
Jovanovich P. 14;
Mendlesohn R., "How to Raise a Healthy Child in
Spite of your Doctor", Contemporary Books p. 222.
Hewlett E., "Old and F°w Vaccines and the future
control of Pertussis' The Western Journal of
Medicine, March 1989 V 150 No. 33 pp. 319-328;
Lambert H.J., Epidemiology of a small pertussis
outbreak in Kent County, Michigan, Public Health
Report 1965: 80: pp. 365-369.
Fine -P.E., Clarkson J. A., "The Recurrence of
Whooping Cough: Possible implications for Assessment
of Vaccine Efficacy", The Lancet March 20, 1982 p.
666.
 13
of one of four possible causes of clinical whooping cough.32
Bordetella pertussis is the main cause of whooping cough
against which the vaccine is directed. However, whooping
cough can also be caused by the bordetella parapertussis or
bordetella bronchiseptica organisms.33 In addition,
adenoviruses are known to cause clinical whooping cough in
some cases.34 The whooping cough vaccine simply provides no
protection against adenoviruses, B. parapertussis or B.
bronchiseptica.

The failure rate at the point of vaccination for measles35 and

rubella36 is approximately 5% of all vaccinated children.
Vaccinated children have often been found to constitute a
significant number of those contracting a particular disease
during either a mumps, measles or rubella outbreak.37 It was
even recently conceded that the greater the level of

32
. Davis, A., et al, Microbiology, 3rd edition, p. 700.
33
. ibid
34
. ibid
35
. Gustafson T., et al "Measles Outbreak in a fully
immunised Secondary School population", New England
Journal of Medicine Vol. 316 No. 13 at p. 771.
36
. Menser M.A., et al, "Rubella Vaccination in
Australia: 1. A five year follow up of Vaccinated
Schoolgirls", Medical Journal of Australia, Sat July
29th, 1978 Vol. 2 No. 3 pp. 83-85
37 Immunisation Practices Advisory Committee, Morbidity
and Mortality Weekly Report Vol. 38 No. 509, Dec 29,
1989;
Frances B.H., et al "Rubella Screening and
Vaccination Program at a Melbourne Maternity
Hospital, The Medical Journal of Australia, June 12,
1982 pp. 502-504
 14
immunisation the higher the proportion of those contracting
the disease who have been immunised.38 That ought to be
proof enough that vaccinations do not provide a "brave new
world" of 100% guaranteed immunity against infectious disease.

In the case of the rubella vaccine many studies have shown

that in addition to vaccine failure, immunity wanes over time
to such an extent that many vaccinated women of child bearing
age do not have immunity.39

The rubella vaccine is given to males and females so as to

minimise the risk of pregnant women contracting the disease.40
By giving temporary immunity which might wane over time, the
rubella vaccination prevents naturally acquired immunity from
taking place and then places some women at risk during their
child bearing years.41 If congenital rubella syndrome is the
•-^rget and it is believed that the vaccine is safe and
active, then surely it should be directed at women
immediately prior to them planning a pregnancy. I find it
hard to comprehend that a vaccine administered to all infant
males and females is specifically directed at minimising

Monthly Infectious Diseases Report, Royal Alexander

Hospital for Children March 1991 (17), editor D.
Isaacs.
Forrest J.M., et al "Clinical Rubella 11 months
after a Vaccination", The Lancet 1972:2:399;
Francis B.H., et al, op. cit.
Nossal-G. Sir, op. cit., p. 143.
Mendlesohn R., "How to Raise a Healthy Child in
Spite of your Doctor" at p. 218.
 15
disease in pregnant adult females.

The rubella vaccine is presented as a guaranteed means by

which women in the first trimester of pregnancy will not put
their unborn child at risk.42 This, like much of the
immunisation debate is also misleading. In Sydney in 1976 a
woman who had been vaccinated for rubella three years before
and confirmed as immune by tests, contracted rubella when 10
weeks pregnant. The baby was born small and with numerous
problems which ultimately resulted in its death three months
later. A post mortem examination confirmed the diagnosis of
congenital rubella syndrome.43 A similar case but one
attributed to possible vaccine failure has also been
reported.44

From 1982 to 1990 there were only five cases of congenital

rubella syndrome.45

Just as the rubella vaccine is targeted for adult females, the

mumps vaccine is directed at adolescent males. However, like

Jones P.D., "Complete Guide to Immunisation

Part III: Adolescents and Adults" Current
Therapeutics Oct 1989 pp. 63-71 at p. 64.
Bott L.M. and Eizenberg D.H., "Congenital Rubella
after successful Vaccination", The Medical Journal
of Australia June 12, 1982 pp. 514-515.
Forrest J.M. and Menser M.A., "Failure of Rubella
Vaccination to prevent Congenital Rubella" The
Medical Journal of Australia, Jan 15, 197 at p. 77.
NSW Department of Health "Benefits and Risks of
Immunisation" p. 3.
 16
the rubella vaccine, the mumps vaccine is administered to all
infant males and females. The rationale is to prevent
pubescent males from contracting mumps and then running the
risk of it developing into orchitis which in rare
circumstances can cause severe damage to at least one testicle
and lead possibly to sterility. Like rubella in females, the
mumps vaccine prevents naturally acquired immunity and leaves
some men vulnerable after their immunity wanes over time.46

If the mumps vaccine is to protect pubescent men from

testicular damage then surely it should be limited to those
men only who, having reached puberty, have not acquired
natural immunity.47

The rationale behind making immunisation quasi-compulsory is

flawed. Vaccines do not give guaranteed immunity and do have
potentially serious side effects.

It is simply absurd and medically unsound to exclude

unimmunised children from an institution but not the "vaccine
failures". The implications of this and other discriminatory
effects of this legislation are discussed in the next chapter.

Moskowitz R., "Immunisations - A Dissenting View" in

Dissent in Medicine, Contemporary Books P. 149;
Mendlesohn R., "Confessions of a Medical Heretic" pp
232-233,.
Mendlesohn R., "How to Raise a Child in Spite of
your Doctor", p. 214.
ira

V
17

Г "Herd immunity"48 is an appropriate term when considering mass

immunisation as a means of social control. Medicine and its
practitioners are believed and followed by the vast majority
of the community unable or unwilling to question medical
т. procedures.49 Immunisation is no different. That vaccines
¡
may be unsafe or ineffective are matters which would be
considered by only a fraction of the parents or individuals
concerned if at all. Even less likely is a parent or
individual undertaking detailed research so as to make a real
informed choice on whether or not to vaccinate. These are
matters which I consider briefly at the end of this paper.

:
i

48 Anderson R.M. and May, R.M., op. cit.

49
, Mendlesohn R., "Confessions of a Medical Heretic",
pp. 238-253.
 f
'4

i
. J'
t

3. COMPULSORY IMMUNISATION

5?

'fl

ii

fi

ft

fil
 18
CHAPTER 3
COMPULSORY IMMUNISATION
1. Proof of Immunisation:
The New South Wales Government has foreshadowed legislation
requiring proof of vaccination before a child is allowed
admission to a School, a Preschool, or a Child Care Centre.

There will be grounds for objections by parents for religious,

conscience, or medical reasons. Children in this category
will be excluded from a school or a Child Care Centre in the
event of an outbreak of an infectious disease. I propose to
demonstrate that this is discriminatory, in that, children who
have been vaccinated but are not immune will not be excluded.

2. Who should be excluded?

I assume that the medical profession is generally concerned at
limiting the number of children susceptible to infectious
diseases in schools and child care centres. If so, then the
only children who should be removed in the event of an
outbreak in addition to those children who have been actually
infected, are those who have been :-

1. Vaccinated but have not acquired immunity or,

2. Not vaccinated and not acquired immunity by
contracting the disease naturally.

To limit the rempval of children to those who have been not

immunised is medically unsound and unnecessarily
 19
discriminatory. Some of these children will have acquired
natural immunity by wild infection. These children should not
be excluded. The removal of unvaccinated children with
immunity and leaving in an institution children who may be
classified as vaccine failures, is not only ridiculous but
lacks any justification in science, medicine or public health.

In the previous chapter I discussed at length the number of

children who will not receive any immunity at the point of
vaccination. This is approximately 5% in the case of Measles,
Mumps and Rubella and at least 20% in the case of Whooping
Cough. In addition, the effectiveness of vaccinated immunity
wanes considerably over time so that many children who may
have had sufficient immunity after completing the immunisation
schedule will not be protected at the point of exposure to
infection. Whooping Cough immunity wanes consistently over
time to such an extent that by twelve years after vaccination
95% of vaccinated children will not be immune to Whooping
Cough. This clearly establishes that the removal of only
unvaccinated children is nothing short of medical fraud which
is about to have the force of special legislation.

If all susceptible children are to be removed then the only

accurate, non discriminatory and medically sound manner in
which to determine just who these children are, is not by
administrative fiat, but by the blood testing of each child
whenever there •¿s an outbreak. Those children with a
confirmed low or no immunity to the particular infectious
 20
disease in question should then be excluded.

A stamp or a signature on a document, might satisfy a health

bureaucrat, or a school principal, or the Director of a child
care centre, but it is not a guarantee, by any means, that a
child actually has immunity to a particular infectious
disease. The Department of Health is pursuing selective
public health by only proposing to exclude unvaccinated
children and this is unacceptable.

3. What happens now?

The National Health and Medical Research Council has issued
guidelines for the exclusion of children with infectious
diseases from a school or a child care centre. These
guidelines are included as Appendix B.

There are twenty two infectious diseases listed and in certain

cases infected children are to be excluded for various periods
of time, depending on which particular disease.

In the cases of unimmunised children, not infected, but in

contact with an infected child, it is only in the case of
measles or whooping cough that the child is to be excluded.
This means that in the case of an outbreak of rubella, mumps,
polio, or diphtheria an unimmunised child need not be
excluded. These guidelines have been endorsed by the
Department of Health and adopted by schools and child care
centres throughout the State.
 21
Surprisingly, the guidelines make no mention whatsoever of the
need to exclude children, who have been vaccinated but are not
immune. These vaccinated susceptibles are then left at risk
of contracting the disease, by remaining at the school or
child care centre.

If it is irresponsible for parents not to have their child

immunised, then why is it that the peak health body in
Australia only requires exclusion for just two infectious
diseases. This means that all this effort to enforce proof of
documentation in respect of immunisation by legislation is
really aimed at just whooping cough and measles. As the
whooping cough vaccine is very unreliable and over time quite
ineffective, this legislation may well be named " The Measles
Exclusion Bill".

I am sure even the Department of Health would acknowledge that

its real agenda on this matter is not just measles or whooping
cough. Put simply, it is to force the vaccination rate up as
high as possible for whooping cough, diphtheria, tetanus,
measles, mumps, rubella and polio by having parents reveal
their hand by way of documentation which in turn will be a
strong encouragement to have those documents "appropriately"
completed.

4. Is there a real "free" choice?

While there are grounds for objecting the practical effect of
the legislation will be to make immunisation of all children
 22
quasi - compulsory.

If the intention of the Department of Health is to drastically

increase the vaccination rate among children then this measure
will achieve it.

Parents will be advised that they must present immunisation

documentation at the point of enrolling their child at a
preschool or school or child care centre. The manner in which
this "advice" is given and received will probably result in a
community perception that immunisation must, and not may, be
carried out. It is unlikely that the Department of Health
will have any great interest in ensuring that the parents are
aware that they still do not have to have their children
immunised.

It would take a brave parent indeed to challenge the virtue of

immunisation when all the ideology available to the medical
industry and health bureaucrats are used to justify it.
Most people simply do not question the medical profession on
health matters and immunisation is no different.

The statement "the benefits far outweigh the risks" is used so

often with respect to immunisation by the medical profession
that it ought to be now regarded as a testable medical cliche.

However, it is not regarded as anything of the kind and is

revered, more as a law of nature, which requires no scrutiny
 23
as to its validity from the community, the medical profession,
the health bureaucracy or Government. Not satisfied with this
level of influence, a coercive measure is now sought to
enforce what is promoted as a public health measure.

Medicine as a means of social control, is a matter which I

deal with briefly at the end of this paper.

5. How can parents make a proper assessment of the risks and

benefits of vaccines?
Parents and individuals must be able to properly assess the
risks of contracting the disease, the risk of serious
consequences following from that, and the risk of the vaccine
both short and very long term.

In chapter six, I deal at length with this issue and what

factors should be taken into account before making a decision
to vaccinate.

The Department of Health and doctors in this State have not

yet become as aggressive as their counterparts in most States
in the United States, where health bureaucrats and doctors
have ensured the passage of compulsory immunisation laws.

Parents and individuals simply have no choice as to whether or

not these substances will be injected into their own, or their
children's bodies. Hopefully, that will not occur in this
country, but to the extent that it might, this legislation may
be regarded as a first step and could and should be opposed on
 24
these grounds alone.

If parents and individuals are to be left with a choice on

this matter than it should be a generally "free" one. Only by
appreciating any detailed and complete arguments for and
иЯі

against the matter can an informed decision be made. The

щ pamphlets and brochures prepared by the Department of Health
L
are usually so unashamedly biased in favour of immunisation as
я
to almost make this process an impossibility.1

A special report2 on the benefits of immunisation compiled by

pi "Choice" magazine is typical of the grossly one sided manner

in which material is presented to the public under the guise
of a balanced argument. Without the benefit of the case
against immunisation, prepared by individuals or organisations
committed to opposing it, parents or individuals can never
really exercise an informed decision on the matter.

All pamphlets issued on immunisation should have a "for" and

"against" argument in the one document. Equal emphasis and
space should be devoted to each case.

ш\

The Department of Health is the appropriate body to prepare

the "for" case and an organisation such as the Natural Health
Society could prepare the "against" case. Each argument
p4)

See far example � NSW Department of Health

"Immunisation" 1983 publication No (HP) 83�112.j

Г777! Choice magazine: August, 1990.

 25
should be fully referenced to the scientific literature which
supports the case being put. Copies of all of this literature
should be deposited in each Council Library to be available
for borrowing for any person wishing to familiarise themselves
with the issues. This literature should be updated from time
to time with research, articles, papers and texts as they
become available.

If after having consumed this material and acquired a balanced

knowledge on the matter, a parent or individual still wishes
to vaccinate, then at least it will be a genuine informed
exercise of free choice and not a genuflecting acceptance of
Public .iealth" propaganda.

6. What are the consequences of exclusion?

In promoting this Legislative proposal, neither the Government
nor the Department of Health have properly considered what
effect the enforced removal of a child from an institution
will have on his or her parents.

One parent is usually required to take time off work to care

for the child during a period of quarantine. Consideration
must be given to ensuring that parents have paid leave
entitlements for this purpose and are not discriminated in
their employment.

Sick leave is onïy supposed to be used for paid leave when the
individual concerned is unable to attend work owing to his or
f™iï

26
щ\

her illness. This does not extend to the illnesses of

p children, and certainly does not extend to a healthy child
�, excluded from a school or child care centre because he or she
f" is not vaccinated against Whooping Cough or Measles.

t However, this is what one child care centre in South West

Sydney had to say on the matter:
" As this Centre caters mostly for working parents,
f we appreciate that it is hard to have time off work,
but ask that as each parent is allocated a number of
sick days per year, we feel that the parents must
take the responsibility to use their sick leave when
their children are sick"
Ü A parent taking care of a healthy child excluded because of
another child or children contracting whooping cough or
measles would use up at least two years and possibly more of
their sick leave entitlement. When both are perfectly well, I
am at a loss as to know how a medical certificate could be

[Si
obtained so that some remuneration would still be received by
the parent.

Taking leave from work for this length of time required for a
H)
measles or whooping cough outbreak could place a parent's job

3Ì
in jeopardy particularly for casual or part�time employees.
Recreational leave may not be available to such parents and
even if it were, why should they be penalised for complying
with a Public Health Exclusion policy.

Parents are still� required to pay the full amount of fees to

Г the child care centre, or school, even in the event of a

i
 27
healthy child being excluded. If a parent is a casual
employee or one with no leave entitlement, then minding a
quarantined child can be quite financially prohibitive. If
the fees are not paid then the child's place at that centre is
placed in jeopardy and as a consequence, also the parents
ability to continue in employment.

7. Should individual citizens pay for the cost of a public

health measure?
I have no difficulty with an infected child being removed to
the individual responsibility of his or her primary care
givers : the parents. Such a child requires the attention and
care of a parent during the phase of illness and this cannot
possibly be provided at a school or child care centre.

The removal of the child is justified on these grounds alone

quite apart from the public health policy of wishing to
minimise the incidences of disease.

It is appropriate that the parents bear the cost of a child

actually infected with an infectious disease as they would for
any other ailment or illness.

However, in the case of a healthy child excluded because he or

she is not immunised, quite different considerations apply.
The child is removed not because he or she requires constant
care and attention but because he or she might contract the
disease and then, before being excluded on those grounds,
might infect other children. This is clearly not an
 28
individual health measure as it maybe argued primarily in the
case of an infected child but solely a public health measure
directed at a healthy child. As such, the State should bear
the full cost to the parents of such a measure which is much
less for their child's benefit than for the rest of the
children at the particular school or child care centre in
question.

If the Department of Health is genuine in maintaining freedom

of choice on the question of immunisation then parents should
not be compelled or pressured to immunise their child for
financial reasons.

A parent of a child not vaccinated knows that substantial time

and expense will be incurred if a "healthy" exclusion occurs.
It would be tempting to vaccinate just to remove this
likelihood. Perhaps the Department of Health already
appreciates the indirect pressure on parents to vaccinate
because of cost and employment protection considerations. If
so, this should be readily acknowledged by the department.

In the case of parents with no paid leave entitlements or

ability to obtain leave without pay, they may well simply have
no choice on this matter. This is particularly so, if they
cannot afford to pay the fees of the centre or the school
while not being paid or in the event that a casual or part-
time job maybe terminated as a result of an enforced "public
health" absence.
 29
Placing a parents employment in jeopardy, the forced use of
sick leave or annual holidays, and having to pay for a vacant
place at a centre or school are all matters which should be
properly taken into account before proceeding with this
legislation.

If this State is to continue to meet the cost of public health

measures then it should also meet the full cost of this
proposal and not pass it on to affected parents. Parents who
choose not to have their children immunised, and are forced to
take care of a healthy excluded child should have their jobs
protected, special leave entitlements with pay granted, the
waiving of the pro rata fee at the centre or school and the
child's place left vacant for them during the period of
quarantine.

If these measures are adopted parents will not be

discriminated against and will be in a better position to then
exercise their free choice on the question of vaccination.

Given the very strong promotion of the virtues of immunisation

it is unlikely that many parents would choose not to vaccinate
their children. Accordingly, these proposals would be at
minimal cost to the State.

8. Is the rationale for the Legislation questionable?

The whole basis for this Legislative proposal is that
immunisation is a beneficial public health tool of minimal
 30
risk to the community.

This should not just be taken for granted but should be

scrutinised as closely as possible. The risks associated with
each vaccine, and vaccine failure rates cannot be dismissed
and must be properly considered in determining whether or not
immunisation should be left to each and every individuals own
health decision, rather than as a public health act of
coercion.

Having undertaken this paper and researched in detail the

vaccines in respect of Whooping Cough, Measles and Rubella I
am yet to be convinced that "the benefits outweighs the
risks".

In chapter five, I will discuss in detail the link between

disease conditions as a cause of ill health rather than the
"catching" of a virus. If the Department of Health spent more
time on ensuring that we took responsibility for our own
improved health and well being and not relying on a needle jab
as a "guaranteed" means of health I believe that public health
would be all the better for it.

This legislation should be rejected as coercive, a denial of

civil liberties, medically unsound and unnecessary. If it is
to be supported then the measures I have outlined with respect
to protecting parents employment, and leave entitlements, the
non payment of fees during quarantine and protecting a child's
 31
place in an institution should all be adopted.

9. What more should be done?

It is appropriate to also consider the record keeping of each
child's vaccination history. This has generally been left to
individual parents.

A central register should be kept by the Department of Health

of the details of each child's immunisation record. Any side
effects notified to a clinic or family Doctor should be passed
on to the registry. It should be standard practice that a
clinic or family Doctor follows up each vaccinated child and
records any symptoms.

Both the United States and the United Kingdom have

compensation schemes funded by the State for people seriously
injured by vaccination. New South Wales should also introduce
some sort of compensation scheme, particularly if immunisation
is to become quasi compulsory.

*
 ..�,.,1

W' \

. .1

Г')

p¡
4. THE mSTORY OF INFECTIOUS DISEASES

I.!
!

-:,i")

•SWi

F
г
32
CHAPTER 4
THE HISTORY OF INFECTIOUS DISEASES
1. Diseases Generally
The claim that is often made that modern society is virtually
rid of the fatalities and great suffering of infectious
diseases because of vaccines is simply not true. It is also
historical revisionism at its best.

Immunisation cannot be presented as the means by which the

severity of diseases such as measles, whooping cough, polio
and scarlet fever declined dramatically as the facts speak for
themselves. The potency of these diseases substantially
abated during the century before vaccines were introduced.

This is dramatically illustrated in the following diagrams:

Diagram 1 : Decline in deaths from infectious disease
oenerally and Diphtheria in particular.1
¿1 "0
- •« «�0

6.000

s.ooo.

pi
1.000.

г,ooo' C0*0C|1 S C f іифип I J á I 1 on

•ga'nst diptnprii and »nt»o-
1 a u c t i o n of a n t i b i o t i c i .
t.ooo

v . 1900

England and wales: Ocatns o' c«'lo>t« « > « » IS

yt»r\ attributed to scarlet '«»e'. « H H ' H ,
whooain«. couçn and «taslci.

Lovett L.A., op. cit. p. 14.

 33
Diagram 2 : Fall in the number of deaths from measles and
whooping cough.2

Figure V . l . Childhood mortality trom measles and whooping�cough. 1871� 1971 England and Wales.

1
2.000

'1
1.000 !
[ Measles
РЩ

Whooping�cough \

Sulphonamide
drugs

100

с
TI

Whooping �cough ЯЩ
immunization

Measles
10� &Щ,
immunization

1
1871 1891 1911 1931 19S1 1971
Year

From the Joint Committee on Vaccination and

Immunisation � Whooping Cough at p. 85
1
 34
Diagram 3: Decline in notification and deaths from
Whooping Cough.3

Figure V. 2 Wluiupinti cnuuli in Enfilant! Л. W/ніе:.

1000« �,
�• Notifications
/
160� •———• Deal lis

140�

120�

Routini
Vaccinano1�
z loo- �1000

;Ą
s' 80�
V ! �800
с

60� �600 Q
; с
i

ao� �400 z
Ì-. i Гч
Л
20 « \ �200

! 1 1 1 1 =� Г— I�U
1945 1950 1955 1960 1965 1970 1975 1980
Years

V.(I).8. Figure V.2 shows the annual statutory notifications and deaths in
England and Wales from 1945 to the present. Although notifications are far from
complete and clinical diagnosis is not always accurate, changes in the numbers
probably reflect the changing incidence of the disease. In the immediate post�war
years around 140.000 to 160.000 cases were notified annually in England and
Wales. By the mid�1950s the number fell to around 80.000 — 90.000 per annum.
Over the same period deaths fell a lurther tenfold, to about 100 annually bv the
mid�1950's.

ibid p. 86
 35
Diagram 4: Decline in notifications and deaths from
Whooping Cough.4

Figure VI.2a. Whooping cough � England and Wales 1940�79

Notifications 2400

Oeatns
�2200

�2000

180 �1800

160�1 �1600

140 1400

D
120 и 1200 "5
Whooping cough vaccination
introduced on a national scale
= 100 1000 Z

i 80H Г 800

60� r�600

40�1 400

20� �200

1940 I960

ibid p. 177.
TüF5

I
36

: Despite these dramatic illustrations vaccines are still

i

»• . promoted as the great wonder of modern medicine. This is

\ particularly revealed in the letter which the former Minister
for Health the Hon. John Hannaford, MLC, forwarded to Members
of Parliament on this issue. A copy of that letter is
V^S
attached as Appendix A.

The relevant extracts of the Minister's letter are as

5
follows:

"Immunisation has prevented more suffering and saved

гщ more lives than any other medical intervention this
century. It is one of the safest and most
effective procedures in modern medicine. It is
also the most cost efficient.

\ ... smallpox was eradicated by a rational co�

! ordinated vaccination program ...
i
да)
U This relatively recent success has stimulated health
i authorities to attempt eradication of other common
• viral diseases which cause widespread morbidity and
Г considerable mortality. Poliomyelitis, measles,
L mumps and rubella could be eradicated with vaccines
I introduced 20�35 years ago."

This certainly presents vaccinations as not only the complete

guarantee against infectious disease but also the means by

which they will be eradicated. This is deceptive and

misleading and simply does not stand close scrutiny. This is

particularly so when these assertions are tested with vaccine

« failure and waning immunity.

5
m . The first three paragraphs of the Minister's letter
are a direct unacknowledged quote from The National
Health & Medical Research Council "Immunisation
¡iïn)
Procedures", 4th edition, 1991 p. 1.
 37
2. Smallpox:
The smallpox vaccine is given a glowing reference in the
Minister's letter as the sole means by which the disease was
eradicated. However, an Australian medical practitioner Dr.
Archie Kalokerinos has disputed the role played by the
vaccine:6
"... did they actually wipe smallpox out? . No, they
didn't. Smallpox was a vanishing disease before
vaccine came on the market. It would have been
history with or without the vaccine.
This is not unusual. In Tudor time in England
there was a disease called 'black fever' . It
didn't just decimate populations, it wiped out
entire populations. But over a period of one
hundred years or so it disappeared from sight and
hasn't been seen since".
The smallpox vaccine was never completely safe and not
infreguently resulted in serious side effects and even death.7
The removal of the vaccine occurred partly because the risk of
receiving it outweighed the benefits of not contracting a
diminishing disease.

In the Philippines earlier this century there was a dramatic

increase in deaths from smallpox after the number of people
vaccinated against it significantly increased.
"Within six years of the US takeover of the
Philippines and after 30,000,000 vaccinations, they
suffered more widespread smallpox than had ever
occurred, and it was almost three times as fatal,

JCalofcerinos A., "Immunisation: There are two sides",

Natural Health, July 1987 pp. 5-9 at p. 6
ibid
 38
with a death rate as high as 60 to 74%."8
This view of the Philippines experience is shared by Dr.
Kalokerinos:
"There has only been one controlled trial of
smallpox vaccine and that was in the Philippines at
the turn of the century when they were under
American control. The figures were fairly
startling. There were twice as many deaths amongst
the vaccinated as amongst the non-vaccinated. The
only people who got smallpox twice were the
vaccinated ones".9
The repeated use of unsterilised needles during immunisation
against smallpox throughout Africa has been credited as the
reason for the dramatic increase in AIDS across that
continent.10
"... in the recent WHO smallpox vaccination
campaign, needles were reused 40 to 60 times. The
main method of 'sterilisation' was waving the needle
across a flame".11
Some medical practitioners have even gone so far as to say
that it was not only unsterilised needles which spread AIDS in
Africa but the vaccine itself.12

8
. Allen H., "Don't Gut Stuck! The Case against
Vaccinations & Infections", National Hygiene Press
1985 p. 119.
9
. Kalokerinos A., "Immunisation: There are Two
Sides".
10
. ibid
11
. Mendlesohn R., "AIDS linked to Smallpox" in Health &
Healing Vol. 7, No. 2, Dec-Feb 1988 p. 17.
12
. Douglass W.C., "WHO Murdered Africa", Health &
Healing^Vol. 7, No. 3. April-June 1988, p. 29-33;
Buttram H.E., "AIDS Immunisation - Related
Syndrome", Health & Healing December-February 1988,
Vol. 7, No. 2 p. 36.
 39
Dr. Kalokerinos had this to say:13
"My studies of the smallpox vaccine rather
frightened me because I realised that introducing
these viruses into the body could trigger off a
chain of events that would cause all sorts of
disease.
And sure enough, the Sydney Morning Herald, 12.5.87
stated, 'The AIDS epidemic may have been triggered
by the mass vaccination campaign which eradicated
smallpox, according to an adviser to the World
Health Organisation suggesting that immunisation
using the smallpox vaccine awakened the unsuspected
dormant human immune deficiency virus infection HIV,
in other words AIDS'. This means that they claimed
that they wiped out smallpox, which they didn't do,
but. what they did do was introduce a disease far,
far more terrible".
Dr. Robert Gallo a US medical practitioner who has worked on
the AIDS virus said in 1987:"
"The link between the WHO programme and the epidemic
in Africa is an interesting and important
hypothesis. I cannot say that it actually
happened, but I have been saying for some years that
the use of live vaccine such as that used for
smallpox can activate a dormant infection such as
HIV. "
Dr. Mendlesohn provides evidence of a possible link between
the smallpox vaccination program and AIDS by noting that the
highest incidence of AIDS is where the program was most
intense:15
"WHO information indicates that the AIDS table of
Central Africa matches the concentration of smallpox
vaccinations, i.e., the greatest spread of HIV
infection coincides with the most intense
immunisation programs. Thus, Zaire, at the top of
the AIDS list, had 36 million people immunised with
the smallpox vac-fne. Next is Zambia, with 19
million, foliowe. by Tanzania with 15 million,
Uganda with 11 million, Malawi with 8 million,

13
. Kalokerinos A., "Immunisation: There are Two Sides".
14 Galló R*, London Times, 11th May, 1987.
IS Mendlesohn R., "AIDS linked to Smallpox", op. cit.
p. 17.
 40
Ruanda with 3.3 million and Burundi with 3.2
million. Brazil, the only South American country
covered by the smallpox eradications campaign has
the highest incidence of AIDS in that part of the
world.
This theory - that the AIDS epidemic in Africa may
have been triggered by the smallpox immunisations
program - has sparked intense debate among
scientists ... Dr. Laurence Gerlis, a clinical AIDS
researcher, states, 'Previous circumstantial
evidence looks more persuasive alongside the latest
research that shows AIDS can be stimulated by
smallpox vaccination' .
... This theory also provides an explanation of how
AIDS infection is spread more evenly between males
and females in Africa than in the west.
While in no way diminishing the role certain
lifestyles play in AIDS causation, isn't it high
time that we turn the spotlight on the possibility
that modern medical miracles - immunisation included
- can help cause modern medical plagues?"
Rappenport16 has gone one step further and alleged that as the
smallpox vaccine is cultured in the belly of a calf it is
guite possible that the vaccine could be contaminated with
animal viruses. He claims that if the calf being used to
culture the vaccine was suffering from a well known cattle
immune deficiency disease known as Bovine Immune Deficiency
Virus (BIV) then people vaccinated with such a contaminated
vaccine could have effectively been given the human immune
deficiency virus (HIV) rather than the vaccine itself
triggering an already present but dormant virus.

These allegations suggesting a direct link between the

smallpox eradication program in Africa and the dramatic spread
of AIDS are very serious indeed. If they are true, or at

Rappenport J., "The AIDS Vaccine Connection", Health

and Healing Vol. 7 No. 2 Dec-Feb, 88, pp. 25-29.
 41
least plausible, they debunk any claim that the smallpox
vaccine was a worthwhile public health tool.

F*

With respect to the allegation that the smallpox vaccine

'•t
either triggered or caused AIDS across Africa, I did not have
the benefit of any scientific studies supporting this nor any i
literature directed at refuting the claim.
have regarded the allegation
Accordingly, I
as an important but not yet
1
scientifically substantiated opinion of a number of medical
practitioners and other commentators. The sharing of
unsterilised needles by intravenous drug users is a well known 1
means of passing HIV from one person to the other. To the 4
extent that the World Health Organisation engaged in the •: •
multiple use of unsterilised needles for an alleged public ¡
health measure, such as the eradication of smallpox, it stands
CS*

condemned. It would also provide a plausible explanation for )

the rampant way in which the AIDS epidemic has taken over the H
African continent. n

The role of the smallpox vaccine in causing many deaths in

early England and the decline of disease for other reasons,
other than the vaccination program, have been examined by Dr.
Arthur Mowle (Phd):17 'j
"The early history of smallpox in England is
obscure, but certainly it was becoming more
noticeable about the time of James I. Over the

17
1
. Mowle .A.F., "Infectious Diseases: A matter for
immunisation or a matter for further Inquiry",
Health & Healing, Dec 81 - Feb 82 pp. 29-35 at pp.
31-32 reprinted from The Australasian Nurses
Journal, May 1981.
 42
succeeding centuries it adopted unusual patterns as
to where it would strike next, but as time passed it
was found to leave the more well to do classes, then
the villages and provincial towns to centre itself
in London. At the same time smallpox was leaving
the age of infancy and childhood.
Other infectious diseases have shown a like tendency
to change or limit their incidence, but whatever the
reason, the final epidemic of smallpox in England
was between 1900�1905 and after this the annual
death rates reached a very low figure indeed.
There is mixed opinion as to the part vaccination
has played in the decline of smallpox both in
England and elsewhere. It is important though, to
make some distinction in one's mind between
vaccination as a means of protecting an individual
against smallpox and general vaccination as a public
health measure designed to protect a community
against epidemics of the disease.
It would seem that vaccination repeated at intervals
of approximately five years does give a •measure' of
protection to 'some' individuals against a
particular viral strain that manifests itself in
what we recognise as smallpox but this measure in
itself could well have caused considerable illness
and death from such diseases as syphilis and
hepatitis because of the introduction of
contaminated material from one person to another.

It is interesting to note that when infant

vaccination against smallpox was made 'free' in
England and Wales in 1840, over eleven hundred
deaths attributed directly to smallpox were
recorded. In 1850 when vaccination was made
'compulsory' though the law was not strictly
enforced four hundred deaths were put down as caused
by smallpox. Yet in 1868 when vaccination was not
only 'compulsory' but was also 'legally' enforced on
the population as a whole, over one thousand deaths
were recorded.
However, some years later it became obvious that the
law was difficult to enforce and so was very much
ignored by the authorities as well as the masses.
Interestingly enough the number of cases of smallpox
and reported deaths declined steadily. Chas С.
Creighton, a contemporary physician and historian at
the time of the decline of smallpox in England, was
not at all sympathetic with the notion that it was
because of vaccinations that smallpox began to
disappear from the scene rather he attributed the
whole demise of the disease as merely the natural
history of the condition itself, unaffected by
 43
vaccination.
In recent years several scientists have suggested
that vaccination against smallpox may well have
caused more serious problems than the disease
itself. George Dick of England, bluntly implies
that probably more people died in England from
vaccination side�effects than smallpox itself and in
Australia, Glen Dettman on reviewing figures from
the Philippine Health Service notes that in 1918�
1919 there were 112,549 cases of smallpox with
60,855 deaths.
Vaccination was introduced into the Philippines in
1905 and from the time of the inception of mass
vaccination against smallpox the mortality directly
attributable to that disease increased alarmingly.
F.A. Ward of University of Hong Kong has also
expressed serious reservations about vaccination
programs.
Frankly, I feel that Chas. Creighton was correct.
Smallpox died out of England as a result of a change
in the social, environmental as well as nutritional
status of the population as a whole. It appears
unlikely that vaccination played a significant part
at all in the demise of the disease."
That the smallpox vaccine may have directly caused many deaths
last century in England and in the Philippines early this
century fits uncomfortably with the possibility that many more
deaths may have been caused by it throughout the world in the
latter part of this century.

Even if smallpox was eradicated solely by vaccine, which is

disputed, then what caused most other infectious diseases to
decline in severity before the development of vaccines
generally or a particular vaccine directed at a specific
disease.

The Minister's letter to Members of Parliament is typical of

the onesided manner in which the immunisation debate іб
 44
presented by Government, health bureaucrats and doctors
generally. The letter is proof enough that unsubstantiated
assertions should not be made without proper enguiry as to all
the issues involved and a consideration of the scientific
literature and views of practitioners on both sides of the
debate.

3. Scarlet Fever:
Scarlet Fever is a good example of an infectious disease which
disappeared long before any vaccination was developed for it.
It caused thousands of deaths during the middle of the last
century. By early this century it was not a significant
cause of death at all•and now hardly rates a mention even as a
disease, let alone as a cause of death.

Mendlesohn refers to the disease in the following manner:18

"Scarlet fever is another example of a once feared
disease that has virtually disappeared. If a
vaccine had ever been developed for it, doctors
would undoubtedly credit that with the elimination
of the disease ... In all probability, as with other
diseases, the true reason for its waning incidence
is improved living conditions and better nutrition."
Even the world renowned Immunologist, Sir Macfariane Burnet
had this to say:19
"With scarlet fever now a trivial disease we may
have lost our opportunity to analyse the factors
that made it so lethal for children in the second
half of the nineteenth century."

Mendlesohn R., "How to Raise a Healthy Child in

Spite in your Doctor", p. 224.
Burnet, M. Sir, "Natural History of Infectious
Disease", Cambridge, 3rd Edition, 1962 p. 222.
 г^

45
4. Tuberculosis :
Tuberculosis like most other infectious diseases was a
significant cause of death in the latter part of the last
century and the early part of this century.
1
Like most other infectious diseases the dramatic fall in the
fatalities occurred prior to the introduction of an
"appropriate" vaccine. This is graphically illustrated in
diagram 5.

Diagram 5: Fall in deaths from Tuberculosis t' ТВ ) and

20
Typhoid. (T

z IM

ì *Л
г^э
\

ia» ^ 1

І ее

<
E
TYPU ріИ Г~1

IM» mo нм им me ii»

20
Borléis С, "Vaccination A c r u e l Deception" 1991 щ
 46
Sir Macfarlane Burnet gives a very interesting account of the
history of tuberculosis:21
"Тле decade 1950�60 was a turning point in the
history of tuberculosis. In every advanced country
of the world sanatoria for tuberculosis began to
close their doors and public health authorities
began to feel that full eradication of the disease
had become a legitimate objective. This was only
the last step in a process that began about a
hundred years earlier.
In 1850 the mortality from tuberculosis in England
and Wales was about fifty times what it was in 1959.
Roughly speaking, the rate has been successfully
halved six times for females, five times for males,
and the periods needed for each successive reduction
to half are illuminating. They are
For females 4 0 � 3 0 � 2 2 � 8 � 4 � 4 years
For males 55 �26�18�5 �5 years
In every advanced country the fall during the period
1946�59 has been to unprecedentedly low levels. It
is interesting to look at the possible reasons for
these changes in mortality since 1850. In the light
of present day�knowledge it is more unlikely that
medical treatment as such had anything to do with
the slow but persistent fall in mortality up to
1939. It is doubtful whether treatment ever did
more than delay the fatal event in those who would
have died without treatment. The steady fall shown
in nearly all western countries must have been due
to other factors. There is no reason to believe
that any changes have occurred in the tubercle
bacillus itself. The improvement must be sought in
social or biological factors on the human side. In
all probability the diminution resulted mainly from
the steady advance in the standard of living over
the period. By 1939 the average person in a
civilised community was eating more and better food,
was housed in greater comfort, had more opportunity
for fresh air and sunlight, and was more cleanly in
his habits than in the nineteenth century. A
higher proportion of people with active tuberculosis
were being cared for in sanatoria and those under
ambulant treatment had been given enough training in
elementary hygiene to diminish their likelihood of
infecting others. The net result was probably that
on the whole children when they were infected
received a smaller dose of bacilli on the average
and could deal more effectively with the primary and

Burnet, M. Sir, op. cit., pp. 310�322.

 47
any subsequent infections.. ."
...Overall the prospect for tuberculosis elimination
is promising. Given continuing improvement of
living standards, peace, and enthusiasm for the
public health, the tubercle bacillus might be
extinct by A.D. 2000."
This was written in 1962 and is a clear acknowledgment that
attacking disease conditions rather than the tubercle bacillus
had and has the greatest impact on reducing the incidence of
tuberculosis. Why should this then not apply to all, if not
most, infectious diseases.

The Department of Health has recently endorsed the view that

living standards have more to do with tuberculosis infection
than vaccination:
"For 40 years one of the main planks of the public
health strategy against tuberculosis in many
countries has been BCG vaccination for tuberculin
negative schoolchildren. The risk of infection
from tuberculosis now depends more on higher living
standards and effective treatment rather than on
vaccination. Evidence from a number of countries
where routine BCG vaccination has been stopped
strongly support the view that routine vaccination
is no longer cost-effective and can be stopped.
(Routine BCG is not carried out in most parts of
Australia at the present time. This evidence
confirms n the correctness of that decision
reviewer.)"
Does this mean that living conditions were important up to the
introduction of the vaccine and after its removal but not
while the vaccine was being used. If so, that is simply
absurd.

22
NSW Department of Health, "BCG Vaccination not Cost
effective", Public Health Extracts '99' Vol. 2, No.
3, p. 23;
And also, Conway S.P., "BCG Vaccination in
Children", British Medical Journal 1990, 301, pp.
1059-1060.
fr 48
Tuberculosis does still occur occasionally in our community.
But the fact that "the highest rates of infection were [in
1986] in people migrating from South East Asian countries"13
simply confirms the overwhelming importance of primarily
Pi

attacking living conditions rather than the bacillus itself by

way of vaccination.
f
5. Infectious Diseases: What really reduced their severity?
Explanations other than the development of vaccines must be
rïl

given for the disappearance of scarlet fever and the decline

in fatalities of most other infectious diseases. Dr. Brian
Feery has provided such an explanation:24
3FI
"During the past 120 years life expectancy at birth
of the average Australian has risen from 40 years to
70 years. A major factor in this dramatic change
* has been the virtual eradication of infectious
disease as a significant cause of death. This has
been achieved primarily by environmental
m improvements and public health measures. Adequate
sanitation and clean water supplies limited the
spread of infection. Better nutrition, and
reasonable housing raised the general resistance of
в|
the population to communicable diseases."
Sir Macfarlane Burnet has also supported this view:25
¡1*1

"Cities are essential to civilisation, and well into

the nineteenth century all cities were the spawning
grounds of infectious disease. How could it be
otherwise? For centuries all the precautions we
now know to be necessary to prevent the spread of

L H
. Department of Health "Tuberculosis still a problem
I in Australia", Public Health Extracts 1991, Vol. 2
No. 3 p. 23;
Plant A,J., et al, "Tuberculosis in NSW", Medical
I Journal of Australia 1991, 154, pp. 86-89.
Щ

Feery B. , "Impact of Immunisation on Disease

24
.
Patterns in Australia", Medical Journal of
J Australia, 1981, 2, pp. 172�176 at p. 175.
25
op. c i t . p. 16.
 49
m
bacteria and animal parasites were unthought of. J
City streets were littered with human and animal „.
filth, water came from contaminated wells, rats,
fleas and lice were universal.
Crowded together in such filthy environments every 4]
city dweller was inevitably exposed to infection J
every day of his life".
Vaccines may have been a contributing factor in the decline of
infectious diseases but they were certainly not the sole or
major cause.

The massive decline in diseases in the century prior to the

introduction of vaccines is directly attributed to better
sanitation, hygiene, water supply, nutrition and housing. It
is reasonably plausible to assume that these factors also
contributed to the decline of disease after vaccinations were
introduced. Likewise, if the rate of decline is similar
before and after the introduction of vaccination, then it is
egually plausible to argue that the further reduction after
the introduction of vaccination was in spite of it, rather
than because of it.

In 1973 Dr. D. Powles stated:26 ]

"The major contributing factor toward improved r*.
health over the past 200 years has been improved ¡
nutrition. Nearly 90% of the total decline in the
death rate in children between I860 and 1965 due to
whooping cough, scarlet fever, diphtheria and H
measles occurred before the introduction of J
antibiotics and widespread immunisation against
diphtheria" *1

2б
. Dr. D. Powles in Kalokerinos A., and Dettman G.,
"Second Thoughts about Disease: A Controversy and
Bechamp Revisited", pp. 10�11.
 50
A well known critic in the united States of immunisation Dr.
Richard Moskowitz has stated:27
"The incidence and severity of whooping cough, for
example, had already begun to decline precipitously
long before the pertussis vaccine was introduced, 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 15 years, it would
be extremely difficult to show statistically that
(pertussis immunisation) had any effect in reducing
mortality from whooping cough'
Much the same is true not only of diphtheria and
tetanus, but also of T.B., cholera, typhoid and
other common scourges of a bygone era, which began
to disappear towards the end of the 19th century,
perhaps partly in response to improvements in public
health and sanitation."

Even in 1936 the English Physician Sir Robert McCarron said:28

"... we often forget the most fundamental of all
rules for the Physician, that the right kind of food
(nutrition) is the most important single factor in
the promotion of health and the wrong kind of food
the most important single factor in the promotion of
disease".
Despite the evidence that many factors other than vaccines
caused a decline in the severity of infectious diseases, Dr.
Feery still looks to vaccines as a means of controlling the
incidence and severity of disease in modern times:29
"In addition to all these factors, however, the
development of vaccines and their introduction and
use in national and international programmes of
disease control has been of crucial importance.
Control of the common communicable diseases is now
dependant on widespread and continued immunisation
programmes."

27 Moskowitz R. , "Immunisation: A Dissenting View in

Dissent in Medicine" p. 135
28
Kalokerinos A., and Dettman G., op. cit. p. 12
29
Feery B., op. cit.
 51
This conclusion is disappointing as he ignores the very
factors which had such a dramatic effect on the decline in the
severity of disease in the first place prior to vaccines being
introduced. These very factors are the ones he acknowledged
as having a significant impact on reducing deaths from
disease.

Disease conditions do have a critical impact on the incidence

of disease symptoms. In the case of measles a deficiency in
vitamin A has been found to reduce both mortality and
morbidity.30 Vitamin С is now well recognised as an
essential ingredient in good health and lack of it as being a
contributing factor in disease.31 Likewise overcrowding,32
lack of exercise,33 and socio�economic conditions generally34
are all contributing factors in the incidence of disease.
Vaccinations do not necessarily guarantee nor overcome any
lack of well being or ill health occurring as a result of
these factors.

Hussey G.D., and Klein M., "A Randomised Controlled

Tril of Vitamin A in Children with severe Measles",
New England Journal of Medicine 1990, 323, 2, pp.
160�164.
Kalokerinos A., "Every Second Child", 1974.
Burnet M., "Natural History of Infectious Disease",
1962, p. 16.
Van Saase J., et al, "Longevity of men capable of
prolonged physical exercise", British Medical
Journal, 1990, 301, pp. 22�29.
Caplan, G.A. and Salonen J.T., "Socio�economic
conditions in Childhood and ishaemic heart disease
during middle age", British Medical Journal, 1990,
301, pp. 1121�1123.
 52

Unfortunately these important disease conditions which are

essential in reducing the mortality and incidence of disease,
ТГ^І

are either ignored or not actively promoted. Immunisation is

presented as the easy option to prevent disease to the
ш
detriment of all other options and, in my view, without any
щ real guarantee of good health.

jsj

Щ
 I

m\

¡pif

vik)

¡i
fi 5. THE THEORY OF GERMS

I
1

L
Щ
i

_: '

..

Щ
I

Щ
I

n
 53
CHAPTER 5
THE THEORY OF GERMS
щ
1. The Cause or Conditions of Disease:
To fully appreciate the guestion of immunisation, it is vital
� to have a reasonable understanding of the orthodox verses
f alternative view of the cause of disease.

The most important consideration in this regard is whether or

not we actually "catch" a disease or whether we conduct our
lives in such a way so as to create disease conditions which
allow us to succumb to certain viruses or bacteria. In other
words we either "invite" illness or become the helpless
victims of it.

p�|
If it is true that a particular disease is the result of
"catching" a particular bug or virus, then the theory of
vaccinations holds firm. A specific vaccine directed at that
Щ
specific virus would eradicate the disease. If only life

^
were that simple. But modern medicine is based on this very
I concept. It is known as Pasteur's germ theory of disease and
P surprisingly still has a fascinating grip over almost all
doctors and probably all public health bureaucrats.
PI

A However, not all doctors have accepted this teaching and have
sought to present an alternative view. An interesting
F* comparison between Pasteur's germ theory of disease and the
creation of disease conditions as the cause of lack of well
i

being is effectively put by Dr. A. Kalokerinos and Dr. D.C.

 54
Dettman:'
"Modem medicine is based on Pasteur's germ theory
of disease - a specific organism causes a specific
disease and a specific vaccine gives specific
protection. Shades of doubt concerning the
validity of this dogma were, seen when it was
observed that some Aboriginal children did not get
protection and, in fact, died when vaccines were
administered.2
It soon became obvious that individuals became
susceptible to disease for various. reasons, and the
germs themselves simply take advantage of the
susceptible state. Vaccinating susceptible
individuals does not necessarily render them immune;
it may have the reverse effect.
Further light was shed on this problem when it was
found that Pasteur plagiarised the work of a great
scientific contemporary, Bechamp. According to
this astute observer the basis of life is not the
cell but a living "gene" that he called a microzyma.
Microzymas can evolve with changes in the
nutritional environment to become viruses or
bacteria, harmless or harmful, and although
apparently specific viruses and bacteria can be
reproduced as similar organisms, this is only true
if specific environmental conditions exist. Under
other conditions evolution into other viruses and
bacteria can take place.
In the same way an infection can be exogenous but it
can also be endogenous - evolving by a process of
microzymian evolution. The fallacy of vaccines is
thus explained and the importance of the nutritional
environment of the cell understood.
Ascorbic acid, the universal detoxifier and
tolerance factor can be placed in its true position
as an important weapon against disease"
Dr. Kalokerinos spent many years treating Aboriginal infants
in the Northern Territory during the 1960s and early 1970s.
He was alarmed that the mortality rate amongst Aboriginal

Kalokerinos A. and Dettman D.C., "Second Thoughts

about Disease - A Controversy and Bechamp Revisited"
p. 12.
This occurred in the Northern Territory in the 1960s
and early 1970s.
 55
infants dramatically increased, after immunisation programmes
were stepped up. He was initially reluctant to believe that
the "cure" could be the "cause". Dr. Kalokerinos found that
Aboriginal infants had a low body content of vitamin С which
was exacerbated by vaccination directly resulting in increased
infections and disease and in some cases, death.

Professor Linus Pauling in his forward to Dr. Kalokerinos'

book "Every Second Child" said:3
"...the deficiency in vitamin С is exacerbated by
immunisations and inoculations since it is known
that immunisation and inoculation leads to
destruction of vitamin C. Dr. Kalokerinos deserves
much credit for having made these discoveries"
Dr. Kalokerinos in his book stated that:4
"recently it has been shown that infants suffering
from protein�calorie malnutrition may exhibit a
"reversed immunological effect" when immunised.
Usually, an immunisation results in a rise in
antibody levels (that is how they work). However in
protein�calorie malnutrition levels may fall; an
infant is thus exposed to all sorts of serious
infections and possible death"
In other words, a vaccine recipient would need to be in good
health to withstand or "benefit" from the vaccine.

Dr. Kalokerinos and Dr. Dettman expanded on this theme:5

"....it was Bechamp's thesis that most disease is
endogenous in origin or "born" within us and of us
in the form of an enzyme transformation.

Kalokerinos A., "Every Second Child" 1974.

ibid p. 83.
Kalokerinos A., and Dettman D.C., "Second Thoughts
about Disease � A controversy and Bechamp Revisited"
pp. 7 & 8.
 56
Specifically, Bechamp proclaimed that special
enzymes, which he called microzymas (soluble
ferments), under certain conditions, may evolve into
viral or bacterial entities and that the latter may
thus originate from within the organism, without
seeding, as a permutation of the endogenous
microzyma factors of the organism when the
conditions of nutritional breakdown are right to
favour such change or microzyman evolution"
In other words, the patient does not catch the disease but
probably causes it by poor nutrition.

Dr. Kalokerinos and Dr. Dettman went on to say:6

"If we consider Bechamp's thesis that virus and
bacteria can be extensions of enzymes
("microzymas"), that there are specific disease
conditions rather than specific diseases, that virus
and the bacterium are the concomitants, not the
antecedents of disease, is it not conceivable that
these entities may become, by evolution and
nutritional breakdown, the viruses and bacteria we
are studying so intently. Was Bechamp right? Is
this why we cannot make a successful vaccine?"

In a modern industrial society such as ours where life is fast

and personal health problems are blamed on causes rather than
the conditions for well being we all create or ignore, it is
no wonder that almost everyone turns to what they believe is
an easy "cure".

If taking a vaccine or antibiotic or some particular drug

meant assured health and no need to take any action on
personal habits or way of life, then most people prefer to
take the easy option. Unfortunately it is not that simple.

ibid at p. 12.
 57
Two alternative health practitioners in the US have even gone
f^S so far as to regard germs as the demons of the modern era just
as witches were of the middle ages. This is somewhat an
•i
R emotional and exaggerated claim but it provides an interesting
7
manner in which to compare causes and conditions of disease:
! "For most of the years of his existence on earth,
man blamed his bodily ills on demons: malignant
_ spirits, spirits of the dead, witches, sorcerers or
§ the evil eye. Today, germs have taken over the
i demon's role. Illness is still spoken of as if it
were a form of possession; it is something one
ffa
'catches' or 'has'. The belief that a 'bug' causes
any given illness has a certain attractive
simplicity, because it carries its recommendation
for therapy with it; exorcise the bug with drugs".

Vaccines and many prescription drugs are often the lazy means
щ by which a population is deceived into believing that health
can be improved or guaranteed without altering the conditions
fWf

of disease: the food they eat, the guality of the water they
drink, the air they breathe, the level of sleep, exercise,
leisure and recreation undertaken, the consumption of alcohol
or the smoking of cigarettes, general hygiene and cleanliness
and the management of stress and emotional trauma. These are
the factors which, if not properly managed by each and every
СЩ individual, will create the specific conditions in which
disease will develop. Drugs or a particular vaccination may
I assist the symptoms (and possibly create others much worse)
L

but the underlining cause and therefore the possibility of

L' recurrence of disease will only be removed if the specific

1
. Dubos R., and Pines M., Health & Disease, Life
F» Science'^ Library New York Times, Inc. 1965 in Allen
I H., "Don't Get Stuck!", The Case Against
Vaccinations & Injections, Natural Hygiene Press,
� 1985, p. 14.
 58
disease conditions are also removed.

The late Dr. Robert Mendlesohn an eminent U.S. Paediatriction,

of nearly 30 years experience, when asked in a seminar in
Chicago about nutrition, stress management, mental well being
and proper exercise as a means of health replied:8
"Nutrition is not of the religion of modern
medicine. Doctors believe in better living through
chemistry. If you don't believe me, all you have
to do is to ask a Doctor, "Doctor, what should I
eat?" He will say to you, "just eat a well
balanced diet". If you want to find out what a
Doctor thinks a well balanced diet is, just look at
Hospital food".

A non-medically trained critic of Pasteur's germ theory,

Christopher Borléis, provides an accurate description of
individual responsibility for health rather than reliance on
modern medical technology as a means of achieving well being:9
"It may be difficult to understand why bacteria have
been mistakenly believed to be the cause of disease.
The reason surely is that it is most convenient to
blame "the bug" rather than ourselves and to ignore
our negligence of the nutritional and sanitary
maintenance of our own bodies. A healthy body has
little attraction for bacterial invaders. A
healthy body defies invading microbes with ease. A
healthy body will not generate an infectious disease
from within, which is how most disease arises.
"Spontaneous generation" of disease occurs when
cells and organs break down due to any one or a
combination of the following: bottle feeding,
vaccination, deficiency in alkaline minerals and
vitamin C, and absence of clean air and water,
consumption of animal proteins, alcohol, chemical

8
. Mendlesohn R., "How much Science is there in Modern
Medicine - A Dissenting View" in "Dissent in
Medicine" p. 16.

Borléis С, "Vaccination A Cruel Deception" 1991

p. 4.
 59

additives and medication, lack of exercise and

smoking. An avoidance of these habits combined
with a happy attitude will overcome most earthly
miseries.
If the mental-physical-hygiene equilibrium of the
host is not maintained decline in health and
subsequent disease is inevitable. Vaccination does
not promote health. The individual is responsible
for his or her own health alone. Whether we live
in harmony with germs or become their victims
depends upon the circumstances under which we
encounter them".
This is a view shared by two US medical practitioners who
argue that preventing disease conditions is probably more
important than attacking the virus or bacteria which is
usually blamed for causing the disease itself:10
"The germ theory has suited man's ego quite well.
Most of us prefer to believe that the illnesses we
suffer are the result of external forces - just as
we would rather blame bad luck for our failures.
And so we continually say that we 'catch' a cold,
'get' the flu, and 'contract' pneumonia as though we
are in no way to blame for the medical catastrophes
that befall us.
Germ theory advocates would have us view man as a
helpless quarry eternally trying to elude a
multitude of disease-bearing organisms vigilantly
intent upon infecting him. A small cadre of
medical practitioners, however, has resisted the
germ theory as the one simplistic answer to illness.
They have carefully noted that while micro-
organisms are obviously involved in many ailments,
their mere presence does not automatically guarantee
disease.
Three healthy people, for example, can breathe the
same germs at the same moment. One may develop
pneumonia, another may sniffle his way through a
cold, and the third may never be aware that the
germs were even there. After all, in the case of
most infectious diseases, those people who succumb
represent only a fraction of the number of people
exposed to them.
Is the germ theory obsolete? Certainly more than

Cheraskin E. , et al, Psychodietetics, New York,

Stein & Ray 1974 in Allen H., op. cit. pp. 13-14.
 60
one noted scientist now espouses a more
sophisticated approach to disease. Dr. G.T.
Stewart, Professor of Epidemiology and Pathology at
the School of Public Health and Medicine at the
University of North Carolina, points out that polio
and other viruses can be carried for months with no
effect. 'The resulting disease' he says, 'is the
fact determined by the host, rather than the
bacillus.'
We are convinced that every disease, physical and
mental, is generated by a combination of
circumstances which arise both inside and outside
the body. It logically follows that disease may be
prevented or cured by correcting variables that
exist both inside and outside the body. We can go
after the 'germ' but we can also correct the life
condition which predisposed the individual to
illness.
I propose to discuss just how the body's defence mechanism
works and make a comparison between naturally acquired
immunity and vaccinated immunity.

2. The Body's Immune System:

Before considering the orthodox medical view of how vaccines
affect the body's immune system and comparing that with an
alternative view, I propose to consider how the body's immune
system works naturally.

(i) The Body's Natural Defence Mechanism:

The eminent Immunologist Sir Gustav Nossal eloquently
presented the conventional view of immunisation in his Boyer
Lectures of 1978 and the relevant section is set out below:11
"The immune system .... is a natural system of
defence against disease. Its twin purposes are to
help the body to conquer an infection and to ensure
that the disease does not recur a second time.

Nossal G. Sir, Boyer Lectures 1978, p. 21.

 61
Three essential technical terms must be introduced
here, namely antigen, lymphocyte and antibody.
Antigens are molecules coming from the enemy, the
invading microbe. These antigen molecules are
foreign to the body, and they provoke a cellular
reaction .... the specialised cells which react to
antigens, and constitute the individual soldiers in
the body's defence army, are called lymphocytes.
Lymphocytes are one of the chief types of white
blood cell, living not only in the blood but in
special tissues such as the lymph glands and the
spleen. When suitably stimulated by antigen
molecules, some lymphocytes begin to secrete protein
molecules called antibodies.
The antibody molecule is a kind of magic bullet shot
by the soldier, the lymphocyte, into the blood
stream. It has the capacity to seek out the enemy,
the microbe, and to foil its attempt to gain a
foothold in the tissue. As soon as an adequate
number of antibody molecules has been formed, an
infection is usually thrown off. More importantly,
as long as a few molecules of antibody remain in the
blood and tissue fluids, a renewed invasion by the
same microbe can never succeed.
These antibodies . . . are quite specific. They are
designed to lock onto the hostile antigen that
provoked their formation. The antibody that can
lock onto a smallpox virus and destroy its
infectious potential will not affect a polio virus,
and vice-versa ... so each hostile microbe elicits
the formation of a corresponding defending
antibody".

(ii) Vaccines and the body's immune system - A conventional

view:
Sir Gustav Nossal then went on to describe his notion of
vaccination and the different types of vaccines:12
"...the principle underlying vaccines . . . is simply
... to provoke the defensive reaction without
actually acquiring the virulent infection. In
other words, the vaccine, which is really a maimed
version of the enemy microbe, sets the body's
defence mechanism in train. As a result, specific
protective antibodies are made by natural processes.
There are ... three sorts of vaccines. The first

ibid p. 22.
 62
are . . . living microbes which can grow and multiply
in the body. They posses similar antigens to the
virulent microbe, but are genetically changed so as
to be harmless. Technically, we term these live,
attenuated vaccines. These are the most effective
forms of vaccine because they imitate a natural
infection most closely. The most important live
vaccines are the Sabin-type, oral polio myelitis
vaccine, smallpox, yellow fever, measles, german
measles and tuberculosis vaccines.
The second sort of vaccine consists of bacterial
antigens rendered harmless through simple chemical
treatment, the best examples being diphtheria and
tetanus.
The third variety consists simply of the original
virulent microbe killed through formalin treatment.
Many killed vaccines give only partial protection,
such as typhoid or influenza".

(iii)Vaccines and the body's immune system - An alternative

view:
Sir Gustav Nossal's discourse on immunology is typical of what
is generally accepted in the medical profession and the health
bureaucracy.

Modern medi ~.e has become stupefied by technology and "wonder

drugs" as alleged means of creating a society free of sickness
and misery. Fortunately there are a small number of medical
personnel who are prepared to question "a society that
worships its own ability to manipulate and control the
I3
processes of nature itself" and why in the words of the
late Dr. Robert Mendlesohn "we are quick to pull the trigger,
M
but slow to examine the consequences of our actions" .

Moskowitz R., "Immunisation a Dissenting

View" in "Dissent in Medicine" p. 154.

Referred to in Moskowitz R., ibid p. 154.

 63
(a) Naturally acquired measles^
Dr. Richard Moskowitz, a US medical practitioner has provided
an alternative view from the medical profession of how
vaccines affect the body. He uses the example of naturally
acquired measles and contrasts this with the effect which the
measles vaccine has on the body:15
"... I would like to consider in detail the process
of falling ill with and recovering from a typical
acute disease, such as measles, in contrast with
what we can observe following the administration of
the measles vaccine.
We all know that measles is primarily a virus of the
respiratory tract, both because it is inhaled by
susceptible persons upon contact with infected
droplets in the air, and because these droplets are
produced by the coughing and sneezing of a person
with the disease.
Once inhaled by a susceptible person, the measles
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, it passes into
the blood and enters the spleen, the liver, the
thymus, and the bone marrow, the visceral organs of
the immune system. Throughout this incubation
period which lasts from 10 to 14 days, the patient
usually feels quite well and experiences few or no
symptoms.
By the time the first symptoms of measles appears,
circulating antibodies are already detectable in the
blood, and the height of the symptomatology
coincides with the peak of the antibody response.
In other words, the "illness" is simply the
definitive effort of the immune system to clear the
virus from the blood. Equally noteworthy is the
fact that the virus is eliminated by sneezing and
coughing, that is, via the same route through which
it entered in the first place.
It is evident that the process of mounting an acute
illness like the measles, no less than recovering
from it, involves the mobilisation of the entire

ibid p. 142.
 64
immune system.
such illnesses are in fact the decisive
experiences in the normal physiological maturation
of the immune system as a whole in the life of a
healthy child. For not only will the child who
recovers from the measles never again be susceptible
to it; such an experience also cannot fail to
prepare the individual to respond even more promptly
and effectively to any infections he may acquire in
the future. The ability to mount a vigorous acute
response to organisms of this type must therefore be
reckoned among the most fundamental requirements of
general health and well being".
(b) Vaccinated Measles:
Dr. Moskowitz then compared the above with the measles
vaccine:16
"In contrast, when an artificially attenuated virus
such as measles is injected directly into the blood,
bypassing the normal portal of entry, at most a
brief inflammatory reaction may be noted at the
injection site, or in the regional lymph nodes; but
there is no "incubation period" of local contact at
the normal portal of entry and consequently very
little possibility of eliminating the virus via the
same route.
... the virus has been artificially "attenuated", so
that it will no longer initiate a generalised
inflammatory response, or indeed any of the non
specific defence mechanisms that help us to respond
to infections generally. By "tricking" the body in
this fashion we have accomplished what the entire
immune system seems to have evolved in order to
prevent: we have placed the virus directly into the
blood, and given it free and immediate access to the
major immune organs, without any obvious way of
getting rid of it. The result is, indeed, the
production of circulating antibodies against the
virus; but the antibody response now occurs as an
isolated technical feat, without any generalised
inflammatory response, or any noticeable improvement
in the general health of the organism. Exactly the
opposite in fact: the price we pay for these
antibodies is the persistence of virus elements in
the blood for prolonged periods of time, perhaps
permanently; which in turn presupposes a systematic
weakening of our ability to mount an effective

ibid
Ì- response not only to measles; but also to other
acute infections as well".
щ
j_' If Dr. Moskowitz is right then not only are vaccinations
m reducing our ability to fight the designated disease, but also
f
*" places us at greater risk of succumbing to other diseases
«П because of an artificially impaired immune system. This may
i explain the report in the media last year of a New South Wales
|_' schoolboy who had been immunised again measles but contracted
i

¿ measles encephalitis after coming into contact with another

y student who had contracted measles naturally and had not been
P* previously immunised. It is interesting to note that the
emotional outburst from the media, school and health
Ér-

authorities typically was directed at the "irresponsible"

' parents of the boy who had not been immunised. There was no
-' scrutiny as to why a vaccine had failed or whether the
f immunised boy had had his immune system adversely affected
b
after receiving his measles vaccination.
p. Even if Dr. Moskowitz only has an arguable case, then I submit
*- that that should be sufficient reason to raise enough doubt
F about just how healthy it is to be immunised.

Later I propose to discuss why it is that parents, teachers,

L health bureaucrats the media and almost all politicians
Г
у accept, without question, the assurance from the medical
P profession that vaccinations will lead us to Aldous Huxley's
I
"Brave New World" free of disease and suffering. But at this
m \
l' point I simply put the question: Is it not possible that the
FT human body, its immune system and the interaction of both with
i�
 66
vaccines (or any drug for that matter) is far more complex
than the usual assurance that "the benefits outweigh the
risk", or that "the risks are negligible" would have us
believe? Is it not possible that far from actually
increasing our immunity, vaccinations may in fact have the
reserve affect?

Dr. Moskowitz concludes his argument in the following

manner:17
"Far from producing a genuine immunity, then, the
vaccines may act by actually interfering with or
suppressing the immune response as a whole, in much
the same way that radiation, chemotherapy, and
corticosteroids and other anti-inflammatory drugs
do. Artificial immunisation focuses on antibody
production, a single aspect of the immune process,
and disarticulates it and allows it to stand as a
whole, in much the same way as chemical suppression
of an elevated blood pressure is accepted as a valid
substitute for a genuine cure of the patient whose
blood pressure has risen. Worst of all, by making
it difficult or impossible to mount a vigorous,
acute response to infection, artificial immunisation
substitutes for it a much weaker, chronic response
with little or no tendency to heal itself
spontaneously".
The persistence of live viruses in the body after vaccination
and their possible link with degenerative or auto immune
diseases are matters dealt with at length in Chapters 9 and
11.

ibid.
ì
pr-.

D 6. IMMTINISATION: A R�SK BENEFIT ANALYSIS

ft

Ш'\

pj�

Lì
 67
CHAPTER б
IMMUNISATION; A RISK BENEFIT ANALYSIS

What are the possible immediate and long term adverse

consequences of receiving a vaccine? What guarantee is there
that a vaccine recipient has full immunity against a
designated disease? How dangerous is the disease itself?

These are some of the questions which all parents should ask
and properly explore prior to making a determination as to
whether or not to proceed with a vaccination for their child.
Most literature in support of immunisation commences with the
conclusion that the "benefits always outweigh the risks" and
then seek to find arguments to support that conclusion.1

The typical statistical technique to justify the argument that

the benefits of a vaccine outweigh the risks is to simply
compare the risk rate of serious consequences following the
2
disease with the risk rate following the vaccine. As the
disease rate is much lower the vaccine is then hailed as
having benefits which outweigh the risks.

See for example, Tribe P., "Why Pertussis

Immunisation", Australian Family Physician, Vol. 18,
No. 8, Aug, 1989, pp. 985�990;
Choice Magazine "Special REport Immunisation", Aug,
1990, pp. 8�14;
NSW Department of Health, "Immunisation � Benefits
outweigh Risks", Public Health Bulletin, Vol. 2 No.
5, May, 1991, pp. 40�43.
2
See Department of Health, ibid.
 68
However, this kind of comparison is misleading and deceptive.
It is comparing an unknown risk population (the number who
actually contract the disease) with a known risk population
(the number of vaccinated children). It is a meaningless
comparison unless it is also known what the real risk is of
actually contracting the disease in the first place.

In the case of mealses, mumps and rubella, it was quite

likely, but not a definite certainty that a child would
contract these diseases prior to the introduction of the MMR
vaccine. Mumps and rubella caused virtually no problems for
children but measles, in rare cases, did and still does result
in serious complications and possibly even death. The mild
nature of these diseases in almost 100% of cases is why they
were generally regarded as typical childhood diseases.

The risk of contracting whooping cough is considerably less

likely than measles, mumps and rubella. Likewise, even prior
to the introduction of a polio vaccine, 90% of children
exposed to the polio virus never showed clinical symptoms of
the disease.3 Only a small number of those showing clinical
symptoms actually developed paralytic polio.

Dr. Mendlesohn has argued that the chance of being bitten by a

cobra was far more likely than contracting the disease of

»
3
. Burnet Sir M., "The Natural History of Infectious
Disease", op. cit., pp. 232-233.
 69
4
diphtheria.

I Tetanus is a matter which Mendlesohn also claims is grossly

i overstated as a danger to children and adults and is usually
presented as being ready to pounce from almost every rusty
. "^
nail into every cut or scratch.5

Г The role played by vaccines in the declining risk of

Г contracting certain diseases is usually promoted as the single
I cause of the decline. This is extremely debatable. In any
]_ case, either in the pre�vaccine era or in the post�vaccine
щ, period with high or low rates of vaccination, the risk of
L
contracting a disease varies considerably between diseases.

In assessing the risks of contracting a disease parents and

individuals should seriously consider the disease conditions
ш which may place them or their child in a more susceptible
state when exposed to the virus or bacteria. This was dealt
Г with at length in Chapter 5. If it is believed that the
removal of these conditions will render exposure as a harmless
|L or mild experience, then the vaccine is superfluous. It if
m is not believed, then a real assessment of the disease risk
[
should still be made.

...'
Mendlesohn R., How to Raise a Healthy Child in Spite
of your Doctor, Comtemporary Books Inc. 1984, p.

f
222. "»

Mendlesohn R. , in Health and Healing, Vol. 7 No. 2,

Dec�Feb, 1988, p. 18.
 70
Once an assessment of the risk of contrac; g the disease is
made, an assessment should then be made of the real risk of
serious consequences flowing from actually contracting the
disease.

The traditional statistical ploy used to justify vaccinations

is to simply divide the number of cases of disease by the
number of deaths or serious consequences to give a case
fatality rate or adverse reaction rate.6 This is also
extremely misleading.

To inform parents that their child suffers a 1/5000 chance of

dying from measles if the child contracts the disease does not
really tell them much.

Just as social conditions affected the fatality rate of

infectious disease iate last century and early this century,
so do they also now.7 The circumstances of each death are
simply never given. The fatality is then dramatised to
parents as to what they could face if their child was not
vaccinated.

We are never told as to the particular medical condition or

life expectancy of these fatal cases upon contracting measles.

6
. See for example, Department of Health, Benefits and
Risks of Immunisation, 1991.
1
. See far example Stewart G. and Bassili W. ,
"Epedemiological evaluation of Immunisation: Other
factors in the Control of Whooping Cough", The
Lancet, Feb. 28, 1976, pp. 471-476.
ra

pp

71
рт^

[ We are not told how they were treated or whether or not they
would have died anyway. By way of example, in the U.K. in
V 1961 one half of the 132 reported measles fatalities were of
8
T children with pre�existing chronic disease or disability. it
L
is likely they would have died shortly anyway irrespectively
p'
j' of contracting measles. This is certainly often the case in
_, third world countries where measles, might be the final illness
i
9
before a death which would have occurred anyway. However,
j
10
* emphasis still seems to be on immunising against the disease
j rather than attacking all the factors which cause the high
fatality rate for infectious disease in the developed world
late last century and earlier this century: sanitation,
L hygiene, nutrition, housing, water supply and general
j5* standards of living.

i
Stewart and Bassili found great variance in the incidence of
whooping cough during an epidemic in Glasgow in 1974." They
found a much stronger correlation between disease incidence
and socio�ecomonic conditions than with the vaccination rate
per live birth.

E* 8
The Lancet, Aug 1, 1981, pp. 236�237.
Г 9 Kalokerinos A., "Immunisation by Vaccination There
are Two Sides", Natural Health, July, 1987, pp. 5�9;
and also The Lancet, August 1, 1981, pp. 236�237.
10 UNICEF, "Immunisation for all by 1990", AFAR, Dec.
1985, pp. 1173�1176.

p? u Stewart G. and Bassili W., op. cit.

 72
Dr. Mendlesohn has also argued on similar lines.12

Once an assessment of the risk of contracting the disease and

the risk of serious consequences following it are made, an
assessment should then be made of the risks associated with
the vaccine itself. This whole process may be set out in
point form:
1. What is the real risk of contracting each disease for
which a vaccine is to be administered?
2. Having contracted the disease, what is the real risk, not
to people or children generally, but to your individual
child of serious consequences following actually
contracting the disease?
3. Will a doctor who is familiar with your child's medical
history be administering the vaccine or will this be done
by someone who is unknown or virtually unknown to you and
unfamiliar with your child?
4. How is each vaccine made and what substances are
contained in them? What happens to each of these
separate substances contained in each vaccine when they
are injected or ingested into the body?
5. What are the known mild to medium side effects of the
vaccine, the usual length of time these symptoms remain
and the risk of such side effects occurring?
6. What are the suspected possible serious consequences
following the vaccine and the estimated risk of them

Mendlesohn R. , "How to Raise a Healthy Child in

Spite of your Doctor", p. 215.
 73
occurring?
7. (a) Is the vaccine a live virus vaccine and if so, to
what extent will the virus persist in the body and
for what period of time?
(b) What is the risk of a persisting live virus causing
joint disease, chronic disease or auto immune
disease later in life.
(c) Is there a possibility that the persistence in the
body of a live virus following vaccination could
supress the immune systems ability to fight disease
generally.
8. In the case of the whooping cough vaccine, what have the
studies revealed as to the possible link between the
vaccine and sudden infant death?
9. In the case of the polio vaccine, what is the risk that
the vaccine will cause polio in a vaccine recipient or a
contact of such a recipient?
10. In the case of the measles, mumps and rubella vaccine,
will immunity be short term so that the child is then
left exposed to each disease as a young adult?
11. What is the known vaccine failure rate at the point of
vaccination for each vaccine?
12. How many fully vaccinated children contract a particular
disease during an outbreak?
13. (a) If immunity is gained at vaccination, what is the
rate of decline of immunity over time?
(b) What percentage of fully vaccinated children would
have no immunity against a particular disease at say
 74
5 years, 10 years or 15 years after vaccination?
14. Has all the material reasonably available supporting or
opposing immunisation been considered?
15. If the child is seriously injured following a vaccation,
who will look after the child and what compensation will
be paid for the injuries and by whom?

Most parents or individuals simply take the doctors word for

it that immunisation is essential if they do not want their
child to die or suffer debilitating disease. This, together
with public health bureaucrats engaging in dramatic
presentation of what can happen in very rare circumstances,
leaves parents uninformed of the real risks associated with
vaccination.

If parents wish to make a genuine, informed and free choice

concerning the decision as to whether or not to vaccinate
their child, then they must have as much knowledge as possible
so as to properly consider all the steps outlined above.
This information, will not come only from a doctor's surgery
or a superficial pamphlet from the Department of Health.
Unfortunately the information is hard to find particularly
with respect to the literature which justifies opposition to
mass immunisation. Its unavailability is simply unacceptable
but parents should persist in obtaining this detailed
information before making a decision on each particular
vaccine.
 75
If an informed genuinely free choice is exercised in favour of
vaccinating, then Coulter and Fisher13 have suggested a number
of steps which should be considered so as to minimise the risk
of vaccine damage. Some of these are set out below:
1. Insist that the child is given a careful physical
examination prior to each shot. A determination should
be made as to the presence of any infection, high
temperature or illness. Any of these may predispose
some children to an adverse reaction to a particular
vaccine.
2. Insist that a detailed medical history of the child and
his or her family is taken before the first vaccination.
Mention should be made by parents of any family history
of convulsions or neurological disease.
3. If it is not the first shot, then any adverse reactions
to a previous shot should be mentioned to the doctor.
4. (a) Inquire as to whether or not the pertussis component
of the DTP vaccine can or should be deleted,
(b) If it is to be deleted, then verify that the vial
used for the vaccination is DT only (diphtheria and
tetanus) and not the usual DTP vaccine.
5. If mild or severe reactions do occur insist that a full
and proper permament record is taken by the doctor.

As a child has no say in whether or not he or she is to be

vaccinated, it is important that parents carefully consider

Coulter H.L. and Fisher B.L. , "DTP: A Shot in the

Dark", Harcourt, Brace and Jovanovic, p. 391-393.
 76
the risks associated with vaccinating their child.

If all of the above matters concerning risk/benefit analysis

and steps to be taken at the point of vaccination are taken
into account, then any decision made will be an informed one
which will minimises any associated risks.
щ

7. WHOOPING COUGH

b
 77
CHAPTER 7
WHOOPING COUGH
1. The symptoms of the disease:
Dr. Robert Mendlesohn has provided a good description of this
disease:1
Whooping cough (pertussis) is an extremely
contagious bacterial disease that is usually
transmitted through the air by an infected person.
The incubation period is 7-14 days. The initial
symptoms are indistinguishable from those of a
common cold; a runny nose, sneezing, listlessness
and loss of appetite, some tearing in the eyes, and
sometimes a mild fever.
As this disease progresses, the victim develops a
severe cough at night. Within a week to 10 days
after the first symptoms appear the cough will
become paroxysmal. The child may cough a dozen
times with each breath, and his face may darken to a
bluish or purple hue. Each coughing bout ends with
a whooping intake of breath, which accounts for the
popular name of the disease. Vomiting is often an
additional symptom of the disease.
Whooping cough can strike within any age group, but
more than half of all victims are below two years of
age. It can be serious and even life-threatening,
particularly in infants. Infected persons can
transmit the disease to others for about a month
after the appearance of the initial symptoms, so it
is important that they be isolated, especially from
other children.
... if an infant contracts the disease, you should
consult a doctor because hospital care may be
reguired.
The primary threats to babies are exhaustion from
coughing and pneumonia. Very young infants have
even been known to suffer cracked ribs from the
severe coughing bouts.
Immunisation against pertussis is given along with
vaccines for diphtheria and tetanus in the DPT
inoculation. Although the vaccine has been used
for decades, it is one of the most controversial of
immunisations. Doubts persist about its

Mendlesohn R., "How to Raise a Healthy Child in

Spite of your Doctor", pp. 219-220.
 78
effectiveness. and many doctors share my concern
that the potentially damaging side effects of the
vaccine may outweigh the alleged benefits.

2. What are the side effects of the vaccine?

The DTP vaccine is the most controversial of all vaccines,
particularly as the pertussis component of the vaccine has
been linked with serious side effects.

In 1981 a study was undertaken in the United States of 784 DT

(diphtheria and tetanus only) and 15,752 DTP shots given to
children 0-6 and reactions occurring within 48 hours. The
results are summarised as follows:2

Reaction DTP% DT%

local redness 37.4 7. 6

local swelling 40.7 7. 6
pain 50.9 9. 9
fever 31.5 14. 9
drowsiness 31.5 14. 9
fretfulness 53.4 22 6
vomiting 6.2 2 6
anorexia 20.9 7 0
persistent crying 3.1 0 07

18 cases regarded as serious reactions occurred within 48

hours; 9 were from convulsions and 9 showed symptom of being
"lifeless, limp, pale" or "unresponsive".3

Cody et al found that:4

"convulsions appear to be the most common more

Cody C.L., et al, Pediatrics Vol. 68, No.5, Nov.

1981, pp 650-658.

3
ibid ppf 654, 656.
*

A
ibid p. 656.
щ

79
serious reaction observed following pertussis
Í- immunisation".
m
The authors of this study then reviewed the findings of other
researchers in this field and found considerable variance in
reported convulsion rates following pertussis injection:5
1956 1: 11,000 shots
1974 1: 2,200 immunised children
1967 1: 6,500 immunised children
1978 1: 2,750 immunised children
^7)
1978 1:800,000 shots
The study of Cody et al found convulsions in 9/15752 shots or
01
6
1/1750 but still came under severe attack. Coulter and
Fisher claimed that the study of Cody et al assessed the
reaction rate per shot and not per immunised child and as a
result:7
"The rate for serious neurological reactions was
�Я\ made to appear an innocuous 1 in 1750 shots".

Coulter and Fisher then claimed that if a rate per child and
not the number of shots is given, then a substantially higher
risk of convulsion would be revealed. The number of children
is not revealed in the study of Cody et al but is estimated by

7ñ) Coulter� and Fisher at 7,000. As there were 18 cases of

serious neurological reaction, this would then give a far more
alarming figure of 1 in 389 children rather than 1 in 1750
shots.8

ibid p. 657.

Coulter H.L. and Fisher B.L., DTP: A Shot in the

!!ГГ|
Dark � Harcourt, Brace and Jovanovic 1985.

ibid p. 247.
*

ibid
 80
Cody et al in their study attempt to explain the possible
cause of pertussis related side effects:9
"the vaccine is known to contain potentially
reactogenic components including adenylate cyclase,
endotoxin, and a factor capable of producing
lymphocytosis, sensitisation to histamine, and
changes in glucose-insulin homeostasis^ One or
more of these may be responsible for the more
serious reactions"
Despite the original findings with respect to convulsions, the
authors were still able to conclude that:10
"This study supports the conclusion that the
benefits of pertussis immunisation far outweigh the
risks"
Approximately 7 years later, 16 of the 18 children who had
been diagnosed as having suffered convulsions were followed up
and:
"none had suffered any permanent neurological damage
and all had IQs within the expected normal range""
Griffen et al12 investigated the risk of seizures and
encephalopathy (brain damage) following DTP vaccine in
Tennessee. This involved 38,171 Medicaid children who
received 107,154 DTP immunisations in their first 3 years of
life.
"356 children (0.9%) had a medical encounter for a
seizure and 2 children were hospitalised with

Cody et al op. cit. p. 657.

10
ibid p. 658.

11
Paediatrics (1988) 81; 789-94 referred to in
Communicable Diseases NZ (1988) 88-8; 4-5.
12
. Griffen M.R., et al, "Risk of Seizures and
Encephalopathy after Immunisation with the
Diphtheria - Tetanus - Pertussis Vaccine", JAMA
March 23-30 1990 Vol. 26 No. 12 pp. 1641-1645.
 81
pH
encephalopathy between their first DPT immunisation
and 36 months of age. The 2 children with
encephalopathy both had their onset of illness more
than 2 weeks following DTP immunisation and neither
had permanent sequelae ... an additional 359
children had screening codes that were consistent
with a possible seizure. "l3
This study does have methodological flaws in that it relies on
I

SSV;
the records of children admitted to hospital under a free
medical service as a means of drawing certain conclusions.
The fact that a parent did not seek medical attention for a
child does not mean that a seizure or other reactions to the
vaccine did not occur.

In any case Griffen et al found an increased risk of febrile

га
seizures in the first 3 days following immunisation:
"Febrile seizures were defined as seizures
accompanied by fever and not considered to be
symptomatic of an acute neurological illness. 14
"
Griffen et al claimed that their research confirmed the work
of other investigators :
иГ^

"that serious neurological events are rarely, if

ever, caused by DTP immunisation"15
Pollock et al16 found that crying, screaming and feverishness
were more frequent with DTP than DT vaccines but the
pi
difference was only small.

13
ibid p. 1643.
14
ibid p. 1642.
15
ibid p. 1645.
i6
Pollock"�* T.M. , et al., "Symptoms after primary
immunisation with DTP and with DT Vaccine", The
Lancet July 21, 1984 pp. 146�149.
 82
They compared 6,004 infants who had DTP vaccine with 4,024
infants who had DT vaccine only. They found that convulsions
and neurological disorders were no more apparent in the DTP
vaccine than with the DT vaccine.

However they did state:17

"Any vaccine which causes, fever may provoke a
febrile convulsion in a susceptible child; DTP is
potentially more likely to do so than DT, since it
causes fever more often."
Pollock and Morris18 found a higher voluntary reporting of
reactions following DTP than DT in a 7 year survey of adverse
reaction to vaccination in the North West Thames region of
London. However, they found no difference between the two
vaccines when 682 childrens' hospital records were examined
after admission following recent immunisation.

Pollock and Morris dismiss the larger parental reporting of

DTP symptoms as follows:19
"The greater frequency of recorded reactions after
DTP than DT could have been due to bias caused by
the adverse publicity accorded to pertussis vaccine,
since no major difference was found when the
immunisation histories of children admitted to
hospital with such conditions was compared"
However, they were still able to conclude:20

17
4 ibid p. 148.
18 Pollock, T.N., and Morris T., "A 7-year Survey of
Disorders attributed to Vaccination in North West
Thames region", The Lancet April 2, 1983 pp. 753-
757. \
19 ibid p. 753.
20
ibid p. 757.
 83
"The DTP febrile convulsion rate in the Hospital
Activity Analysis (HAA) was no greater than that
among children of a corresponding age. However,
taking into account the recurrence of three febrile
convulsions 24 hours after vaccination in the HAA,
we are left with the impression that DTP may
sometimes provoke a febrile convulsion."

An Australian study in 1982 confirmed the lower incidence of

adverse reactions in DT shots with the pertussis component
excluded.21 Dr. Feery studied 7712 DTP and 335 DT
immunisations and classified reactions as follows:-
Local: simple bruising, redness and swelling
General: irritability, vomiting, fever, persistent
crying, persistent high pitched screaming,
drowsiness, collapse, coldness, convulsion and
loss of consciousness.
The results are as follows:-
DTP% DT%

Local 47.8 33.7

10.1
General 38.4
and one of "twitching"
Dr. Feery found two cases of convulsion
giving an incidence of 1/2856.

Dr. Feery commented on the serious side effects of the

pertussis vaccine and said that:22
"It has been suggested that these effects are due to
the toxic effects of pertussigen, a protein
component of the pertussis organism which has
histamine-sensitising; lymphocytosis promoting and
pancreatic islet activating properties. It is
possible that other bacterial products, such an

Feery B.J., "Incidence and type of reactions to

triple antigen (DTP) and DT (CDT) vaccine", Medical
Journal of Australia, November 27, 1982 pp 511 -
515. *

22
ibid p. 514-515
 84
endotoxin may also play a part in the pathogenesis"
Predictably, Dr. Feery was still able to reassuringly find:23
"that the benefits of pertussis vaccination exceed
the risks"
A retrospective study was conducted in the U.K. of 50 cases of
serious reactions suspected of being caused by immunisation in
that country from 1956 to 197624

34 of the 50 cases were assessed as being possibly caused by

immunisation. These were divided as follows: 13 cases of
epilepsy, 13 cases of acute encephalitis and 8 of infantile
spasms.
"In the epilepsy group 9 children has received the
first dose of vaccine before 6 months of age and
these 9 children had their first convulsion between
3�6 months of age which is earlier than the usual
age of25 onset of febrile convulsions from other
causes"
The panel conducting the study expressed strong concern at the
limitation of retrospective enquiries. They were not
satisfied that a link had been established between DTP and
serious illness but still felt that this did not necessarily
preclude a link actually existing:26
"no scientifically unassailable link has been
established between DTP immunisation and serious
neurological illness but we have come to the
conclusion on the basis of all the present evidence
that there was a prima facie case that such a link

ibid p. 515.
и
.
Advisory Panel on Serious Reactions to Vaccines, in
24
.
"Whooping Cough", Department of Health and Social
Security (U.K.) pp. 6�15.
ibid p. 40.
и
.
26
ibid p. 4.
 85
may exist."
Barkin and Pichichero in a survey of 1,232 children in four
medical practices found that within 48 hours of vaccination,
7% had no reaction, 27.3% had mild reactions, 58.6% had
moderate reaction and 7.1% had severe reactions. In at least
50% of children temperatures rose to at least 100 degrees F
after vaccination and in 80% behavioural changes were noted by
their parents. 72.2% had local reactions and 12.9% suffered
prolonged screaming after immunisation.27

Dr. Cherry of the United States has undertaken a consideration

of the studies into DTP immunisation and encephalopathy.28
He referred to three separate studies in Sweden (1979);
Holland (1979) and Boston, USA (1974) which founds rates of
encephalopathy as follows:
"1 per 170,000 vaccinated children
1 per 400,000 vaccinated children
1 per 180,000 vaccinated children"29
Dr. Cherry also referred to the National Childhood
Encephalopathy study carried out in England and Wales and
Scotland from 1976 to 1979 which assessed the risk of brain
damage following DTP immunisation. This study assessed such

Barkin R.M., and Pichichero, M.D., "Diphtheria-

Pertussis-Tetanus Vaccine: Reactogenicity of
Commercial Products", Pediatrics Vol. 63 No. 2
February 1979 pp. 256-260.
Cherry J.D., "The Past, Present and Future of
Pertussis: The Role of Adults in Epidemiology and
Future^Control", Western Journal of Medicine 150(3),
March 1989 pp. 319-328.
29
ibid p. 324.
 86
a risk at 1 per 310,000 immunisation.30 If this was assessed
at number of children rather than number of immunisations, the
rate would have been even much more significant.

A landmark Court decision in the U.K. was critical of the NCES

finding and was not satisfied that there was a link, at law,
between whooping cough vaccination and permanent brain
damage.31 This does not mean that there is not a link but
that the Court was not satisfied the standard of proof on the
balance of probabilities had been satisfied by the Plaintiff.

The Department of Health has referred to this judgement and to

the reported incidence of 1 in 310,000 immunisations.32 If
this was an accurate figure, then in my view, it would be
sufficient reason alone not to immunise a child with the
pertussis vaccine. The Court in the U.K. found that the NCES
had incorrectly classified some children as seriously impaired
and then went on to make an assessment of the risk of the
vaccine after observing those children for a period of only 15

The National Childhood Encephalopathy Study (NCES)

in "Whooping Cough", op. cit. pp. 79-169.
Gold R., "Does Pertussis Cause Brain Damage?",
Journal Paediatric Child Health (1990) 26, pp. 240-
241.
See also Dyer C., "Not satisfied that whooping cough
vaccine causes permanent brain damage", British
Medical Journal Vol. 296, 23rd April, 1988, pp.
1189-1190.
NSW Department of Health "Benefits and Risks of
Immunisation" p. 6.
 87
days.33 The Court undertook detailed consideration of each
alleged case and found that none had permanent brain damage
following vaccination. The Director of the NCES argued in
Court that a reassessment of cases should involve all cases
and not just those regarded as possibly vaccine related but
this was rejected by the Court.34

Bowie reports that following this Court decision and a similar

one in Canada, the Canadian Immunisation Guidelines have been
altered to read as follows:35
"Although there may be an increased risk of acute,
severe neurological illness (including
encephalopathy) occurring within 72 hours of the
administration of the pertussis vaccine to
previously healthy infants, the majority of such
illnesses observed in the National Childhood
Encephalopathy Study (NCES) in the U.K. were
prolonged and/or complex convulsions. All such
children were normal on follow up 12-18 months
later."
Melchior36 in 1977 published results of a study in Denmark
into a possible link between immunisation and infantile spasm.
He compared 113 cases of infantile spasm between 1970 and
1975 when the timing of the DTP immunisation was at 5 weeks, 9
weeks and at 10 months with 86 such cases between 1957 and
1967 when immunisation for pertussis only was given at 5

Bowie C., "Lessons from the Pertussis Vaccine Court

Trial", The Lancet Vol. 335 Feb 17, 1990 pp. 397-
399.
ibid p. 399.
ibid \
Melchior J.C., "Infantile Spasms and early
Immunisation against Whooping Cough", Archives of
Disease in Childhood, 1977, 52, pp. 134-137.
 88
months, 6 months and 15 months of age.
"It was found that 42% of cases of infantile spasms
in each time period occurred before age 5 months.
If pertussis immunisation had any major causative
effect for infantile spasms, it would be expected
that a greater percentage of cases would have
occurred early in the second time period because of
the earlier immunisation. "37
Melchior then concluded, that any association between infantile
spasms and the pertussis vaccine, was merely a time co-
incidence ad not causative.

This was a very small study from which conclusive proof is now
drawn that infantile spasms and the pertussis vaccine only
have a chance relationship.38

Melchior did not prove that no such link exists and even said:
"... there may be an occasional connection between
immunisation and infantile spasms. "39
Melchior's study does not mean that infantile spasms are not
or are never caused by the pertussis vaccine. This is the
very position which has been taken in a report of the Advisory
Panel to the Committee on the Safety of Medicines in the
U.K.:40
"Melchior's study on infantile spasms has been

37
Cherry J.D., op. cit. pp. 324-325.
38
Bowie, op. cit. p. 398 and
*
See also Communicable Diseases New Zealand (1988)
88-8: 4-5.
39
Melchior op. cit. p. 134.
40
Report from the Advisory Panel to the Committee on
Safety o*f Medicines, "The Collection of Data
Relating to Adverse Reactions to the Pertussis
Vaccine" in "Whooping Cough", op. cit. pp. 27-75.
 89
widely quoted in the pertussis controversy. This
study leaves little doubt that infantile spasms may
begin within 2 weeks of immunisation with DT as well
as DTP. This certainly suggests that considerable
caution should be exercised in attributing cases of
infantile spasms specifically to pertussis vaccine.
Melchior's own comment is 'a casual connection
between whooping cough immunisation and infantile
spasms is very unlikely except in a few cases'.
Attention should, however, be drawn to one aspect of
Melchior's data which is rarely cited ,:but which
suggests pertussis vaccine may sometimes cause
infantile spasms. Melchior recorded the ages at
onset of infantile spasms over two periods of time
during which two immunisation schedules were
employed. The earlier schedule included pertussis
vaccine (as triple vaccine) given at five, six and
fifteen months of age. In the later schedule,
pertussis vaccine was given at five and nine weeks
and at ten months. Melchior comments that there
was no overall change in the age of onset of
infantile spasms which would have been expected
following the change in immunisation schedule, if
there were a casual relationship. However,
restricting attention to the early months of
infancy, precisely the stage at which there is the
greatest temporal difference between the two
immunisation schedules, the data do show what could
be quite a marked change to an earlier age onset.
The change is not significant at a conventional
level, but it should not be overlooked. Bearing in
mind the small number of cases studied and the
likelihood that infantile spasms have more than one
aetiology. Melchior data are comparable with the
view that pertussis vaccine is one of the causes. "41
In other words, infantile spasms have multiple causes one of
which may be the pertussis vaccine. Melchior's data simply
establish that the vaccine is not the only cause rather than
the prevailing view that it is not a cause at all.

3. The Pertussis vaccine and cot death;

The pertussis component of DTP vaccine has long been linked as
a possible cause of some cot deaths.

ibid pp. 46-47.

 90
In March, 1979, the Tennesee Department of Health in
association with the Centre for Disease Control in the United
States conducted a retrospective study of a possible link
between Lot 64201 of DTP vaccine manufactured by Wyeth Limited
and sudden infant death.42 This followed the sudden infant
deaths of 11 infants within 8 days of DTP and 4 of these were
infants aged 2 to 3 months who. died within 24 hours of
receiving the vaccine.

Investigations were conducted for sudden infant deaths for two

periods: August 1977 to March 1978 and August 1978 to March
1979. The vaccine from the suspect lot were only available
in the later period.

The findings were as follows:

Period SID after DTP SID within Wyeth Limited

Vaccination 24 hs DTP Vaccine used
August 1977
to March 1978 16 0 ^

August 1978
to March 1979 33 5 4

These figures would strongly suggest that Lot 64201 may have
been a contributing factor in at least four cases of sudden
infant deaths. Coulter and Fisher43 claim there was only a 3
in 100 statistical chance that 4 or more deaths would occur at

Hutcheson R., "Follow up on DTP Vaccination & SID:

Tennesee", Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report
28:134-136, 1979.

Coulter H.L., and Fisher B.L., op. cit. p. 237.

 91
random within 8 days of receiving lot 64201 vaccine. This
would suggest a statistically caueal link between the vaccine
and sudden infant death.

However, the Centre for Disease Control publicly concluded

that an association between these deaths and; lot 64201 had
neither been established nor refuted.44 Coulter and Fisher
have given an alarming account of the private discussions
between medical personnel at the Centre for Disease Control in
determining how the Centre would handle this particular
matter.45 It is apparent that the Centre was more concerned
with the implications of an adverse finding on immunisation
programmes than on whether or not the lot may have caused or
contributed to the deaths. Despite this, the manufacturer,
"withdrew its suspect lot 64201 from the market"^ and in June

1984 withdrew entirely from the manufacture and distribution

of the DTP vaccine.47

Bernier et al48 have commented somewhat cautiously on the link

between SID and lot 64201:
"This evidence seems adequate to indicate an unusual

M
. ibid p. 240.
45
. ibid pp. 236-243.
46
. ibid p. 240.
47
. Mendlesohn R., "The People's Doctor", Vol. 18 No.
12, pp. 6-7.
48
. Bernier R.H., et al, "Diphtheria-Tetanus Toxoids-
Pertussis Vaccination and Sudden Infant Deaths in
Tennesee", Journal of Pediatrics 101(5) 1988 pp.
419-421.
 92
temporal association between DTP vaccination with
[lot 64201] and SIDS . . . whether or not this
temporal association reflects a causal relationship
remains undetermined; we found no evidence to
support such a causal relationship."
Roberts acknowledged that the evidence did establish a causal
link but then dismissed this with what must be regarded as
quite a novel approach:49
"the cluster in Tennesee was. real and was an example
of the 5% of occasions in which associations will be
found, by chance, to be significant"
In other words, a statistical causal link with the vaccine was
established but that causal link was only a chance one and
would not be repeated if similar studies were undertaken
again. Dr. Roberts is employed with the Welcome Research
Laboratories in the U.K. Welcome is one of the three
manufacturers of whooping cough vaccine in the U.K. Welcome
was added as a Defendant, at its own request, to the
proceedings commenced in the U.K. against a doctor alleged to
have caused brain damage to a young woman following the
administration of the DTP vaccine. It resolutely defended
the action and was singularly successful in that the Court
found no causal connection between the pertussis vaccine and
permanent brain damage.

Roberts in assessing the research into the link between cot

death and vaccination appeared determined to find no such
link. His close scrutiny and scepticism of research which
found a possible link contrasted with his complete acceptance

49
. Roberts » s.C. , "Vaccination and Cot Deaths in
Perspective", Archives of Disease in Childhood 1987,
62, pp. 754-759.
 93
of research where no such link was found.

There are approximately 2 cases of sudden infant death per

1,000 live births. Most of these occur in the first year of
life and the overwhelming majority of these occur between 2
and 6 months of age. This is the very time-when the three
DTP shots are given to infants.

Roberts referred to some studies which have shown a higher

rate of sudden infant death in unvaccinated children.50 He
concluded that the association between SID and vaccination was
therefore only in time and not a causative one.
"Although it is natural to link an unexpected event
with its precursor events, co-incidences do occur
and should be seen in perspective. "51
The death of twin boys in the U.K. in 1985 within three hours
of DTP vaccine was also explained away as a time co-incidence
and the fact that twins are apparently more susceptible to cot
death than other infants.52

In 1983 a further retrospective study was conducted in Los

Angeles.53 The parents of 145 sudden infant death victims
who had died between the 1st January, 1979 and the 23 rd

ibid pp. 757-758.

ibid p. 758.
ibid pp. 756-757.
Barrai L.J., et al, "Possible Temporal Association
between Diphtheria-Tetanus Toxoid-Pertussis Vaccine
and Sudden Infant Death", Paediatric Infectious
Disease Vol. 2, No. 1, pp. 7-11.
 94
August, 19 80 were contacted regarding each child's
immunisation.

53 of the 145 had received a DTP immunisation and "of these

53, 27 had received a DTP immunisation within 28 days of
death. 6 sudden infant deaths occurred within 24 hours and
17 occurred within 1 weeks of immunisation"5*

Barrai et al found that: 55

"These sudden infant deaths were significantly more
than expected were there no association between DTP
immunisation and sudden infant death"
With respect to a possible link between sudden infant death
and the DTP vaccine, Barrai et al had this to say: 56
"If an infant is predisposed to sudden infant death
due to abnormal ventilatory regulation secondary to
brain stem immaturity or other transient neurologic
impairment, then a reactogenic vaccine which
frequently is associated with fever, drowsiness and
fretfulness in a significant proportion of vaccine
recipients, and rarely with more serious reactions,
might be one of many factors which adversely affect
such a subgroup of infants"
Barrai et al concluded by saying that: 57
"Currently the temporal distribution of sudden
infant deaths coincides with the recommended times
for DTP immunisation. If further studies
substantiate our findings it seems prudent to
consider rescheduling DTP immunisation until after
the period of highest risk of sudden infant death,
that is, the latter half of the first year of life"
Roberts also attacked this study o n the grounds that i t was

ibid p. 7.
ibid.
ibid p. "¿0.
ibid p. 11.
 95
methodoligically flawed, retrospective and statistically
unsound.58 He relied on Mortimer et al59 and Fulginiti60 to
support his attack. However, even Fulginiti, a very strong
devotee of immunisation,61 had this to say about the study of
Barraf et al:62
"In the search for biological truth we�� must not
disregard or scorn potential clues to enlightenment.
This study and others like it should be neither
discarded nor guoted as proof. They serve as
possible hypothesis for others to challenge or
extend. In summary, we do not know what causes
SIPS: we do not know if DTP does. We should
attempt to find out: it is not a trivial question."
Barraf responded to these attacks in the following manner:63
"In fact one could postulate that the reason the
modal age of SIDS is 2 months, that this is the time
that DTP is given, unmasking brain stem immaturity
in a predisposed child as we suggested. If one is
to look at frequency distribution of SIDS by age and
argue that our results are consistent with this age
distribution and are not due to DTP immunisation,
then one must use a base population of infants who
have not received DTP immunisation for other than
medical reasons. Unfortunately this population
does not exist."
The last point made by Barraf is an extremely important one.
To establish that there is no causal link between DTP and cot

58
Roberts, op. cit, pp. 757�758.
59 Mortimer E.A., et al, "DTP and SIDS" Paediatric
Infectious Disease 1983: 2: 492.
Fulginiti V., "Sudden infant death Syndrome,
м
.
Diphtheria�Tetanus Toxoid Pertussis Vaccination and
Visits to the Doctor: Chance Association or cause
and Effect?" Paediatric Infectious Disease 1983: 2:
5�6.
6i
See Coulter and Fisher op. cit. p. 226.
*
62
Fulginiti op. cit. p. 6.
ö
. Barraf L., "In Reply", Paediatric Infectious
Disease, 1983: 2: 492-493 p. 493.
 96
death the rate of sudden infant death in an immunised
population must be compared to a similar population which has
not been immunised. If the rate of the latter group is
significantly greater than the former, then a statistical link
between DTP and cot death will have been established. It is
this very type of study which I have suggested to the Sudden
Infant Death Association as being one which it should urgently
take up.

Barraf in his defence also stated that:64

"the fact that 6 of 27 infants who died within 28
days of immunisation died within the first 24 hours
is striking and warrants further scrutiny."
He then referred to a study by the National Institute of Child
Health & Human Development:
"involving approximately 840 SIDS cases and 1,680
randomly selected age-matched controls. This study
has not substantiated this relationship.
Preliminary analysis of the first half of the data
set demonstrates that only 38% of SIDS cases had
received DTP immunisation and that only 1% of
infants had received DTP within 24 hours of death.
2% of controls 65had been immunised within 24 hours of
the interview. "
This unfortunately confirms the preoccupation of researchers
with the 24 hour period following immunisation and whether or
not this is linked with sudden infant death. This is a
research method which has been criticised firmly by Scheibner
and Karlsson:66

M
. ibid p. 193.
65
. ibid
w
. Scheibnep V. , and Karlsson L., "Coth Death and
Vaccination Link", Natural Health, Vol. 4, No. 5,
Aug/Sept 1991 pp. 2-5.
 97
"The authors of these papers had little idea what
they were looking at or what to look for. Most
researchers arbitrarily accept that only deaths
within 24 hours of administration of the vaccine can
be attributed to the effect of the vaccine. Yet,
babies may and do die for up to 25 or more davs
after vaccination. and still as a direct consequence
of the toxic effect of the vaccine. How do we know
this? Because of the observed repetition of the
pattern of the flare ups of stress-induced breathing
in a number of babies over a long period- of time. "61
Despite the alarming level of cot deaths which occur each year
in New South Wales there has been no serious consideration
given to questioning the desirability of the DTP shot at such
an early stage in a young infants life.

A possible association between cot death and DTP vaccine has

recently been found by an Australian study68 undertaken by
Scheibner and Karlsson. They developed a "Cotwatch Breathing
Monitor" based on computer print out records of breathing
patterns of infants rather than on alarms. Scheibner and
Karlsson:69
"confirmed the existence of a stress-induced
breathing pattern which is a low-volume breathing
(5-10% of the volume of normal, unstressed
breathing) occurring in clusters (3-6 shorter
episodes within 10 to 15 minutes) when a child is
incubating illness or teething or following insults
like exposure to cigarette smoke, fatigue,
overhandling by visitors or vaccination10 needles.
Numerous causes, but the same reaction"
Scheibner and Karlsson concluded:71

67
ibid p. 3
68 ibid
69 ibid p. 2.
TO ibid at p.
71
ibid
 98
"that the timing of 80% of the cot deaths occurring
between the 2nd and 6th month is due to the
cumulative effect of infections, timing of
immunisations and inherent specifics in the babys
early development"
Scheibner and Karlsson also raised the question of
inconsistency in the amount of toxin in each vaccine:
"the toxicity of vaccines varies widely and
unpredictably, a DTP vaccine containing from 1 to
26.9 micrograms of endotoxin per millilitre"72
An infant which received the larger end of that range of
endotoxin may well be a candidate for cot death if it were in
a susceptible state.

What makes a baby susceptible brings me back to my earlier

remarks concerning disease conditions rather than the
"catching" of a disease. A large percentage of tender
infants would endure the routine administration of pain
killers during birth, little if any breast milk, the early
introduction of solid food, and antibiotics for a common cold.
It is then at this point, with a severely depleted capacity to
deal with "foreign bodies" that the first DTP injection takes
place. With all this in mind perhaps it is rather surprising
that the estimated rate of cot deaths of 2 per 1000 babies is
not somewhat higher.

If disease conditions combined with a series of vaccinations

is a possible cause of cot death, then research into the cause
of SIDS may well have been substantially misdirected. I am
not aware of any research that has been undertaken to assess
»

72
. ibid p. 3.
 99
the rate of cot deaths amongst unimmunised children who were
breast fed exclusively for at least six months following a
drug free pregnancy and birth and with a mother who, from
prior to conception, has followed a natural diet free or
virtually free of saturated fats, processed food, poor quality
water, cigarette smoke or alcohol.

I am convinced that the poor nutritional preparation of the

child by its parents combined with early use of medication
together with up to three DTP shots in the first six months of
life is one of a number of multiple factors which might
contribute to altered breathing patterns which in turn may
lead to a possible sudden infant death.

Keens et al73 also considered ventilatory patterns following

DTP immunisation as a risk factor in sudden infant death.

They did not find an increased level of abnormal ventilatory

patterns following DTP immunisation. However they did note:
"It is the clinical experience of many physicians
caring for infants with apnea that these infants
have more frequent and more severe apneas when they
are experiencing physical stress, such as during an
upper respiratory tract infection or following a
diphtheria-tetanus-pertussis vaccine (DTP)
immunisation. "74
clinical experience with infants with
unexplained apnea, and to a lesser extent subseguent

Keens T.G., et al, Ventilatory Pattern following

Diphtheria-Tetanus-Pertussis Immunisation in Infants
at Risk for Sudden Infant Death Syndrome" ADJC Vol.
139, Oct 1985 pp. 991-994.

ibid p. 991.
 100
siblings of SIDS victims, suggests that non specific
physical stresses increase the severity and
freguency of apneas. "
75

The connection between medication and cot death in children

who had not been immunised with DTP was alluded to in the
76
study of Barraf et al . In addition to the 53 infants out
of 145 who had received DTP shots prior to death, it was found
that "an additional 46 of the 145 had a physician/clinic visit
71
when no DTP was given" . In what must surely get the prize
for academic lack of interest, the authors simply said
"...unfortunately we did not ascertain the
7i
reason
for physician visits as part of this study" .
There have been many studies undertaken to ascertain either
the possible causes of sudden infant death or the means by
which its incidence may be reduced.

These studies have found such factors which have included

79 80 81
lead, asbestos, changes in temperature, lack of fresh

75
ibid p. 993.
76
Barraf et al, op. cit.
77
ibid p. 7.
78
ibid at p.10
*
Drasch G.A., et al, "Lead and Sudden Infant Death",
79 European Journal of Pediatrics 1988 147: pp. 79�84.
The Australian Newspaper, "Study finds an asbestos
80 link in death of infants", Friday 3rd June, 1988.
*
81 Hassall I.В., "Sudden Infant Death Syndrome � "ANZ
Factor", The Medical Journal of Australia Vol. 151,
Oct 2, 1989, p. 361.
 101
air,82 sleeping position,83 poor social conditions and low
standards of parental care,84 and, of course, vaccination.

I regard the research on vaccination and cot death at least as

equivocal. Some studies provide a causal link but many do
not. However, it is of great concern that the DTP
immunisation at 2, 4 and 6 months occurring at the same time
as most sudden infant deaths is usually dismissed as sheer co-
incidence and not in any connected as to cause and effect.

A scientific study which shows that there might not be a

statistically relevant causal link does not mean that there is
no such link.

The Sudden Infant Death Association regards timing of

vaccinations and sudden infant death as one of chance only and
when requested to support this view a copy of Roberts article
was forwarded to me.

The medical profession relies on the study of Melchior to

claim that infantile spasm and DTP are not related. This

Corbyn J.A., "Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide Levels in

the vicinity of Sleeping Infants and Sudden Infant
Death Vol. GE 15, No. 1, August 1991 (Institution of
Engineers of Australia).
Dwyer T., et al., "Prospective Cohort Study of Prone
Sleeping Position and Sudden Infant Death Syndrome",
The Lancet, Vol. 337, May 25, 1991, p. 1224.
Richards I . , and Mcintosh H., "Confidential Enquiry
into 226 consecutive infant deaths" Archives of
Disease in Childhood, 1972, 47, p. 697.
 102
occurred where the timing of shots was altered but the age
incidence of infantile spasms was approximately the same.
Accordingly, it was concluded that the spasms were not caused
by the vaccine.

Those who so confidently assert that there is absolutely no

link between sudden infant death and the DTP immunisations
would surely support a study into DTP and sudden infant deaths
similar to that undertaken by Melchior with respect to
infantile spasms. Such a study should also include a number
of infants who have not been immunised at all.

The level of sudden infant death in a population of children

vaccinated at 2, 4 and 6 months should be compared to be
population of children vaccinated at say 12, 14 and 16 months.
If the incidence of sudden infant deaths remained primarily in
the 2 to 6 months age group in particular and generally at
less than 12 months, then it would be arguable that the DTP
vaccine was not a cause of cot deaths. I am not aware of any
such research although Fulginiti has claimed that:85
"countries which defer DTP to 6 months have an
identical pattern of SIDS prior to 6 months."
This completely contradicts the assertion made by French86
that in Japan where DTP is not administered until after 2
years of age sudden infant death has effectively disappeared

Fulginiti V., op. cit. p. 6.

French, R., in personal correspondence with the
former Minister for Health, the Hon. John Hannaford,
MLC.
 103
from that country.

If it is accepted that the DTP vaccine might be one of many

possible reasons which cause the disturbance of a susceptible
child's breathing pattern which may then lead to sudden infant
death, then the dismissal of the timing of suddsn infant death
and the DTP vaccine as a mere time co-incidence needs to be
much more carefully considered. This is especially so given
the equivocal conclusion of Taylor and Emery.87

Taylor and Emery studied 26 sudden infant deaths in Sheffield

between 1979 and 1982 and selected two age matched controls
for each case. Immunisation records were taken and then
compared between both groups. Their findings are as follows:
88

Status Study Cases Control GrOUD

26 52
Not immunised 18 25
Immunised DPT + DTP +
ÌPÌ POLIO DT + P P DT + P
< 3 days 1 0 2 0
3-7 days 0 0 0 0
7-28 days 3 2 7 3
> 28 days 1 1 10 5

"The results show that, in Sheffield, babies who die

unexpectedly are slightly less likely to have
received any form of immunisation than control

Taylor E.M., and Emery J.L., "Immunisation and Cot

Death", The Lancet, Sept 25, 1992, p. 721.
88
. ibid
 104
infants and reveal no significant relationship
between recent immunisation and sudden unexpected
death. This suggests that in our community
immunisation is certainly not a major factor in the
general aetiology of sudden infant deaths. "89
Taylor and Emery concluded from this study that a conclusive
causal link had not been established between vaccination and
cot death. However, they share my view in that it may be a
contributing factor.
"... in our experience, most unexpected deaths have
a multifactorial aetiology and we cannot exclude the
possibility of recent immunisation being one of
several90 contributory factors in an unexpected infant
death."
A definite link between the pertussis vaccine and sudden
infant death has not been made out as a sole contributing
factor. However, there is enough evidence to show that in
some young infants, susceptible as a result of some stress,
may succumb to sudden infant death with vaccination as a
possible final contributing factor.

Given the wealth of material written on the possible adverse

consequences of the pertussis vaccine and the various findings
brought down following that material, perhaps the more
cautious parent should treat the vaccine as guilty until
proven innocent. Unfortunately, in the immunisation debate
the reverse onus of proof is usually the method adopted by
doctors and health bureaucrats, that is, the vaccine is safe
unless proven to be otherwise.

89
. ibid
90
. ibid
 105
In my view it is simply unwise to dismiss categorically the
notion that the DTP vaccine could not be any possible cause or
contributing factor in some sudden infant deaths.

4. Whooping Cough; Does the vaccine give immunity?

Parents are entitled to question whether running the risk of
mild to severe side effects or a possibility of the vaccine
being a contributing factor in a cot death gives their child
100% guaranteed immunity against whooping cough.

The simple fact is that the pertussis vaccine does not give
100% guaranteed immunity against this disease to all children
for the rest of their lives. A distinction must be made here
between initial vaccine failure where no protection is given
whatsoever and waning immunity where the vaccine gives initial
immunity but fades and disappears over time.

(a) Vaccine failure:

Stewart and Bassili estimated that:91
"the overall risk of contracting whooping cough
seems to be reduced by about 70% in fully immunised
children"
In other words, 30% of immunised children are not protected
from the vaccination.

Stewart G., and Bassili W., "Immunological

evaluation of Immunisation and other factors in the
control of whooping cough" The Lancet Feb 28, 1976
pp 471-473 at p. 473.
 рзч

106
92
Stewart and Bassili used the "limited epidemic in Glasgow in
1974 ... to examine .. . the efficacy of the .. . vaccine"
comparing the general incidences of whooping cough in the

community with hospital admissions.

.. . Immunisation records of all 483 cases notified
in central Glasgow in 1974 were checked: exact
immune status was traced in 435 (90%) of whom 129
(30%) had
93
received at least 3 doses of pertussis
vaccine"
With respect to the hospital cases:
"252 cases were diagnosed as whooping cough among
ra
admission to the 2 infectious disease hospitals in
Glasgow in the epidemic years 1970 and 1974: in
these cases, there was no significant difference
between immunised and non�immunised cases in the
duration of illness, complications, level of
lymphocytosis, presence of whoop, and isolation of
B. pertussis"94
Mendlesohn claimed that:
"Estimates of the number of those vaccinated with
the pertussis vaccine who are protected
disease range from 50% to 80%"95
from the 1
Fine and Clarkson considered the protectiveness given by
pertussis vaccine in England and Wales:96 ra

92
. ibid
93
. ibid at p. 472.
94
. ibid at p. 73.
95
Mendlesohn R., "How to Raise a Healthy Child in
Spite of your Doctor", p. 222. pa

Fine P.E., Clarkson J.A., "The recurrence

96
. c*
rVhooping Cough: Possible implications for Assessme
of Vaccine Efficacy", The Lancet, March 20, 1982 г H
666, \
See also Malleson P.N., Bennett J.C., Whooping Cougn
admissions to paediatric hospital over ten years. ^
The protective value of Immunisation, The Lancet \
1977; i: 237�39,
and Grob P.R., et al, Effect of Vaccination of
severity and dissemination of Whopping Cough.BR Med
J 1981; 282: 23�26.
 107
"There is considerable evidence that the protective
efficacy of pertussis vaccine used in England and
Wales (defined as the percent reduction in morbidity
in vaccinated individuals compared with similarly
exposed unvaccinated groups) has been variable at
best. High efficacy measures were reported in the
early 1960s, but efficacy apparently fell to about
20% by 1967, leading to a reformulation of vaccines
in 1968. More recent estimates of pertussis
vaccine efficacy have ranged from 49% to 74%."
An Australian Paediatrician Dr. Margaret Burgess has recently
confirmed that the pertussis vaccine is not effective in many
recipients and wanes considerably over time.97
"Vaccines are not totally protective and pertussis
is probably the least efficient of the vaccines used
in children. Efficacy after three doses of
Australian vaccine was estimated in 1985 as 67% in
children aged one to 4 years and 36% in children 4
years and older"
All this means that a substantial number of children have no
immunity at the point of vaccination and an overwhelming
proportion have little protection over time.

(b) Waning Immunity:

Between 50% and 80% of children will receive immunity from
Whooping cough after receiving 3 doses of pertussis vaccine.

However, almost all of those children in the "immune" category

will only be given temporary immunity which will disappear
over time.

97 Burgess M. , "Immunisation update: risks and

benefits in Current Paediatric Practice, Harcourt
Brace & Jovanovich p. 14.
 108
.98
Hewlett has stated that:
"With the current immunisation schedule in which
children are given DTP at 2, 4, 6 and 15 months of
age with a final booster at age 4 to 6 years and no
further doses thereafter, the majority of the 1
population is left without protection"
Lambert has described the attack rate amongst vaccinated
people in a pertussis outbreak in Kent County, Michigan."His
findings are set out in the following table.100

Relation between interval since last dose of pertussis

vaccine and attack rate in the setting of a community
outbreak.
Years since last Attack rate percentage
pertussis vaccine of exposed
0-3 21%
4-7 47%
8-11 65%
12 or older 95%

Hewlett commented on Lamberts research as follows:101

"There was a direct correlation between the attack
rate among immunised persons and the duration since
last dose of vaccine. These data show that the
protection elicited by whole-cell vaccine decreases
with time, resulting in an attack rate of more than
95% for persons 12 or more years beyond their last
dose of vaccine. This means that in a population
such as that of the United States, where vaccine
acceptance rates probably exceed 90% and there are
few cases in children, there are a large number of
susceptible persons (Older than 16 to 18 yt.*rs).
»

98
Hewlett E., "Old & new Vaccines and the Future
Control of Pertussis", The Western Journal of
Medicine, March, 1989, Vol. 150, No. 3, pp. 319-328 tmãj

at p. 326.
99
Lambert H.J., Epidemiology of a small pertussis
outbreak in Kent County, Michigan, Public Health awl

Report 1965: 80: pp. 365-369.

100
ibid F l

101
Hewlett E. , op. cit., p. 326.

1
 109
Clinical pertussis is well documented in adults ..."
Hewlett, rather than expressing concern at the ineffectiveness
of the pertussis vaccine uses this data to justify the call
for vaccinating all age groups. This is a traditional
medical response and still does not tell us just how many
people are given immunity after vaccination and if it is
given, how long does the immunity last.
Vaccination is generally promoted as the means by which
immunity is given against a particular disease. A jab in the
arm is supposed to allow a person to be exposed to slight or
repeated infection without contracting the disease. The
inoculation is supposed to generate sufficient antibodies in a
vaccinated person to prevent the disease taking hold.

In West Glamorgan in the U.K. in the mid 197 0s a fall in the

vaccination rate for whooping cough was followed by an
outbreak of the disease. A substantial number of vaccinated
children contracted whooping cough during the outbreak.

The Swansea Research Unit of the Royal College of General

Practitioners had this to say about the very poor protection
provided by the pertussis vaccine during the outbreak:102
"In the whooping cough outbreak in West Glamorgan
vaccinated children were subjected to a considerable
weight of infection. It is therefore not
surprising that the protection rate was only 49% in
fully immunised children under 4 years of age. It
would be unreasonable to expect a protection rate

Swansea Research Unit, "Effect of a low pertussis

Vaccination uptake on a large community", British
Medical Journal Vol. 282, 3 Jan 1987 pp. 23-26 at p.
26.
 110
much higher when the vaccination rate had dropped to
9.5% and was also already half the average for
England and Wales three years earlier. The
protection rate in the group of children aged 5�9 is
much lower than in the younger age group, but the
reason for this is not clear."

In other words, if every one else is not immunised then your

1
particular vaccination will not give you immunity. Put J
another way, the lower the vaccination rate for whooping cough
in the community the less likely being vaccinated against it
t
ra
will prevent the contracting of the disease. I submit that
this is just sheer nonsense. Either the vaccine works or it
does not. The reference by the Research Unit to the lower I
protection rate in older children should have given them the "
answer. The vaccine has a high failure rate and its effect
я
wanes over time.

This has been confirmed in Australia by:103

"The study in Sydney by Drs. Dormán and Gapes
[which] indicated the vaccine efficacy after three H
doses of Australian vaccine was 78% in children aged *
1-4 years and 36% in children four years and older."

This means that 22% of fully vaccinated 1-4 year olds and 64% <ч
of children four years and older do not have protection
against whooping cough. Why do parents bother running the
risk of all the possible side effects of this vaccine if the
odds of vaccine failure and waning immunity are so high? J

103
. Burgess M. , "Immunisation: indications and *ч
contraindications. Modern Medicine of Australia,
May 1986, pp 76�83 at p. 78. J
 Ill

(с) Is there a more effective vaccine?

Hewlett104 has also referred to a more purified pertussis

vaccine which was being trialed in Japan as a possible source
of a more effective vaccine.

Tests in Sweden have found it to be less effective than the

current whole cell vaccine.

The National Bacteriology Laboratory in Stockholm, Sweden

issued a statement in late 1988 withdrawing the use of this
particular vaccine and justified the decision on the following

grounds :
"The vaccine was studied in a large clinical trial
of acellular pertussis vaccines which was finished
in the autumn of 1987. The Division of Drugs
judges that the efficacy of the vaccine may be lower
than that of whole cell vaccines. The uncertainty
about a possible association with deaths due to
serious bacterial infections, which occurred among
vaccinated children, has also contributed to the
recommendation made by the Division of Drugs of
comparative trials between acellular pertussis
vaccines and well known whole cell vaccines. "l0S

As a result of the Swedish experience it is unlikely that the

Commonwealth Serum Laboratories would introduce the new

vaccine into Australia.106

104
. Hewlett, op. cit.
"Licence Application for Pertussis Vaccine Withdrawn
105
.
in Sweden", The Lancet, Jan 14, 1989, p. 114.
Burgess M., "Immunisation Update: Risk and
106
.
Benefits", in Current Paediatric Practise, Ed.
Procopis P.G., & Kewley G.D., pp. 12�20 at p. 14.
 112
(d) Does a decline in the uptake of vaccine lead to the
higher incidence of Whooping Cough?
Most commentators who support the pertussis vaccine use as an
argument the example in the U.K. in the mid 1970s where a
widespread concern about the safety of the vaccine caused a
substantial downturn in the number of children who were
vaccinated. As an epidemic followed it was then claimed that
the significant reduction in the number of children vaccinated
was the sole and direct cause of the epidemic. Accordingly
it was then argued that vaccination programmes should be
vigorously promoted to ensure an increased vaccination rate
and therefore reduced incidence of the disease.

The assertion that the U.K. experience is proof of the

correlation between reduced vaccination and increased
incidence of disease is use and abuse of statistics at its
most potent.

The NSW Department of Health is typical of the manner in which

the U.K. argument has been hijacked to promote immunisation in
this country.
"Epidemics occur when immunisation rates fall ...
In the U.K., due to adverse publicity in 1974-78,
whooping cough immunisation levels fell from 80 per
cent to 31 per cent. 1977-79, there were
102,500 cases of whooping ugh and 300 reported
deaths. This represents case fatality rate of
293/100,000."m

NSW Department of Health, "Immunisation - Benefits

Outweigh the Risks", NSW Public Health Bulletin Vol.
2, No. 5, May 1991 pp. 40-43 at p. 41,
Also, NSW Department of Health, "Benefits and Risks
of Immunisation 1991" at p. 5.
ïl

i
СЩ 113
I Dr. Margaret Burgess uses a similar argument although the
inflated death figure from the Department of Health was
substantially different:108
[I "Vaccination uptake fell from approximately 80% to
less than 30% of the eligible population by 1978.
¡SS)
The incidence of pertussis began to increase in the
U.K., culminating in a large outbreak in 1977-79 of
102,500 cases . . . and 28 deaths were reported."
This is repeated by a Melbourne General Practitioner, Dr.
i!
Peter Tribe:
"During the epidemic in England 1977-79, whooping
cough notifications were inversely correlated with
vaccine acceptance rate".109
щ
These bold assertions directly linking a reduced level of
щ vaccination as the cause of a subsequent epidemic are neither
3 scientific nor statistically sound. The argument that one
ì

event which follows an earlier one is therefore caused by the

i
earlier event is the very argument rejected out of hand by
щ
most commentators when attempts are made to link a sudden
infant death with a prior vaccination.

I have already mentioned that the Sudden Infant Death

Association, most researchers, and of course, health
bureaucrats, regard the substantial incidence of sudden infant
ü

deaths coinciding with the recommended dosage times of the DTP

vaccine as merely a chance thing: a time coincidence. Any
H7
sudden infant deaths which closely follow a vaccination are

m
. Burgess M., "Immunisation: indications and
contraindications", Modern Medicine of Australia,
pf
May 1986 pp. 76�83 at p. 76.
,09
. Tribe P., "Why Pertussis immunisation", Australian
f> Family Physician, Vol. 18, No. 8, Aug 89 pp. 985�970
'Ц at p. 985.
 114
explained away as chance and in no way connected .with the
vaccine.

If a sudden infant death immediately following a DTP vaccine,

even as soon as 2 hours later, is dismissed as an unrelated
chance association, then surely the same can be said of a
whooping cough epidemic which follows much later after a
decline in the vaccination rates.

If the Department of Health insists on asserting that this

U.K. epidemic followed a decline in vaccine uptake is "proof"
that epidemics are caused by a decline in vaccination rates,
then it should at least be consistent. As unconvincing and
unscientific as this assertion is, consistency must lead the
Department to also assert that a sudden infant death following
a vaccination is "proof" of a link between the two.

If the Department of Health and medical practitioners wish to

assert that epidemics are caused by a decline in vaccination
rates, then this should be supported by scientific
statistically sound evidence and not unsubstantiated
statements. If epidemics are caused by a reduction in
vaccination rates then it must be shown that epidemics either
did not occur or were substantially less frequent during
periods of high vaccine rates. A comparison should also be
made with the frequency of epidemics before vaccines were
introduced and afterwards.
 115
Fine and Clarkson110 undertook just such a study of whooping
cough epidemics in the U.K. from 1950 through to 1982. Their
findings are quite surprising and effectively debunk the
assertion of the Department of Health that whooping cough
epidemics are caused by a lower vaccination rate.

Fine and Clarkson found that the interval between the peak
notifications of one whooping cough epidemic to the next over
a thirty two year period was generally three to four years.
It should be noted that a national pertussis vaccination
programme began in 1957. Their findings are as follows:111

Intervals between peaks (weeks with a max notified

incidence) of successive pertussis epidemi cs in England and
Wales
Interepidemic No. of weeks No. of years
Interval between peaks between peaks
1951-53 122 2.3
1953-57 187 3.6
1957-60 (vaccination
programme introdruced) 178 3.4
1960-63 178 3.4
1963-67 199 3.8
1967-70 167 3.2
1970-74 199 3.8
1974-78 205 3.9

This pattern was repeated when another epidemic occurred in

1982. What is surprising from these figures is that the
frequency of epidemics is the same for the pre and post
vaccine periods and the interval between epidemics is

110
. Fine P.E.M., Clarkson J.A., "The recurrence of
Whooping Cough: Possible Implications for Assessment
of Vaccine Efficacy", the Lancet, March 20, 1982 pp.
666-669.
ni ibid p. 666.
 pr.

116
unaltered by the decline in the vaccination rate after 1974. ��

Between 1964 and 1974 immunisation rates for whooping cough in

England remained steady between 70% and 80% of the number of
live births.112 The vaccination rates for England and
notifications and deaths for both England and Wales are set f™

out below: " 3

(Щ.

Year Vaccination Rate Peak Year of No. of Deaths

Notification Notificat-
ions
1963 1963 34,733 36
1964 70% 1
1965 72
1966 73
1967 76% 1967 33,530 27
1968 77%
1969 80
1970 80% 1970 16,597 15
1971 78%
1972 79
1973 80
1974 77% 1974 16,230 13
Щ

38%
40
30% 1978 65,957 12
1979 34%

The theory of epidemics claims that as the number of people №f

not immune (susceptibles) in a community increases, then so

does the likelihood of an ep_demie. A low vaccination rate
is usually regarded as causing an increase in the number of ГЯ

susceptibles and therefore will, in due course, result in an

112
Joint Committee on Vaccination and Immunisation
(U.K.) in Department of. Health and Social Security
Whooping Cough, 1981, p. 170.

из ibid p. 172.
 117
epidemic.114 This may apply to infectious diseases generally
but it certainly does not apply to whooping cough.

Fine and Clarkson claimed that the theory of epidemics as

applied to whooping cough should have resulted in a noticeable
reduction in the time between peak epidemics. This simply did
not occur in England and Wales in the 1977-79 epidemic.
"For any given infection, and any given contact
pattern within the population maintaining that
infection, the interval between non-seasonal cycles
is determined largely by the rate of influx of
susceptibles into the population. This is
intuitively reasonable, insofar as a high rate
should mean a more rapid accumulation of
susceptibles to the threshold number than should a
low rate. Accordingly to 'classical' theory, the
interepidemic period should vary with the inverse of
the sguarens root of the rate of influx of
susceptibles."
But in the case of the 1977-79 epidemic in the U.K. this
simply did not occur and in effect confounded the theory.
"But here we meet a paradox concerning pertussis.
The fall in vaccinations uptake since 1974 should
have increased the influx of susceptibles by a
factor of 2, from 200,000 to 400,000 infants per
year. This should have led to an obvious decrease
in the interval between 1974 and 1978 epidemics.
But it did not. Will the 1978-82 interval be
shorter than interepidemic intervals during the
period of maximum vaccine uptake? We think
not."m
Fine and Clarkson conclude that a fall in the vaccination rate
did not necessarily alter the rate of influx of new
susceptibles to whooping cough.

114
. See Anderson R.M., May R.M., "Vaccination and Herd
Immunity to Infectious Disease", NATURE Vol. 318 No.
28 Nov 1985 pp. 323-329.
115
Fine P.E.M. and Clarkson J.A., op. cit. p. 667.
116
. ibid
 118
"... the near-constant intervals between epidemics
since 1953 could be taken as evidence that the rate
of influx of new susceptibles did not alter greatly
during this period, not even in nlassociation with the
fall in vaccine uptake in 1974."
The Department of Health assertion that whooping cough
epidemics are caused by a fall in vaccination rates is not
only wrong but demonstrably wrong.

Dr. James Cherry of the United States has reported on similar

whooping cough epidemic patterns in the U.S. to that found in
the U.K."8
"Fine and Clarkson in England noted that pertussis
epidemics occurred about every three years and that,
importantly, this pattern was the same in the
prevaccine and vaccine eras. I have noted a
similar national epidemic pattern in the U.S. In
contrast to the pertussis epidemic cycle interval.
which was not changed by widespread immunisation.
the epidemic cycle interval of measles changed
dramatically in the United States following the
widespread use of measles vaccine in 1966 .. . with
pertussis the organism prevalence in the community
was similar in both the vaccine and prevaccine eras
... the circulation of B. pertussis is apparently
continuing at a rate similar to that in the
prevaccine era."
Quite simply, a lower vaccination rate does not increase the
incidence of whooping cough epidemics.

(e) Why do epidemics still occur with a high or low rate of

vaccination?

Cherry commented on the success of immunisation in

significantly expanding the interval between measles

117
. ibid
"8. Cherry J., op. cit., p. 320.
 119
epidemics. It will be shown later that the vaccine failure
rate in measles is approximately 5% whereas with the whooping
cough vaccine failure rate is significantly higher.

Not only is there an estimated vaccine failure of at least 20%

but the number of these susceptible "vaccinées" increases over
time significantly as immunity wanes in those infants
apparently "immune" at the time of vaccination.

Quite simply, if the pertussis vaccine worked, then the

interval between epidemics would not be the same as it was in
the prevaccine era.
(f ) Has the pertussis vaccine reduced the severity of
whooping cough infection?

Fine and Clarkson argue that although whooping cough epidemics

occur just as frequently irrespective of vaccination rates
then may be the vaccine reduces the severity of those
contracting the disease.119
"several studies have shown that clinical pertussis
is in general less severe in vaccinated than in
unvaccinated individuals. "
This argument is basically a concession of failure that the
vaccine does not give guaranteed immunity against whooping
cough but might reduce its severity.

The number of notifications during the 1977-79 epidemic was

significantly greater than in other epidemics. It might then
be argued (without "proof") that this was caused by the

Fine and Clarkson op. cit. p. 668.

 n

к
120
reduced vaccination rate. But this presupposes the vaccine is m
effective which should in turn affect the interepidemic
Rl
period.

psi

Even if a higher number of notifications were caused by a

lower vaccine rate it is clearly obvious from the substantial
decline in the number of deaths from whooping cough that the
severity of the disease has declined dramatically over time
particularly in the prevaccine era.

The Department of Health claimed that there were 300 deaths

out of 102,500 cases of whooping cough in the U.K. epidemic of
1977�79. This claim is simply false. The quarterly number
of fatalities during this epidemic were recorded as
follows:120
Date No. of Deaths
June 1976 0
Sept 1976 1
Jan 1977 1
Mar 1977 2
June 1977 3
Sept 1977 0
Jan 1978 5
Mar 1978 5
June 1978 2
Sept 1978 4
Jan 1979 2
Mar 1979 1
Jun 1979 0
Sept 1979 2
TOTAL 28

The National Childhood Encephalopathy Study (NCES)

12
°.
in Department of Health and Social Security (U.K.)
Whooping Cough 1981, p. 87.
 121

This is a case fatality rate of 27/100,000 not 293/100,000 as

claimed by the Department of Health. Some may claim that as
the number of deaths fell even when there was a substantial
increase in notification as in 1977-79 epidemic then the
vaccine has had the desired effect. In other words,
contracting whooping cough is not the death sentence it once
was and the risk of dying from the disease is now so remote
that the pertussis vaccine can be hailed as the major
eradicator. This would be pure historical revisionism.

The number of deaths from whooping cough have declined since

the vaccine but the decline was just as precipitous if not
more so in the prevaccine era. The pertussis vaccine may
have reduced the incidence of the disease but its severity as
measured by the case fatality rate was not significantly
altered by it.

This is dramatically shown in the following figures for

England and Wales from 1940 to 1980:121

ibid p. 174.
 122
Щ
No. of cases for
Year No. of Notifications Deaths each death
1940 53,545 678 79
1941 173,249 2383 73
1942 65,986 799 83
1943 96,105 1114 86
1944 93,944 1054 89
1945 62,663 689 91
1946 92,892 808 115
1947 92,657 905 102
r^j
1948 146,372 748 195
1949 102,801 527 195
1950 157,726 294 536
1951 169,343 453 373
1952 114,868 181 634
1953 157,829 243 649
F^í
1954 104,901 139 761
1955 79,092 87 909
1956 92,396 92 1004
1957* 85,004 87 977
1958 33,384 27 1236
1959 33,208 25 1328
1960 58,030 37 1568
1961 24,469 27 906
1962 8,343 24 347
1963 34,733 36 964
1964 31,609 44 718
1965 12,903 21 614
fSã
1966 19,386 23 843
1967 33,530 27 1315
E?~

1968 17,367 15 1158

1969 4,991 6 831
1970 16,597 1 5 1106
 123

No. of cases for

Year No. of Notifications Deaths each death
1971 16,792 26 645
1972 2,069 2 1035
1973 2,441 2 1221
1974 16,230 13 1248
1975 8,913 12 742
1976 3,907 3 1302
1977 17,475 7 2496
1978 65,957 12 5496
1979 30,808 7 4401
1980 21,166 6 3527
* vaccination starts
As the increase in number of cases per fatality is steady
through the entire forty year period an explanation is needed
for this other than the pertussis vaccine. I have already
commented on the dramatic effect that improved hygiene,
nutrition and sanitation had on infectious diseases prior to
the development of vaccines. This is just as applicable to
the number of deaths in respect of whooping cough.

Malleson and Bennett122 have also argued that the pertussis

vaccine has reduced the severity of the disease. They studied
188 hospital cases for whooping cough in Derbyshire Children's
Hospital from 1964 to 1974. During this period the vaccine
acceptance rate varied between 68% and 82%.

122
. Malleson P. and Bennett J. "Whooping Cough
admissions to a Paediatric Hospital over ten years -
The protective value of immunisation", The Lancet
29th January 1977, pp. 237 ff.
 124
It is noted that in 24 of the 188 cases of immunisation,
immunisation status was not known and so I have excluded
these. The attack rates of those in the study of Malleson and
Bennett in respect of immunised or nonimmunised people is
summarised as follows:

Status Number % of total

Immunised 63 38%
Non-immunised 101 61%
Total 164

Malleson and Bennett then conclude that as there were

"fewer immunised children . . . admitted than would be
expected if immunisation were effective .. [the] . ..
pertussis immunisation is valuable"
But this argument flies in the face of the assurances given to
parents that if they wish to protect their children against
whooping cough then their children should be immunised.

Malleson and Bennett have shown that 38% of hospital cases are
amongst children who have been fully immunised. Given the
risks associated with the vaccine, its failure ra: and
substantial waning effect over time, parents really should
seriously consider whether or not to use it.

Miller and Fletcher123 also concede the failure cf. the

pert.ssis vaccine by assessing not the incidence of w. oping
cough amongst vaccinated and non-vaccinated children but the
level of severity in each group. They concluded there is

m
. Miller C.L. and Fletcher ' D. "Sever-zy of notified
Whooping Cough", Briti Medical Journal, 17
January, 1976, pp. 117-11.
 123

No. of cases for

Year No. of Notifications Deaths each death
1971 16,792 26 645
1972 2,069 2 1035
1973 2,441 2 1221
1974 16,230 13 1248
1975 8,913 12 742
1976 3,907 3 1302
1977 17,475 7 2496
1978 65,957 12 5496
1979 30,808 7 4401
1980 21,166 6 3527
* vaccination starts
As the increase in number of cases per fatality is steady
through the entire forty year period an explanation is needed
for this other than the pertussis vaccine. I have already
commented on the dramatic effect that improved hygiene,
nutrition and sanitation had on infectious diseases prior to
the development of vaccines. This is just as applicable to
the number of deaths in respect of whooping cough.

Malleson and Bennett122 have also argued that the pertussis

vaccine has reduced the severity of the disease. They studied
188 hospital cases for whooping cough in Derbyshire Children's
Hospital from 1964 to 1974. During this period the vaccine
acceptance rate varied between 68% and 82%.

l22
. Malleson P. and Bennett J. "Whooping Cough
admissions to a Paediatric Hospital over ten years -
The protective value of immunisation", The Lancet
29th January 1977, pp. 237 ff.
 124
It is noted that in 24 of the 188 cases of immunisation,
immunisation status was not known and so I have excluded
these. The atcack rates of those in the study of Malleson and
Bennett in respect of immunised or nonimmunised people is
summarised as follows:

Status Number % of total

Immunised 63 38%
Non-immunised 101 61%
Total 164

Malleson and Bennett then conclude that as there were

"fewer immunised children . . . admitted than would be
expected if immunisation were effective .. [the] . . .
pertussis immunisation is valuable"
But this argument flies in the face of the assurances given to
parents that if they wish to protect their children against
whooping cough then their children should be immunised.

Malleson and Bennett have shown that 38% of hospital cases are
amongst children who have been fully immunised. Given the
risks associated with the vaccine, its failure rat and
substantial waning effect over time, parents really should
seriously consider whether or not to use it.

Miller and Fletcher123 also concede the failure cf the

pert.ssis vaccine by assessing not the incidence of w. oping
cough amongst vaccinated and non-vaccinated children but the
level of severity in each group. They concluded there is

123
. Miller C.L. and Fletcher ' D. "Sever-zy of notified
Whooping* Cough", Briti Medical Journal, 17
January, 1976, pp. 117-11.
 г
ш 125
less likelihood of hospitalisation in the case of a vaccinated
child than an unvaccinated one. However, their research
confirmed that the effectiveness of the vaccine wanes
considerably over time. in the 12 months immediately
. Щ" following vaccination there was a noticeable difference in
incidence and severity as measured by hospitalisation.

However, as the age of the child increased and therefore the

pT
time from vaccination increased, the incidence of the disease
and its severity amongst vaccinated children increased
significantly. Miller and Fletcher separately categorised
jS,>
partially vaccinated children and those in whom the immunised
status was not known. These have been excluded and the
comparison between the incidence and severity of children 6 to
11 months old with those 1 to 5 year olds is set out below:
6�11 months old

% of Treated Hospita (%)

Total total at home (%) lised
cases
Fully vaccinated 39 8% 38 98% 1 2%

с Rf
Not vaccinated

1�5 years old

433
472
92% 279 64% 154 36%

í
Щ
Total % of Treated Hospita (%)
total at home (%) lised
cases

i
Fully vaccinated 2862 66% 2824 98% 28 2%
Not vaccinated 1481 44% 1338 90% 143 10%
* 4343

Miller and Fletcher do not discuss why there is such a large

Г
 126
incidence of the disease amongst fully vaccinated children.
It is noted that in the 3-5 category almost half the incidence
of whooping cough is amongst fully vaccinated children even
when the total number of cases takes into account children
partly vaccinated or in whom the immunised status is not
known. This confirms other studies which have demonstrated
the relative ineffectiveness of the pertussis vaccine.

Grob et al124 also concluded that whooping cough in vaccinated

children is less severe than in those who are unvaccinated and
that the vaccine is therefore effective. The Department of
Health does not advise parents or individuals that researchers
appear to be concentrating not so much on whether or not the
vaccine prevents whooping cough but whether or not the disease
will be less severe after a child who is vaccinated actually
then goes on to contract it.

Grob et al primarily compared severity of whooping cough

between vaccinated and unvaccinated children on the basis of:
length of illness, number of coughing spasms per 24 hours and
the need for treatment.
"We found that for the more severely ill index cases
there was a significant relation between the
severity of the disease, as measured by its duration
and the severity of the cough, with the vaccination
state of the child but not with age or social class.
This relation showed that 37% of vaccinated children
had a short illness (less than 31 days) compared
with only 20% of non vaccinated children.

124
. Grob P.R., et al, "Effect of Vaccination of Severity
and dissemination of Whooping Cough", British
Medical Journal Vol. 283, 13 June 1981, pp. 1925-
1928.
 127
Similarly, a mild cough (0-8 coughing spasms per 24
hours) was experienced by 48% of the vaccinated
group and 32% of the non vaccinated group. *'125
I find these figures and conclusions unconvincing. If the
vaccine was the panacea it is promoted as being then the
percentage difference would surely be much greater. Some of
the data collated by Grob et al is set out below126 which
demonstrates the alarming rate at which vaccinated children
contract whooping cough. I do not regard the figures as
significantly different so as to allow the vaccine to be
treated as a means of reducing the severity of whooping cough.

Treatment No of Patients Severity of illness

Mean duration Mean no. of
of illness coughing sps/
(days) 24 hours
Not Vac Not Vac Not Vac
vac vac vac
Erythromycin 226 142 55.7 46.4 13.0 10.5
other anti- 52 38 65.4 51.6 14.9 15.1
biotics
Untreated 99 101 47.5 42.3 12.6 9.2

The number of people contracting whooping cough who were

vaccinated or not vaccinated makes an interesting
comparison.127

125
ibid p. 1927-1928.
126
. ibid p. 1926.
127
ibid
 R

128
ps;

Status Number 4
Vaccinated 281 43%
Not vaccinated 377 57%
658

Stewart and Bassili found in their study that:128

"... a general trend of decline in attack rate and
periodicity of whooping cough before mass
immunisation was introduced in 1957 ... If
immunisation were the major factor in the decline,
attack rates would show a strong negative
correlation with acceptance rate of vaccination.
But the observed (negative) correlation Г^
coefficient of �0.31 is weaker than the (positive)
correlations found with socio�economic indicies and
is too weak to account for variations in incidence
in the different area studied. "i29
In other words, the vaccine is not by a long shot the most
importan� �ictor in combating whooping cough.

To return to the 1977�79 whooping cough epidemic in the U.K.

it is not known just how many cases were actually bacterially
confirmed as having whooping cough and whether or not there
was a different level of incidence of the disease in
localities or socio�economic circumstances.

h^f
The late Dr. Robert Mendlesohn often claimed that many
reported cases of whooping cough were nothing of the sort and
of those which were confirmed the incidence of the disease was
negligible in areas with no overcrowding and good nutrition.
Dr. Mendlesohn believed that once a whooping cough scare was
under way that any respiratory problem in a child was notified

128
Stewart G. and Bassili W., op. cit., p. 43.
129
ibid
ГЩ
 129
as whooping cough and few of these were actually confirmed by
laboratory tests. The findings of Stewart and Bassili
confirm tha the incidence of whooping cough has far more to
do with socio�economic conditions than vaccinations. They
found that there was a:130
"strong association between attack rates of
whooping cough and adverse socio�economic
conditions: attack rates were strongly correlated
with overcrowding in the central city area
[Glasgow). In the epidemic of 1974 notification of
whooping cough were significantly higher in crowded
households .. . there was considerable variation
(124�1384/100,000) in attack rates in time and
locality"
Dr. Gordon Stewart, then Head of the Department of Community
Medicine at the University of Glasgow said later in 1978 in a
news conference:131
"as with many other infectious diseases, there was a
great decline in the rate of pertussis mortality
before any vaccine was available ... the decline ..
was 80% before any vaccine was ever used.
the key factor in controlling the disease is
living conditions. As long as overcrowding in
homes and schools continue, the danger of pertussis
will continue.
. .. now in Glasgow ... 80% of our whooping cough
cases are occurring in vaccinated patients. This
leads one to believe that the vaccine is not all
that protective"132
Barkin and Pichichero133 have said:

130
ibid at p. 471.
ш Stewart G., reported in Elliott J. , "Pertussis
Vaccine issues unsettled", Medical News, December 1,
1978.
132 Dr. G. Stewart reported in J. Elliott "Pertussis
Vaccine issues unsettled" � Medical News December 1,
1978.
ІЗЗ Barkin R.M. and Pichichero M.E., op. cit. p. 260.
 130
"the efficacy of pertussis vaccine remains
controversial. Social, cultural, nutritional, and
therapeutic changes occurred concomitantly with
vaccine introduction and partially account for
declining incidence. However, most authors agree
that the vaccine is protective, although the
relative contribution to control remains
undocumented.
... the acceptance of significant risks associated
with pertussis vaccine is further complicated by
evidence that immunity is not sustained.
Susceptability to pertussis 12 years after
immunisation may be as high as 95% as noted in an
epidemic among hospital personnel in Cincinnati."
At the time of vaccinating their child for whooping cough
parents are not told that bordetella pertussis is only one of
four possible causes of clinical whooping cough. Davis et al
have provided an interesting insight into why the pertussis
vaccine may often fail to prevent whooping cough:134
"Bordetella parapertussis is a less common cause of
whooping cough ... bordetella bronchiseptica
rarely causes whooping cough in man ...
Adenoviruses have been isolated from some patients
with clinical whooping cough who have no evidence of
bordetella infection, and who develop a rise in Ab
titer against adenoviruses.
... Like natural disease, pertussis vaccine does not
produce permanent immunity nor does it provide
protection against bordetella parapertussis.
Prevention of disease in susceptible contacts is not
likely to be accomplished by isolation of the
patient with overt whooping cough, since the period
of maximum communie ability will already have passed.
Nevertheless, isolating the patient from infants
under 2 years of age is warranted."

5. Whooping Cough - is it treatable?

Dr. Herbert Barrie, a well known U.K. Paediatrician, in a
letter to the American Journal of the Disabled Child has given

134
. Davis B.D., Microbiology, Third Edition, Harper
International Edition pp. 700-701.
ШГ\

131
an interesting account of the hysterical media beat�up which
usually occurs after an alleged "outbreak" and the usual
га
predictions of gloom, doom and death which emanate from Health
Departments as a means of frightening a cowering populace into
vaccinating their children. The emotional hysteria on this
occasion arose out of the claimed 1982 epidemic of whooping
cough where there were an alleged 65,000 cases and 14 deaths.
m
135
Dr. Barrie had this to say:
"the awesome words "whooping cough is a killer" were

Г
оп everybody's lips. All believed their children to
be in imminent danger of death or brain damage.
All thought that whooping cough was an infectious
Ш
disease that only young children caught, and
vaccination would confer protection for life. It
had not occurred to them that, like flu, it could be
had repeatedly, that adults had it too, and that
Fl immunity rarely exceeded two to three years. In
fact, there was little evidence of an epidemic in
London, and admissions for whooping cough to my
~1 wards remained something of a rarity. I can
honestly say I have never knowingly seen brain
damage caused by this disease � in contrast with a
few cases of vaccine damage � and have encountered
only two deaths, both preventable, in 25 years.
Pertussis today is an eminently treatable condition.
A course of erythromycin or sulfamethoxazole�
trimethoprim will curb the growth and spread of the
organism, and when necessary, a short course of
steroids will stop severe coughing spells.
pil
... most of my patients, even infants aged only a
few weeks, are home inside two weeks, and few are
^ admitted anyway. Why all the fuss about a dozen
possibly mismanaged whooping cough deaths, when we
have an annual toll of 1500 cot deaths, 2000 child
deaths from accidents and 2500 avoidable perinatal
deaths".
Health authorities rightly point out that even 14 deaths is
3
unacceptable but in doing so they miss the point. Were these
Щ
deaths the result of whooping cough itself or because the

Barrie H., "Campaign of Terror" in AM J. DIS Child

13S
# .
Vol. 137 September, 1983 pp 922�923.
 132
wrong medical treatment followed diagnosis? The figures are
quoted often but a detailed analysis of the cause of each
death and how each patient was "treated" is never given, nor
are the socio-economic circumstances of each fatality revealed
despite the findings of Stewart and Bassili that these are
crucial factors in the incidence of the disease.
"most deaths from whooping cough are due to
secondary pneumonia or broncho-pneumonia for which
organisms other than B. pertussis may be
responsible. These complications are particularly
hazardous in infants under 6 months old. Those
born prematurely or with congenital disorders are
especially vunerable, although some136 previously
healthy children die from the disease. '*
Dr. Barrie also noted that since the passage of the U.K.
Vaccine Damage Payments Act in 1979
"approximately 600 youngsters have received
substantial compensation for severe handicap after
pertussis vaccination -137an average of 25 per year
since vaccination began"
With respect to the endless claims that vaccination
substantially reduce the incidence of whooping cough, Dr.
Barrie had this to say:
"Deaths had long dwindled to less than 100 by the
middle of the 1950s and, in recent years, have not
exceeded a dozen at the most. Pertussis
vaccination was introduced nationwide around 1958,
and notifications undoubtedly declined thereafter
but nobody has ever explained why the mortality came
tumbling down years earlier"

6. The Whooping Cough Vaccine - where to now?

Parents should really question if the risks of the vaccine
outweigh the benefits if immunity is not guaranteed. Most

NCES op. cit. p. 84.

Barrie op. cit. p. 923.
 133
people would assume that either they or their children receive
life long immunity against a disease if the recommended doses
of the vaccine are received. This is simply not the case.

From vaccination there is a failure to obtain immunity in at

least 20% of cases and possibly as high as. 50% of all
vaccinated children. Even if immunity is given at
vaccination, then this will fade over time so that by the time
12 years have elapsed since vaccination, there is a 95% chance
that the child will have no immunity to whooping cough.

This brings the effectiveness of the whooping cough vaccine

seriously into question and firmly challenges the bland
assertions of the Department of Health that the benefits
outweigh the risks.

I believe that the more prudent parent should at least request

that, the pertussis component of the vaccine be disposed with
and in any case certainly request that the vaccinations take
place after the first six months of life. Dr. George Crile
has even said:
[with respect to] the whooping cough vaccine:
the symptoms it produces seem to be more serious
than the disease"™
In conclusion I close my case on whooping cough by referring
again to the work of Dr. Bassili and Dr. Stewart:139
"Whooping cough, like measles, has always had a high
*
138
. Crile G., op. cit.
139
. Stewart G. and Bassili W., op. cit. p. 473.
 134
incidence in infants in crowded homes and in older
children when they play in groups or go to school.
Immunisation even with the new vaccine does not seem
to protect adequately against these risks which are
dominant factors in the spread of infection.
In the light of this evidence, it is questionable
whether mass immunisations with pertussis vaccine,
introduced in 1957 can be given credit for the
observed reduction in overall incidence of whooping
cough. Since there is some debate about the
freguency of adverse reactions and an absence of
firm data about this also, it is questionable
whether there are adequate grounds for continuing
recommendation for mass immunisation in the U.K. ...
epidemiological evidence points rather to a need to
identify areas, houses, and families who are at risk
and to evaluate intervention in such situations".
How many parents about to immunise their child are told that
the vaccine is only directed at one of three bordetella
organisms and none of, the adenoviruses all of which can cause
clinical whooping cough.

How many parents are told of the alarming failure rate of the
vaccine, its waning effect over time, the possible link with
sudden infant death and the other suspected serious side
effects. Parents are simply not in a position to undertake a
proper risk benefit analysis so as to enable them to make an
informed choice.

»
m?Ą

*Щ

wi�

8. DIPHTHERIA AND TETANUS

î^î

~\

p)

r*
'iiifij

iimv)
 135
CHAPTER 8
DIPHTHERIA AND TETANUS
1. Diphtheria;
(a) How serious is it now?
This disease is now virtually nonexistent in our community.
The Department of Health has provided the following summary:1
"Diphtheria, caused by corynebacterium diptheriae,
is an accute infectious disease which mainly affects
the upper respiratory tract. It is characterised
by an inflammatory exudate which forms a membrane
that causes acute respiratory obstruction. The
major complications of diphtheria are cardiac
dysfunction and neuropathy."
The Department then gives an alarming death rate figure of
3500-12000/100,000 cases which might apply to some third world
countries but certainly not to New South Wales.

Dr. Mendlesohn is less alarming than the Department of

Health:2
"This disease requires medical attention and can be
treated with antibiotics such as penicillin or
erythromycin.
Today your child has about as much chance of
contracting diphtheria as he does of being bitten by
a cobra. Yet millions of children are immunised
against it with repeated injections at 2, 4, 6 and
18 months and then given a booster shot when they
enter school".
In other words, parents are immunising their children against
a disease which they have almost no chance of contracting.

NSW Department of Health, "Immunisation - Benefits

outweigh risks", p. 40.
Mendlesohn R., "How to Raise a Healthy Child in
Spite of your Doctor", p. 222.
 136
The Department of Health has said:3
"Diphtheria has been effectively controlled in New
South Wales. Since 1982 only one case of diphtheria
has been notified to the NSW Health Department
(1987)."
This presents the traditional orthodox medical view that
immunisation eradicated diphtheria and therefore every child
must be immunised against it. However, if the disease is now
from our midst then why do vaccinations continue. The
Department of Health and medical practitioners probably
believe that social conditions had and have little or nothing
to do with the incidence of diphtheria in the past or its
ability to recur in the future and regard vaccination as
essential in the ongoing battle with a virtually absent
disease.

Dr. Mendlesohn's view on the continued use of the vaccine is

as follows:
"In view of the rarity of the disease, the effective
antibiotic now available, the questionable
effectiveness of the vaccine, • the multi-million
dollar cost of administering it, and the ever
present potential for harmful, long term effects
from this or any other vaccine, I consider continued
mass immunisation against diphtheria indefensible.
... in the half century that the vaccine has been
used no research has ever been undertaken to
determine what the long term effects of the vaccine
may be."
(b) The history of diphtheria;
Diphtheria appeared in Australia in the late 1850s and with
scarlet fever became a significant cause of death amongst
children.

Department of Health, "Immunisation - Benefits

Outweigh Risks", p. 40.
 I

¿i 137

Like most other infectious diseases diphtheria began to

Ш
decline as a significant cause of death prior to the
i.

; introduction of the vaccine. But the vaccine is usually

•j given a glowing reference as the panacea for the ills of
1 diphtheria:4

", "Adeguate control of diphtheria, however,., awaited

щ
the initiation of widespread immunisation in the
1940s and early 1950s when vaccination was
¡[ instituted in infant health centres. "
5
! Burgess has repeated this:
pi
"Widespread immunisation with diphtheria toxoid,
' which stimulates the production of antitoxin,
, commenced in Australia in the 1930s and was rapidly
fu followed by a huge reduction in the death rate from
f diphtheria. The disease is now rare."
I However, Sir Macfarlane Burnet was prepared to concede some
i
гд role for social conditions prior to the introduction of the
'Ц vaccine but, of course, not afterwards:6
p "Even in the days before immunisation not more than
5�10% of children ever suffered from clinical
diphtheria, so that we can feel sure that on most
occasions the presence of diphtheria bacilli in the
throat does not produce the disease ... these [are]
harmless contacts with the germ .. .

.. . Both [diagrams] show first the gradual fall in

I] mortality that resulted from improving living
standards and the increasing effectiveness of
medical care. Then in New York about 1929�30, and
in England and Wales about 1941�2, the line turns
F
щ
sharply downwards. The turning point in both cases
is at the time when the proportion of school
children who had been immunised against diphtheria
'u reached 50% or more. "
!51

«И
4
. Feery B. , "Impact of Immunisation on Disease
patterns in Australia", Medical Journal of
Australia, Aug 22, 1981, pp. 172�175 at p. 173.
ШТ) 5
. Burgess M., "Complete Guide to Immunisation",op.
cit., p. 68.
6
¡* . Burnet, op. cit. p. 285, 288-289.
 138
Burnet does not even consider the possibility that improved
living conditions prior to the introduction of a vaccine may
have also contributed to only 5-10% of children in the same
period contracting the di-ease when many more were exposed to
it. It simply does not make sense to isolate the impact of
living conditions to mortality to only that period prior to
the vaccine. Mendlesohn's comment in respect of scarlet
fever which declined in severity long before the introduction
of a vaccine is quite apt to diphtheria:7
"If a vaccine had been developed for it, doctors
would undoubtedly credit that with the elimination
of the disease."
The traditional view of the "miracle" of the diphtheria
vaccine on the incidence and mortality of the disease is by no
means universal.

Nightingale has argued:8

"Most people think that this disease has been
stamped out by immunisation, but a closer look at
the facts will show that things may well be a little
different. In the first place this disease is
undoubtedly found where social conditions are bad
and their improvement has always been met by a
corresponding reduction in diphtheria. Prior to
the introduction of the immunisation campaign in
1931 the disease had declined dramatically on two
occasions, whilst subsequent to the introduction of
the vaccine the decline in the disease appeared
almost equally in both 'immunised' and 'non-
immunised' children. In May 1951 a Medical
Research Council Report indicated that many children
with more than adequate amounts of circulating
antitoxins in their blood still had suffered from
diphtheria... As the social evils which caused
diphtheria were virtually removed so the disease

Mendlesohn R., op. cit. p. 224.

*
Nightingale M. , "Vaccination and Immunisation", in
the Journal oi the Society of Homeopaths.
 139
disappeared - but in countries where those
conditions remain, the disease still takes a heavy
toll despite plenty of vaccinating! There is
practically no diphtheria in the United Kingdom
today, and there still seems little need for the
routine vaccination of children for this disease."
Dr. Arthur Mowle (Phd) remains somewhat sceptical about the
alleged role played by the vaccine but acknoweldges this is
against the prevailing opinion:9
"From 1855 onwards to the close of the century, it
became, with scarlet fever, a principal cause of
death among children. About the turn of the
century there was noted a slow continuous fall of
reported incidences levelling out about 1940.
It is thought by some that this gradual falling off
was due to the improvement in treating the already
established disease but still reported cases were
high. In 1941 however, there was noticed a steep
decline of reported incidences and mortality,
continuing up to the present time.
Since no active anti-diphtheria program in the form
of immunisation commenced much before 1941 it is
doubtful whether it played a significant initial
role, though it is thought by Gale'0 to be a most
convincing example of a disease that has been
controlled by artificial immunisation programs
having a beginning in the early 1940s."
Another view on diphtheria by a Queensland based organisation
opposed to immunisation is as follows:11
"Diphtheria . . . grows in fly blown manure of fodder
eating animals and is spread when rain and flood
washes the infected feted material into drinking
water supplies. In countries where there is still
great reliance on working animals, there continues
to be a high incidence of diphtheria, regardless of
whether vaccines have been introduced to combat it.
Conversely in developed countries where machines

Mowle A.,op. cit., p. 32

Gale, A.H., "Epidemic Diseases", Middlesex Pengiun
Books*, 1959.
Inside News May/June 1991, Pt. 3, "The History and
Effectiveness of Vaccine", p. 7.
 140
have replaced animals, diphtheria has disappeared
without the use of vaccine .. .
In the U.S. between 1920 and 1930 the motor vehicle
largely replaced the horse as the principal means of
transport. At the same time, sealed roads, proper
sewerage and centralised water distribution systems
were introduced. During the same period,
diphtheria disappeared from a major killer to a
minor disease long before the invention or
widespread use of vaccines against it."
The point made in this article is one -that applies also to the
alleged "wonders" of the smallpox vaccine. If a change in
living conditions dramatically reduced fatalities in respect
of scarlet fever, measles, tuberculosis and whooping cough at
the same time as a fall in deaths occurred in respect of
diphtheria, then surely it cannot be argued that these changed
conditions had no impact on diphtheria simply because a
vaccine was introduced.

Dr. Richard Moskowitz also supports the view that sanitation

has had more impact on the incidence of diphtheria than
vaccination:12
"... it is easy to understand why parents might want
their children protected against diphtheria ... if
safe and effective protection were available.
Moreover, both vaccines [diphtheria and tetanus]
have been in use for a long time and the reported
incidence of serious problems has remained very low,
so that there has never been much public outcry
against them."
On the other hand, both diseases are quite readily
controlled by simple sanitary measures and careful
attention to wound hygiene: and, in any case, both
have been steadily disappearing from developing
countries since long before the vaccines were
introduced."
Outbreaks of diphtheria have occurred in vaccinated

Moskowitz R.,op. cit., p. 150.

 141
populations. Borléis has claimed:13
"The Department of Health in Scotland admits that
from 1941 to 1944 there were 23,000 cases of
diphtheria among immunised children, of which more
than 180 proved fatal. in Germany, where
compulsory mass vaccination was introduced in 1940,
the number of cases increased 40,000 per year to
250,000 by 1945 virtually all among immunised
children. Many other countries in Europe showed a
striking increase in cases of diphtheria after
compulsory vaccination was introduced. On the other
hand, in Sweden and Denmark the disease virtually.,
disappeared without any vaccination."
If what Borléis has claimed is true then it would be proof
enough that not only did the disease decline with or without
the vaccine being introduced but being vaccinated was no
guarantee of not actually contracting the disease.

Dr. Moskowitz has also detailed an outbreak of diphtheria in

Chicago in 1969:14
"The claim that the vaccine is 'protective' is once
again belied by the fact that, when the disease does
break out, the supposedly, 'susceptible' children
are in fact no more likely to develop clinical
diphtheria than their fully immunised contacts.
In a 1969 outbreak in Chicago for example the Board
of Health reported that 25% of the cases had been
fully immunised and that another 12% had received
one or more doses of the vaccine and showed
serological evidence of full immunity; another 18%
had been partly immunised according to the same
criteria."
The disease now so rarely occurs that it is not possible to
assess now whether vaccination does guarantee immunity.
Immunisation cannot take the whole credit for the decline in
this disease when other diseases have gone from our midst for
other reasons. As a result of the rarety of the disease

Borléis,op. cit., p. 14.

Moskowitz R.,op. cit., p. 150.
 142
parents should seriously consider the real risk of their child
contracting diphtheria and whether or not their children
should be vaccinated against it.

2. Tetanus ;
The Department of Health describes this disease also in
typical dramatic fashion:15
"Tetanus is an acute, often fatal, disease caused by
the toxin produced by the bacterium, Clostridium
tetani. Muscle rigidity with superimposed painful
spasms occurs. Complications of tetanus include
respiratory failure, pneumonia, pulmonary embolus,
hypertension, hypotension and myocarditis."
Even the Department concedes that tetanus has become a rare
condition but can still assure the public of a possibility (if
not probability) of death if vaccination does not occur:16
"In NSW tetanus has become a rare condition. All
recent cases have occurred in unimmunised adults.
Severe cases of tetanus have a case fatality rate of
44%. "
The disease is now so rare that there have been only five
reported cases in the last seven years and ten reported cases
in thé last ten years.17

Feery gives the tetanus vaccine a glowing reference:18

"The highly effective safe tetanus vaccine gives
100% protection to vaccinated individuals in an
urban environment with good medical care ... In 1953
tetanus vaccine was included with diphtheria vaccine

NSW Department of Health, "Immunisation - Benefits

outweigh Risks", pp. 40-41.
ibid p. 41.
ibid *
Feery В.,op. cit., pp. 173�174.
 143
and pertussis vaccine in triple antigen or DTP
vaccine ... Since that time there has been a marked
diminution in the incidence of tetanus ... thus
demonstrating the effectiveness of tetanus
vaccination in the modification of the pattern of
disease in Australia."
This last statement of Feery has been challenged as has been
the implied assertion that the decline in incidence of the
disease was not caused or substantially üönCributed to by
improved hygiene, sanitation and living conditions.

Despite the dire warnings of the Department of Health that

tetanus and possibly death might follow from a cut in the
skin, Dr. Robert Mendlesohn is particularly scornful of this
vaccine.
"... the tetanus vaccine exercised a hold on me for
a much longer time [than the polio, smallpox or
diphtheria vaccines] ... I gave up belief in this
vaccine in stages, for a while, I still held onto
the notion that farm families and people who work
around stables should continue to take tetanus
shots. But in spite of my early indoctrination
with fear of 'rusty nails' in recent years I have
developed a- greater fear of the hypodermic needle

[The tetanus vaccine] has never been subjected to a

scientifically controlled study. That is, no one
has ever taken a bunch of patients injured by rusty
nails who never had a previous tetanus vaccine,
given half the group tetanus [vaccine] and the other
half a placebo injection and then compared the
outcomes.
... Over the past half century, the virulence of
tetanus, like plenty of other diseases, had greatly
receded. Thus, plenty of people s who had never been
immunised never got tetanus in 2P ¿ t e o f plenty of
puncture wounds with rusty nails." "

Mendlesohn R., "Are tetanus shots necessary", in The

Peoples Doctor Vol. 8 No. 12, 1988.
Mendlesohn R., in Health and Healing Vol. 7, No. 2,
Dec-Feb 1988, p. 18.
 144
Lovett21 has also argued that wound hygiene is more important
than the vaccine:
"Tetanus vaccine is rarely needed if the wound is
cleaned and aired. The first thing that happens if
you stand on a rusty nail or any other object which
is supposed to harbour the tetanus bacillus, is that
the wound bleeds: natures way of cleaning the wound.
If you follow common sense hygiene practices and
keep the wound cleaned and aired (which stifles the
ability of anaerobic bacteria, like tetanus, to
survive) then the chances of getting tetanus are
rare."
3. The side effects of the diphtheria—tetanus vaccine:
Local reactions such as bruising, redness and swelling occur
in about 30% of doses.22 Feery observed that more general
reactions such as irritability, vomiting, fever, persistent
crying, persistent screaming or drows. ess occurred in some
cases after the diphtheria tetanus vaccine but considerably
less frequently than when the whooping cough vaccine was
added.23

The product information pamphlet provided for the diphtheria

and tetanus vaccine advises as follows:24
"Local reactions may occur in about a third of
vaccine recipients. Transitory redness and
swelling are commonly observed. A small lump, due
to the slowly absorbed mineral carrier, may be felt
in the subcutaneous tissues for some weeks; this is
more likely to happen if the injection is given too
superficially.

21
Lovett L.A., op. cit. p. 15.
22
Feery B.,op. cit., p. 150.
23
ibid
*
24
Commonwealth Serum Laboratories, "CDT Vaccine", Oct
1986.
 145
General reactions have been noted in 10% of infants
receiving CDT vaccine. These are usually mild and
transitory. The commonest reported reactions are
irritability, malaise and fever. Serious and
persisting reactions are extremely rare."
Mendlesohn has provided an historical list of cases of serious
consequences following the tetanus vaccine.25 These are:
state of shock (1940); paralysis of right arm (1966);
••y' '

hoarseness of voice and limited speech volume for 2 months

(1969); four people with weakness of limb (1972); brain damage
(1977).

Dr. Moskowitz raises a strong concern that the two vaccines

may give some protection against diphtheria and tetanus but at
a price: the long term suppression of the immune system and
therefore its ability to deal with foreign bodies:26
"... We are faced with the probability that what the
diphtheria toxoid has produced is not a genuine
immunity to diphtheria at all, but rather some sort
of chronic immune tolerance to it, by harbouring
highly antigenic residues somewhere within the cells
of the immune system with long term suppressive
effects on the immune mechanism generally.
This suspicion is further aggravated by the fact
that all of the DTP vaccines are alum-precipitated
and preserved with thimerosal, an organomercury
derivative, to prevent them from being metabolized
too rapidly, so that the antigenic challenge will
continue for as long as possible. The fact is that
we do not know and have never even attempted to
discover what actually becomes of these foreign
substances once they are inside the human body.
Exactly the same problems complicate the record of
the tetanus vaccine, which almost certainly has had
at least some impact in reducing the incidence of
tetanus in its classic acute form, yet presumably

Mendlesohn R., "Risks of Tetanus Vaccine", The

Peoples Doctor Vol. 8 No. 12.
Moskowitz R.,op. cit., pp. 150-151.
 146
also survives for years or even decades as a potent
foreign antigen within the body, with long term
effects on the immune system and elsewhere that are
literally incalculable.
These are the very same concerns which Moskowitz raised in
respect of the live vaccines administered for measles, mumps,
rubella and polio.

4. Conclusion:
The side effects of the diphtheria-tetanus vaccine are milder
than the full DTP vaccine. However, they should not be
lightly dismissed.

While these two vaccines have not received the same attention
as those administered for whooping cough, measles and rubella,
careful consideration should still be given to the
possibilities of immune suppression which was raised by
Moskowitz and the doubts expressed by Mendlesohn as to whether
or not we really still need to routinely vaccinate for these
diseases.

>
n

9. MEASLES
pi

tl
л

tø

Ui
 147
CHAPTER 9
MEASLES
Measles is a contagious viral disease which is characterised
by fever and rash. This disease along with mumps and rubella
was considered up to about 25 years ago as a typical childhood
disease which when contracted normally gave lifelgng immunity.

Like most of the other infectious diseases, measles was a

significant cause of death from the middle of the last century
until early this century. This is no longer the case and
deaths from measles in this State are now quite rare. The
vaccine is, of course, given all the credit.

Parents are usually given dramatic stories of children dying,

or suffering permanent brain damage as an inducement to
vaccinate their children against measles. Death, measles
encephalitis (inflammation of the brain) and subacute
sclerosing panencephalitis (SSPE) which causes hardening of
the brain and is invariably fatal are all very, very rare
events following measles. It is this small risk of serious
consequences which causes all the hysteria when a measles
"outbreak" occurs.

1. The Risks of serious consequences from Measles.

The figures generally given for the risks associated with
measles are:
"1/100,000 * cases for SSPE, 1/1,000 cases with
 148
encephalitis and 1/5,000 cases for death."1
Burgess2 maintains that encephalitis occurs in 1 in every
2,000 cases and in the USA there was one fatality for every
3,000 reported measles cases».

The Department of Health gives typically misleading

information on the risk of encephalitis or death following
measles. It is claimed the risk of encephalitis is between
1/250 cases and 1/2,000 cases and that the risk of death is
between 1/10 cases and 1/10,000. The reference given for
these risk figures is The Bulletin of the World Health
Organisation.3 With the World Health Organisation taking
into account the impoverished countries of the world which
have considerably less regard to hygiene, nutrition,
sanitation and housing than we do, it is no wonder these
figures are so high. They are simply not relevant to
Australia and should not be used as a means of alarming an
uninformed public.

The measles eradication program in third world countries4 is a

'. "Christopher P.J., et al "Measles in the 1980s" The

Medical Journal of Australia, November 12, 1983 pp.
488-491 at p. 488.
2
. Burgess M.A., "The Complete Guide to Immunisation
Pt. II: Infants and Children", Current Therapeutics,
Sept 1989, pp. 65-75.
3
. Galazkaam et al "Indications and Contraindications
for vaccines used in the expanded program on
immunisation", Bulletin of the World Health
Organisation 1984; 62: 357-366.
4
. "UNICEF:*Immunisation for all by 1990" AFAR December
1985 pp. 1172ff.
 149
symptom and not caused based attack on an infectious disease.
Dr. Archie Kalokerinos is scathing in his opinion of the
"success" of the vaccination programs in Africa and South
America:5
"They claimed they wiped out measles, but they can't
substantiate that claim. Measles is a disease that
is changing. Most of those susceptable to measles
died from some diseases or other that they developed
as a result of being vaccinated. It reduced their
immune levels and acted like an infection and
knocked them out. They might have got septicemia or
gastro-enteritis or it made their nutritional status
worse and they died from malnutrition. So there were
few susceptible infants left alive to get measles."
Dr. Kalokerinos was a conventional medical practitioner with
traditional conservative views on immunisation until he
observed first hand the effect of immunisation on young
aboriginal infants in the Northern Territory. His views set
out above are supported by the account he has given of his
work in the Northern Territory.6

The views of Dr. Kalokerinos with respect to the measles

vaccination program in Africa have received some confirmation
from the English Medical Journal, The Lancet, which has
stated:7
"The effect of measles vaccination on mortality has
also proved difficult to assess. This is
surprising considering that the high case-fatality
rate of measles has been the major argument in
favour of launching measles vaccination programmes
in developing countries. One suggestion is that
children who die from measles are typically those

Kalokerinos A., "Immunisation by Vaccination - There

are Two Sides" op. cit., p. 7.
»

Kalokerinos A., "Every Second Child", op. cit.

The Lancet, August 1, 1981, pp. 236-237.
 150
with malnutrition or some other severe intercurrent
condition, who would soon die from some other cause
if not from measles. If this were so, there might
be little advantage to be gained from a measles
vaccine. Workers in Zaire have tried to assess the
net effect of a measles vaccination programme on
survival, by comparing mortality patterns in
vaccinated and unvaccinated groups. A marginal
increase in survival was found in the vaccinated
community, but the investigators concluded that ' the
benefit that can be expected from measles
vaccination may thus be lower than is generally
thought'...
To what extent should the issue of >-*ho dies from
measles decide whether or not to promote measles
vaccination? This was examined in the United
Kingdom during early discussions over the
advisability of a national measles vaccination
programme. Half of the 132 deaths attributed to
measles in the first six months of 1961 were in
children with serious chronic disease or disability.
The fact that many of the children who died of
measles had at best a short expectation of life did
not cancel the overall benefits to be gained from
the programme. It may be that too much emphasis has
been placed upon the mortality attributable to
measles in some communities, thus distracting
attention from the other implications of a measles
vaccination programme."
The fi-.tality or encephalitic rate given per number of measles
cases are not meaningful figures. The real risk to a child
will depend not so much on the likelihood of contracting
measles after exposure, but on the socio-economic
circumstances in which he or she lives. It is simply
deceptive and misleading to divide the number of cases of
measles by the number of deaths and then present a case
fatality rate to parents as if it meant that the same rate
applied everywhere, to all cases of measles, all the time.
Not many parents would ask for the real risk rate for children
in the same circumstances as their own child. Stewart and
 151
Bassili have said:8
"... measles, has always had a high incidence in
infants in crowded homes and in older children when
they play in groups or go to school."

Dr. Robert Mendlesohn has confirmed this approach:9

"Doctors maintain that the inoculation is necessary
to prevent measles encephalitis, which., they say
occurs about once in 1,000 cases. After decades of
experience with measles, I question this statistic,
and so do many other pediatricians. The incidence
of 1/1.000 may be accurate for children who live in
conditions of poverty and malnutritionr but in the
middle and upper income brackets . . . the incidence
of true encephalitis is probably more like 1/10,000
or 1/100,000."

Even the NSW Department of Health has discussed the link

between poor nutrition and measles. In a recent issue of
"Public Health Abstracts" the Department had this to say:10
"Measles ... is most devastating in developing
countries where children have poor nutritional
levels ... That vitamin A should be of benefit in
measles is biologically plausible .because measles
despresses serum levels of vitamin A and vitamin A
is known as an anti-infective vitamin ...
A new randomised double blind trial in South Africa
has shown that treatment with vitamin A reduces
morbidity and mortality in measles and a
recommendation has been made that all children with
severe measles should be given vitamin A supplements

The Department has also recognised the link between

Stewart G. and Bassili W. op. cit. p. 473.

Mendlesohn R. , "How to raise a child in spite of
your Doctor", p. 215.
Department of Health, Public Health Abstracts, Vol
2, No 3, p. 24,
See also Hussey, et al, "A Randomised Controlled
Trail of Vitamin A in Children with Sever Measles,
N. Eng J Med 1990, 323, 3, pp. 160-164
 152
socio-economic conditions and disease.11

Despite the death rate so effectively promoted by the

Department of Health to the community, the Department did not
report any fatalities from 1982 to 1990 despite 1,318
notifications of measles.12

Even if the officially recognised figures are accepted, I

submit that it is reasonable to argue that the risk of death,
encephalitis or SSPE is extremely remote. Even Sir Gustav
Nossal admits that:
"Before measles vaccination, virtually every child in the
world got measles. Indeed, most recovered quite
well"13.

2. The Historical Experience

As with most other infectious diseases vaccinations have been
credited with substantially reducing the incidence of disease
particularly in the case of measles.

The severity of measles in this country as measured by the

case fatality rate declined dramatically prior to the
introduction of vaccines:

11
. NSW Department of Health, Public Health Abstracts
Vol. 2 No. 3 p. 23.
12
. NSW Department of Health Benefits and Risks of
Immunisation p.8.

13
. Nossal, G.J.V., " Vaccines as History's Most Cost -
Effective Public Health Tools" in Highlights in
Science*edited by H. Messel, Pergamon Chapter 11 pp.
140-148 at p. 143.
 153
"which had little impact on the rate of decline in
deaths"1*
Dr. Brian Feery has demonstrated the decline in deaths from
measles in Australia prior to the introduction of vaccines in
1969 as follows:15

Period Deaths Pop (M)

1927 - 36 1037 6.6
37 - 46 863 7.2
47 - 56 457 8.6
57 - 66 183 11

The measles vaccine cannot be given credit for any decline in

the death rate when 90% of the decline occurred before the
introduction of the vaccine and the rate of decline was the
same afterwards. However, some medical practitioners still
claim the vaccine had an impact on the number of deaths.16

Once it is clear that the vaccine had little impact on the

severity of measles, most immunisation devotees then claim
that the vaccine substantially reduced the incidence of the
disease.17 However, the incidence of measles was in decline

14 Golden, I . , "Vaccination A Campaign of Fear", Simply

Living at pp 21-22.
15 Feery, B. , "Impact of Immunisation on Disease
Patterns in Australia", Medical Journal of
Australia, August 22, 1981 pp. 172-175
16 Bloch, A.B., et al, "Health Impact of Measles
Vaccination in the U.S.", Pediatrics, Vol. 76 No. 4,
Oct 1985, pp. 524-532.
17 See for example, Christopher P.J., et al, "Measles
in the 1980s", The Medical Journal of Australia,
12th November, 1983, pp. 488-491 at p. 488.
 154
prior to the introduction of a vaccine and this is clear from
the graph set out in thé article of Bloch et al.18
{Щ

The rate of decline in incidence did increase dramatically

following the introduction of measles vaccine. This might M
have been due to the vaccine but it is quite possible, given
the behaviour of other infectious diseases that the rate would i

have fallen substantially anyway. Even if the lower

incidence was as a result of the vaccine then this is of not
great significance if its severity was diminished by factors
other than the vaccine.

Mendlesohn also disputes the claimed impact of the vaccine on

the incidence of the disease:19
"while there has been a decline in the incidence of
the disease, it began long before the vaccine was
introduced. In 1958 there were about 800,000 cases
of measles in the United States, but by 1962 � the
year before a vaccine appeared � the number of cases i
had dropped by 300,000. During the next four (ИН
years, while children were being vaccinated with an
ineffective and now abandoned 'killed v �s'
vaccine, the number of cases dropped an .er
300,000. In 1900 there were 13.3 measles deaths
per 100,000 population. By 1955, before the first
measles shot, the death rate had declined 97.7% to
only 0.03 deaths per 100,000. r

Those numbers alone are dramatic evidence that

measles was disappearing before the vaccine was
introduced."

In the United States the incidence of acute measles did fall

from 400,000 cases in the early 1960s to approximately 30 0

18
. ibid p. 526.
19
. Mendlesohn R., "How to Raise a Healthy Child in
Spite of your Doctor", p. 216.
 155
cases by 1974 to 1976 but the death rate remained the same.20

3. Measles Vaccine; Adverse Reactions from the Vaccine

The possible consequences of measles vaccine can be very
serious. The risk of encephalitis following measles
vaccination was found to be 1/3,000,000 doses iSafter a study
was conducted in the United States from 1979 to 1982.21

In that study only 4 cases were found within 30 days of

vaccination after 8.7 million doses of measles vaccine. This
was then compared to the rate of encephalitis of unknown cause
of approximately 2.1 million children. Bloch et al claimed
this supported the possibility that encephalitis following
measles was only a temporaral association and not a causative
one.22

Bloch et al also referred to the National Childhood

Encephalopathy Study conducted in England, Scotland and Wales
between 1976 and 1979:
"There was a statistically increased risk of
seizures or encephalopathy within 14 days after
measles vaccinations. Measles vaccine was
implicated as a cause of such disorder with a risk
estimated at once in every 87,000 immunisations.
. . . of 16 cases of serious neurological illness with
onset within 7 to 14 days after vaccination, all

20
. See Moskowitz, R., "Immunisation: A Dissenting View"
op. cit., p. 37; and Cherry, J.t "The New
Epidemiology of Measles and Rubella", Hospital
Practice" July, 1980 at pp. 52-54
21
. Bloch, A.B., et al, op. cit. p. 529.
22 ibid p. 529-530.
 156
were normal at one year, except for two cases with
minor residue. "23
Bloch et al then compared the rate of encephalitis from wild
measles (586.8 per 1 million reported cases) with the rate of
encephalitis following the vaccine. They then argued that
this combined with the disappearance of symptoms after 12
months indicated that:24
"the risk of neurologic disorders following measles
vaccine is far less than the risk following measles
disease."

Bloch et al then used this as the basis for the standard

justification for calling for the expansion and maintenance of
immunisation programmes.

Subacute sclerosing panencephalitis is believed to occur in

1/1,000,000 doses of measles vereine.25

More mild reactions to the vaccine include sore throat,

headache, fever, rash, nausea and vomiting. In approximately
20% of doses there are moderate fevers (38.3 to 39.4) and in
15% of cases, higher fever (that is, greater than 39.4).
"On rare occasions, children developing fever may
exhibit febrile convulsions . .. more severe
reactions that require hospitalisation including
prolonged high fevers and extensive local reactions

23
ibid p. 530.
24 ibid
25 See NSW* Department of Health "Benefits and Risks of
Immunisation .z p.7.
 157
have been reported"26
McEwen has found the following adverse reactions shortly after
measles vaccination:27
"Cyanosis (blueness of the skin), coughing, vomiting
and impaired central nervous function (drowsiness,
hypertonia or lethargy)"
McEwan found that acute changes in skin colour; and coughing
were the most common adverse reactions shortly after
vaccination together with breathing disturbances. He
concluded:28
"Cyanosis and disturbances of respiration are
important symptoms and medical attendants should be
in a position to take active measures if prompt
spontaneous resolution does not occur."
Cyanosis has been defined as follows:
"a blue appearance of the skin and mucus membranes
which may be general but is most prominent in the
extremities, hands and feet and in the superficial
highly vascular parts such as the lips, cheeks and
ears. It is due to deficient oxygenation of the
blood in the minute blood vessels and depends upon
the absolute amount of reduced haemoglobin
present"29

4. Measles Vaccine; Does it cause degenerative disease?

In Chapter Five I referred at length to Moskowitz's view on
how measles vaccine affects the immune system. Moskowitz's

Product Information Pamphlet with the MMR Vaccine -

August 1989. See also Burgess, M., "Immunisation:
Indications and Contraindications", Modern Medicine
of Australia, May 1986 pp. 76-83 at p.79
McEwen, J., Adverse Drugs Reactions Advisory
Committee, "Early-Onset Reaction After Measles
Vaccination", Med J Aust 1983, 2:503 to 505.
ibid p. 504
Butterworths, "Medical Dictionary" - Second Edition
1978 at p. 447
 158
greatest concern is that the measles vaccine bypasses the
normal pathways of infection (usually the nose or mouth) and
results in the measles virus not being eliminated by the body
and persisting in the body for a very long time.

There is no doubt measles antibodies are produced by the

vaccine but by obtaining a weakened virus from vaccine
injection rather than natural inhalation which activates the
body's whole immune system the virus itself persists in the
blood for a very long period of time, if not life.30
Golden claims:31
"Although the virus is attenuated, a relatively
massive amount, compared with the quantity taken in
during natural infection, is infected into the body.
It is also combined with chemical adjuncts such as
aluminium hydroxide designed to keep the virus
active for a longer period in the body; a process
contrary to the normal immune reaction."
It is this persistence of the measles virus in the body which
weakens the immune system's response to further infections
from measles and other infections as well. It is possible
that the persistence of the virus over many years ultimately
causes a complete breakdown of the immune system of some
susceptible people: this then may result in some of the auto
immune diseases such as cancer.
Dr. Moskowitz argues:32

30
. Moskowitz R. , op. cit. p. 144.
31
. Golden I . , "Vaccination A Campaign of Fear?", Simply
Living p. 20.
32
. Moskowitz R., op. cit. at pp. 144-145
See also Hayflick, L., "Slow Viruses", Executive
Health Èeport, Feb 1981 at p. 4, and
Davis, В., et al, "Microbiology" 2nd Edition
г
г 159
"It has long been known that live viruses . . . are
capable of surviving or remaining latent within the
host cells for years, without continually provoking
acute disease. They do so simply by attaching
тгг^
their own genetic material as an extra particle or
"episome" to the genome of the host cell, and
L replicating along with i t , which allows the host
| cell to continue its own normal function for the
most part but imposes on it additional instructions
ад

for the synthesis of viral proteins.

p Latent viruses of this type have already been
implicated in three distinct types of chronic
, disease, namely (1) recurrent or episodic acute
diseases such as herpes, shingles, warts etc; (2)

Г "slow virus" diseases

sclerosing panencepholitis
... such as ... subacute
SSPE, AIDS . . . and (3)
^7 tumours, both benign and malignant"
The possibility that the vaccinated measles virus may attach
itself to the host cells and remain within the body of a
vaccine recipient has received some support in Australia
f
PR "As all vaccines are cultured in animal tissue there
are excellent opportunities for genetic DNA and RNA
f exchanges between the virus particle, bacteria and
the human host as well ... viruses do become
genetically integrated with the cells they infect
... a number of vital vaccines may well be so
successfully seeding . . . its RNA, that in later
years the individual could well be stricken with
such diverse diseases as multiple33
sclerosis, lupus,
cancer and parkinsons disease"

1 � A frightening account of the possible transmittal of animal

1
H viruses to humans via vaccines prepared in animal tissue has

t (Harper) 1979 pp. 418�1449

И
Mowle, A., (PhD), "Infectious Disease: A Matter for
33
и .
Immunisation.. .or a matter for further inquiry", The
.¡J Australasian Nurses Journal, May 1981 reprinted in
m Health and Healing December 81 - February 82 pp 29-
I 35 at p. 34
1
See also Campbell, A.M.: "How viruses insert their
и
DNA into the DNA of the Host Cell", Scientific
American, December, 1976 pp. 103�113
г^п
 160
been given by Rappenport34 who claimed that the Bovine Immune
Deficiency Virus (BIV) may have infected smallpox vaccine
cultured on calf bellies. This in his view may have resulted
in positive tests for Human Immune Deficiency Virus (HIV) in a
number of smallpox vaccine recipients. It is noted that the
measles virus vaccine "is produced by culture in a chick
embryo cell line"35

Dr. H. Buttram in correspondence with Isaac Golden expressed

the following fear with respect to virus integration in the
cells of vaccine recipients:36
"... viruses could become carriers, incorporating
their genetic material into the invaded cell. This
in turn almost certainly would set the stage for
immunological disorders permanently weakening the
immune system of the individual"
An important study was recently undertaken in Denmark of the
correlation between diseases in adult life with measles virus
infection in childhood without rash.37

Ronne compared the incidence of non-measles associated disease

amongst adults who had a positive history of measles in
childhood with a similar number who had a negative history of
measles in childhood either by escaping exposure to infection

M
. ¿.appenport J., "Exploring Alternative theories of
AIDS", Health & Healing Vol. 7, No. 2, Dec-Feb,
1988, pp. 25-29.
35
. Burgess M.A. , op. cit. p. 71.
36
. Golden I., op. cit.
37
. Tove Ronne "Measles Virus Infection Without Rash in
Childhood is related in Disease in Adult Life", The
Lancet Sat 5 Jan 1985 pp 1-5
 161
or by not developing a rash after infection:38
"Adults who have not had measles have either escaped
exposure, or have responded without manifesting the
pathognomonic rash. In general the presence of
measles virus antibodies is taken as evidence of
past infection, in the present investigation, it was
regarded as evidence of viral infection, but not
necessarily of clinical measles"
Ronne found that almost all people who had a.negative history
of clinical measles tested positive for measles antibodies.39

Ronne was not directly considering the adverse consequences of

vaccination but merely the link between absence of measles
rash and non-measles diseases in later life. As measles
vaccinations rarely result in rash, the relevance of his
research in highlighting the dangers of the vaccination,
particularly in respect of "slow virus" auto-immune diseases
are very great indeed. He claimed that the negative history
of measles but presence of measles antibodies was probably due
to the injection of immune serum globulin after a particular
individual was exposed to another person who had acquired
measles.

Ronne discussed the significance of rash with measles

infection:40

38
. ibid p. 1.
39
. ibid p. 2
40
. ibid pp. 1-2
See also Olding-Stenkvist E. and Bjorvat N.B.,
"Rapid detection of Measles Virus in Skin Rashes by
Immunofluroescence" J. Infect. Dis. 1976; 134: 463-
469
And Burnet Sir M., "Measles as an Index of
Immunological Function, Lancet 1968; ii pp. 610-613
 162
"The pathogenesis of the measles rash is not
completely understood, although certain facts have
been established .. . Measles virus antigen has also
been shown to disappear from skin cells 3-4 days
after onset of the rash. It is assumed, therefore,
that the rash is caused by a cell-mediated immune
reaction, which damages cells infected with measles
virus. If this assumption is correct, absence of a
rash may imply that intracellular virus escapes
neutralisation during the acute infection, and this,
in turn, might give rise to the development of
diseases subseguently. Absent rash might also be
an early expression of congenital impairment in
cell-mediated immunity which itself causes disease
later in life"

Ronne found that:41

"There was evidence of association between a
negative history of measles, exposure in early life
(possibly injection of immune serum globulin after
exposure) and development of immunoreactive
diseases, particularly arthritis and also sebaceous
skin diseases, degenerative diseases of bone and
cartilage and certain tumours ... in adulthood ...
[This] ... suggests that the presence of measles
virus specific antibodies at the time of infection
interferes with the common immunological response to
measles virus, especially with the development of
specific cell mediated immunity .. . intracellular
measles virus may then survive the acute infection,
and cause diseases which develop in adulthood.
Possible mechanisms which may function singly or
together, include: reactivation of measles virus,
immunological reaction against the measles virus
cell complex, suppression of immunocompetent cells
caused by persistent measles virus infection, and
measles virus induced changes in the host cell"
Ronne summaries the application of his study as follows:42
"... individuals who are at risk of developing non-
measles associated disease are those who have been
infected with measles virus, but who never
manifested a rash"
This would apply to most people who have been vaccinated with
the measles virus as only a small percentage of the recipients

ibid at*p. 4
ibid p. 3.
 163
of a measles vaccine develop a rash and, even in those cases,
it is nowhere near the extent of those people who are infected
naturally. The possible persistence of the measles virus in
the body after vaccination and Ronne's assessment of what this
can do to the immune system may explain why some vaccinated
children have an adverse response to exposure to-.wild measles.

I do not believe anyone has adequately explained the actual

cause of cancer where the human body turns on itself whereby
the body's immune system is unable to distinguish "self" with
"non-self". However, the presence of slow viruses in the body
may be a plausible explanation. If a virus is incorporated
in the cell structure in the body and remains latent for a
long period, it must place great strain, if not impossible
demands, on the body's immune system to distinguish between
"foreign" and "self",
"i.e., to recognise and tolerate our own cells, and
to identify and eliminate foreign 43 or extraneous
. substances as completely as possible"
Moskowitz argues that vaccines may actually achieve the
reverse of their desired effect: suppressing rather than
enhancing immunity.
"... latent virus survives as a clearly "foreign"
element within the cell which means that the immune
system must continue to try to make antibodies
against i t , insofar as it can still respond to it at
all. Because the virus is now permanently
incorporated within the genetic material of the
cell, these antibodies will now have to be directed
against the cell itself.

Moskowitz op. cit. p. 145

See also Burnet Sir M., "The Integrity of the Body"
Athenium 1966 p. 4
 164
The persistence of live viruses or other foreign
antigens within the cells of the host therefore
cannot fail to provoke auto-immune phenomena,
because destroying infected cells is now the only
possible way that this constant antigenic challenge
can be removed from the body"44
Moskowitz specifically considered the measles vaccine as a
latent virus and its link with serious disease
"In the case of the attenuated measles virus, it is
not difficult to imagine that introducing it
directly into the blood would continue to provoke an
antibody response for a considerable period of time,
which is doubtless the whole point of giving the
vaccine; but that eventually, as the virus succeeded
in attaining a state of latency within the cell, the
antibody response would wane, but because
circulating antibodies cannot normally cross the
cell membrane, and also because they are powerful
immunosuppressive agents in their own right.
The effect of circulating antibody will thereafter
be mainly to keep the virus within the cell, i.e.,
to continue to prevent any acute inflammatory
response, until eventually, perhaps under
circumstances of accumulated stress or emergency,
this precarious balance breaks down, antibodies
begin to be produced in large quantities against the
cells themselves, and frank auto-immune phenomena of
necrosis and tissue destruction supervene. Latent
viruses, in this sense, are like biological "time
bombs" set 45to explode at an indeterminate time in
the future"
Are we trading measles for cancer or mumps for multiple
sclerosis? Are we attempting to rid society of what were
once regarded as typical childhood diseases to only replace
them with something far more serious whic. only appear much
later in life and are far more debilitating?
"If what I am saying turns out to be true, then what

Moskowitz op. cit., p. 144.

ibid p.146
See also Talai N., "Autoimmunity" in Fudenberg, et
al, Basic and Clinical Immunology, 3rd Edition,
Lange, 1980, p. 222
And Hay f lick "Slow Viruses" ibid p. 4
с�
165
we have done by artificial immunisation is
essentially to trade off our acute, epidemic disease
of the past century for the weaker and far less
¥Щ

curable chronic diseases of the present, with the

amortisable suffering and disability. In doing so,
we have also opened up limitless evolutionary
possibilities for the future ongoing in vivo
46
genetic
recombination within the cells of the race"
47
The National Centre for Homoeopathy of the U.S. has said:
"If auto�immune disease represents the •^'destruction
of chronically infected cells, then the increase in
auto�immune diseases over the past several decades
makes sense in light of large scale immunisation
programs"
Dr. Robert Simpson some years ago addressed a seminar of the
American Cancer Society as follows:48
"Immunisation programs against flu, measles, mumps
Р and polio may actually be seeding humans with RNA to
form proviruses.... The proviruses will then become
latent cells throughout the body . . . some of these
7Г latent proviruses could be molecules in search of
disease which under proper conditions become
i activated and cause a variety of diseases."
га
The possibility that the measles vaccine may result in the
i persistence of the measles virus in the body for a very long
I

time is a matter that neither the Department of Health nor the

Щ medical profession ever bring to the attention of parents or

individuals with respect to the safety or risks of

vaccination. This should be immediately addressed by both the

bureaucratic and professional arms of the health industry and

not dismissed as fanciful.

Г **. Moskowitz op. cit. p. 147

41
. National Centre for Homoeopathy "Immunisation: Do
Г they protect our Children?" in Homoeopathy Today,
I September 1984, Vol. 1 No. 2, p.8.
J
P 48
. Referred to in Allen H., op. cit., p. 57.
 166
5. Does the vaccine give immunity?
A person or parent must weigh up the risk of contracting the
disease and then, whether or not, having contracted the
disease, the risk of serious consequences outweighs the risks
of the vaccine causing immediate serious complications or
chronic disease in the long term.

That person or parent, when making that risk analysis, should

take into account the likelihood of their child or themselves
receiving no immunity at all from the vaccine. A number of
vaccinated people do not have immunity to measles. The risk
of vaccine failure must be taken into account when considering
the real risk of disease verses the so called benefits of the
vaccine.

Vaccine failure with respect to measles has been well

documented. The U.S. Immunisation Practices Advisory
Committee has reported that 16,819 measles cases were
investigated by the U.S. Division of Immunisation.49
Amazingly 42% of these cases were in "appropriately vaccinated
persons". 92% of these cases were amongst persons five years
or older.

The Committee noted that:50

"Among school-aged children, outbreaks have occurred
in schools with vaccine levels greater than 98%.

49
. Morbidity & Mortality Weekly Report Vol. 38, Dec 29,
1989, p'* 2.
50
. ibid p. 3.
 167
These outbreaks have occurred in all parts of the
country, including areas that had not reported
measles for years. ....A substantial number of
cases occur among persons who previously have been
vaccinated. Theoretically, vaccine failures may
either be primary, i.e., an adequate response to
vaccination never developed or, secondary, i.e., an
adequate response initially developed, but immunity
was lost over time"
In Hobbs, New Mexico in early 1984 there were, 47 confirmed
••¡* "'
cases of measles amongst students attending local schools.
"The school system reported that 98% of students
were vaccinated against measles before the outbreak
began ... and ... all but one of the 47 patients had
histories of measles vaccination. "il
Between June and December 1990 there was a measles "outbreak"
in the Hunter region of New South Wales with 253 recorded
cases. 15 3 of these, which occurred in the Port Stephens
area, were investigated:52
"About 60% of the cases were children who had never
been immunised against measles, 18% had documented
immunisation and 22% were said to have been
immunised"
The findings in respect of this outbreak posed the following
obvious question:
"Does this mean that the vaccine does not work?"53
In all seriousness but stretching credibility and credulity to
breaking point the answer provided is as follows:54

51 "Measles in an immunised school - Aged Population -

New Mexico", Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report
Vol. 34, No. 4, Feb 1, 1985 pp. 52-59.
52 Royal Alexandra Hospital for Children, Monthly
Infectious Diseases Report, Ed., Isaac, March, 1991
republished by Commonwealth Department of Health in
"Communicable Disease Intelligence" Vol. 15 No. 13.
53
. ibid
54
. ibid
 168
"On the contrary, there is good evidence that the
vaccine is at least 95% effective in protecting
against measles virus infection. Paradoxically
the greater the level of immunisation the higher the
proportion of measles cases that will occur in
immunised children"
It is then argued that assuming only 5% failed to get vaccine
immunity then it is these susceptibles who will form the core
of the "outbreak". In fact it is asserted in the same
article that if 95% of the population is immunised, 53% of all
measles cases will be in immunised people. To put this in
perceptive for every 1,000 children vaccinated, 50 of these
would be expected to not be protected against measles. While
5% is the generally accepted failure rate, it can be as high
as 10%.5S

This must then make a mockery of the Department of Health's

proposal to withdraw only unimmunised children from school in
the event of an "outbreak". Surely it is the 5-10% of
children who have been vaccinated and who are not protected
who are most at risk of serious complications.

The authors of this article appear not to have been aware of

the figures produced by the U.S. Immunisation Practices
Advisory Committee on Vaccine Failure. This is of concern as
their statement:
"In the United States measles immunisation is widely
required for school entry and this has achieved 98%
or greater measles immunisation by school age
resulting in only a few cases of measles every year

Bloch, A.B., et al, op. cit., p. 531.

 169
56
until 1988 "
is clearly put to justify the arguments in favour of further
immunisation.
"It is vital that all children be immunised against
measles to have any hope of preventing large
outbreaks of measles, which is a highly contagious
and life-threatening disease, particularly for young
children" •-!»••••""
From 1985 to 1988 there were 475 reported cases of measles in
New South Wales with a population of about 6,000,000 people.57
In the same period there were 16,819 cases in the United
States with a population of approximately 210,000,000.
Statistically I do not believe there is significant difference
between the incidence of measles in New South Wales and the
United States except that in the United States, more than one
half of the states have compulsory immunisation at school age
with vaccination rates of up to 98% of the young population.

The Royal Alexandra Hospital for Children with the imprimatur

of the Commonwealth Department of Health has also stated that
a non-immunised child of 12 months or more and within three
days of contact with a child with measles:58
"then normal human serum immunoglobulin — may
modify the severity of the disease"
Unfortunately this article makes no reference to the work of
Ronne undertaken only six years before or to his warning:59

56 Royal Alexandra Hospital for Children, op. cit.

57 N.S.W. Department of Health - Benefits and Risks
« Immunisation 1991 p. 8
58 Royal Alexandra Hospital for Children, op. cit.
59
Ronne T., op. cit., p. 4.
 170
"Perhaps most importantly, it is necessary to
understand the fate of measles virus in 'vivo when
ISG is administered after exposure. If the
hypothesis that passively acquired antibodies
constitute a risk factor is verified, the use of ISG
after measles exposure has to be reconsidered".
Injection of ISG after exposure would result in missed rash
and this has been linked by Ronne with serious disease in
later life.

In 1989 the U.S. Committee on Infectious Diseases considered

the outbreaks which occurred in 1985 and 198 6:60
"Analysis of these recent cases by the Centre for
Disease Control has revealed that the majority
(about two thirds) were not preventable by our
current policy. In 1985 and 1986 most of these non-
preventable cases occurred in persons who either had
been appropriately immunised (60%) or in children
who were not old enough to receive routine
vaccination at 15 months of age (27%).
... In ... outbreaks ... [of] .. . school aged
children ... only 27% of these cases were considered
preventable occurring in unvaccinated children.
The outbreaks developed in schools in which the
immunisation rate was usually 96% or more ..."

The .-; figures support the assertion by the Royal Alexandra

Hospital for Children contention that the higher the rate of
immunisation in a population the higher the percentage of
people contracting the disease for which they were supposed to
be immunised.

This was confirmed in a study conducted in Texas in 1985 of a

Committee on Infectious Diseases

American* Academy of Pediatrics, "Measles:
Reassessment of the Current Immunisation Policy"
Pediatrics Vol. 84 No. 6 Dec 1989 p.110
 171
fully immunised secondary school population:6i
"Ал outbreak of measles occurred among adolescents
in Corpus Christie, Texas, in the spring of 1985,
even though vaccination requirements for school
attendance had been thoroughly enforced. Serum
samples from 1806 students at two secondary schools
were obtained eight days after the onset of the
final case. Only 4.1% of these students (74 of
1806) lacked detectable antibody to measles ...
After the survey, none of the 1732 'seropositive
students contracted measles. Fourteen of 74
seronegative students, all of whom had been
vaccinated, contracted measles"
The next time there is an outbreak of measles in a school or
community, and before the Department of Health and the media
launch into the usual hysterical response of blaming
unimmunised people and demanding that immunisation be
compulsory, the Department should consider the conclusion
drawn by Gustafson et al in this study.62
"We conclude that outbreaks of measles can occur in
secondary schools, even when more than 99% of the
students have been vaccinated and more than 95% are
immune".

6. Measles Vaccine: Conclusion

To properly assess the risks of wild virus measles as opposed
to vaccinated measles, a thorough consideration must be given
to the following:�
1. The likelihood of contracting the disease in the first
place. This is generally considered to be reasonably
likely without being vaccinated.
2. Once contracting it, how likely is it that serious

Gustafson, T., et al "Measles Outbreak in a Fully

61
.
Immunised Secondary School Population", New England
Journal of Medicine Vol. 316 No. 13 at pp. 771�774
at p. 771.
62
. ibid
 172
consequences or death will follow?
3. What are the risks of serious injury following the
vaccine.
4. Is it possible that vaccinated measles will result in the
measles virus persisting in the body for a considerable
period of time?
5. If so, then what are the risks associated with the
vaccine with respect to chronic disease later in life?
6. Might the vaccine suppress rather than enhance immunity
and possibly cause or contribute to auto-immune diseases
later in life such as cancer?
7. What guarantee is there that after balancing the risks of
the wild virus with that of the vaccinated virus, that
immunity against the disease will be definitely given by
the vaccination?
8. If ser: injury or chronic disease follows vaccination,
what r. cs of compensation does an individual or child
have?

I have dealt at some length with the measles vaccine primarily

because of the possible long term consequences of a live virus
and secondarily, because it is usually the incidence of even a
small number of measles cases which contributes most to a
strong and usually unbalanced media reporting as well as the
demands from health bureaucrats anc doctors that the disease
be "outlawed".

Many very serious concerns have been raised about the use of
 173
live viruses and these are simply not brought to the attention
of the public. Time and time again the measles live virus
vaccine is promoted as the panacea against death, encephalitis
and ill health but it is never revealed that this very vaccine
may also be a possible cause of just as much disability,
suffering and lack of well being as the disease but much later
in life.
 I

fis)

ГЩ

га

га

ij
V

io. MUMPS

! !

F!
 174
CHAPTER 10
MUMPS
This disease causes swelling of one or both of the salivary
glands with typical symptoms of temperatures 100-104 F, loss
of appetite, headache and back pain. It does not cause death
and is not a notifiable disease in New South Wales.

The proponents of this vaccination argue that it is necessary

because of the risk of males contracting the disease as adults
if they have not acquired immunity naturally as a child.
There is then a risk that adult males may contract orchitis a
condition in which the disease affects the testicle.
"Testicular inflammation has been reported in up to
20% of clinical mumps1 cases in post-pubertal males
but sterility is rare"
"Inflammation of other organs has been observed less
frequently (pancreas, ovaries, liver, heart and
thyroid). Mumps is not a notifiable disease in NSW
at present. "2

Dr. Robert Mendlesohn has argued that if orchitis were a

significant threat and immunity could be guaranteed then he
would be a strong proponent of the vaccine. However,
orchitis is rare, it usually only affects one testicle and the
vaccine does not give guaranteed immunity.

Contracting mumps naturally provides life long immunity,

Department of Health, Immunisation - Benefits

outweigh the Risks, NSW Public Health Bulletin, Vol.
2 No. v5 May 1991 at p.42.
NSW Department of Health, " Benefit and Risks of
Immunisation", p.8.
 175
however, this is not so with the mumps vaccine.
"Recent studies have shown that mumps can occur in
hiqhly vaccinated populations, resulting in
substantial numbers of cases among persons with
histories of prior mumps vaccination"3
Dr. Mendlesohn has also said:
"Whether or not the mumps vaccine is advisable is
also in doubt. While the vaccine definitely lowers
the incidence of mumps in those who receive it, it
does so at the risk of exposing them to the dangers
of mumps later on after the immunity has worn off"4
Dr. Moskowitz has also been critical of the mumps vaccine:
"Mumps is ... essentially a benign, self limited
disease in children before the age of puberty, and
recovery from a single attack confers life long
immunity.
The mumps vaccine is prepared and administered in
much the same way as the measles, usually in the
same injection; and the dangers associated with it
are comparable. Again, like the measles, mumps is
fast becoming a disease of adolescents and young
adults, age groups which do not tolerate the
diseases well. The chief complication is acute ...
orchitis, which occurs in 30�40 percent of the males
affected past the age of puberty, and usually
results s in atrophy of the testicle on the affected
side. "
Conclusion:
I cannot see any good reason for immunising children against
mumps at all. The mumps vaccine is a live virus and should be
questioned seriously on this ground alone. Even Burgess has

Immunisation Practices Advisory Committee

Morbidity and Mortality Weekly F oort Vol. 38 No. 5�
9, December 29, 1989 at p. 6.
Mendlesohn, fi., "Confessions of a Medical Heretic",
Warner Books Edition 1979 at pp. 232�233.
Moskowitz ibid at p. 149
See also G. Hayden, et al, "Mumps Vaccine in the
U.S.", Cpntinuing Education, Sept 1979 p. 97.
And С Phillips, "Mumps", in Vaughan, Nelson's
Textbook of Pediatrics p. 892
 176
raised the benign nature of mumps.6
"It has been said that this disease is too benign to
warrant immunisation. A study of mumps in the Canadian
Province of Alberta confirmed the benign outcome in most
cases, but indicated the potential of mumps vaccination
for reducing hospital admissions for aseptic meningitis."
If children are not immunised for this disease, it is quite
likely that a substantial number of them will acquire the
disease naturally and obtain life, long immunity. The length
of immunity following mumps vaccine is not known.7

I find it difficult to understand why young girls are

immunised against mumps if the reason for the vaccination is
for the small number of cases of testicular atrophy in post
puberty males. If this vaccination must be given, then why
not wait until males reach puberty and then determine which
ones have not acguired natural immunity from exposure to the
wild virus. If a pubescent male was not immune he could then
decide if he wished to be vaccinated against mumps.

In this way waning immunity from a mumps vaccine given at

infancy would not increase the risk of adolescent men
contracting mumps with possible serious consequences.
Unfortunately the mumps vaccine is putting at risk the very
people it is designed to protect.

Burgess M., "Complete guide to Immunisation part II

Infants and Children" Current Therapeutics,
September, 1989. p. 72.
ibid
r

11. RUBELLA (GERMAN MEASLES)

I nii�l

å
p
Li
.f
Li

г^
 177
CHAPTER 11
RUBELLA fGERMAN MEASLES)
1. Is it a serious disease?
This is a trivial childhood disease which if it were not
linked with causing abnormalities when pregnant women are
exposed in the first trimester, a vaccine may never have been
introduced.

Sir Gustav Nossal has said:

"This disease . . . really is a trivial disease, but
the rubella virus infecting women during the
early stages of pregnancy can be transmitted through
the placenta to the embryo, and can cause a wide
variety of malformations including deafness,
blindness, serious cardiac abnormalities and other
lesions. So a rubella vaccine administered to
teenage girls has become more or less routine,
greatly diminishing this fear"1
The fear of congenital rubella syndrome which occurs at a rate
estimated in the U.S. of 1 per 2,000,000 live births2 is the
sole basis of immunising all children, girls and boys, as part
of the herd MMR inoculation. There have been five cases of
congenital rubella syndrome reported in New South Wales in the
last ten years.3

Dr. Mendlesohn believes that the threat of congenital rubella

is considerably overstated and the evidence at least

Nossal, G., "Vaccines as History's most Cost-

effective Public Health Tools" in Highlights in
Science ed H. Messel, Chapter 11 Pergamon p. 143
NSW 'Department of Health, Immunisation Benefits
outweigh the Risks, NSW Public Health Bulletin Vol.
2 No. 5 p. 42
3
ibid p. 42
 178
eguivocal :4
"Rubella vaccine given to children rather than women
contemplating pregnancy is debatable whether this
does any good in protecting unborn foetuses since
the rate of deformed babies born to mothers with
obvious diagnosed rubella varies from one year to
the next, from one epidemic to the next, and from
one study to the next."
Dr. Mendlesohn's view would not be shared by the majority of
the medical profession but his point is clear. If pregno -
women are the target then why not ensure that they are the
ones who are vaccinated prior to pregnancy. That is, if
those women genuinely believe the risks of the vaccine are
outweighed by the risk of contracting congenital rubella.

2. Does the vaccine give immunity?

If the rubella vaccine gives guaranteed lifelong immunity
without any risk of any serious side effects or auto immune
disease, then it should be supported. However:5
"Study after study has demonstrated that many women
immunised against rubella as children lack evidence
of immunity in blood tests given during their
adolescent years ... the crucial question yet to be
answered is whether vaccine induced immunity is as
effective and long lasting as immunity from the
natural disease of rubella. A large proportion of
children show no evidence of immunity in blood tests
given only four or five years after rubella
vaccinations."
The long term duration of immunity from rubella vaccination is

Mendlesohn fi., Confessions of a Medical Heretic,

op. cit. p. 234.
Mendlesohn fi., "Immunisation Against Disease - A
Medical /Fimebomb" in How to Raise a Healthy Child in
Spite of your Doctor, Contemporary Books,X1984 at p.
218
 179
not clear.6
"Natural rubella infection gives life long
protection against clinical disease, but the
duration of the immunity after rubella vaccination
is not known."

Forrest et al provided an example more than 20 years ago of a

29 year old woman who contracted clinical rubella 11 months
after being vaccinated against it.7

Menser et al in a study of NSW school children in the mid-

1970s found a vaccine failure rate of approximately 5%:8
"433 high school students were tested; there were
242 females and 191 males. Of the females 220 had
been vaccinated ... none of the males had been
vaccinated ... of the male controls, 52 (27%) were
seronegative."

This study found that of the 220 vaccinated females 10 were

considered not immune (4.5%) and 19 (8.6%) were of low
immunity.

The findings of this study with respect to the difference in

the level of immunity in vaccinated females as compared to
unvaccinated males may be set out in the following table.

"Serum Antibodies 9 years after Cendehill Rubella

Immunisation", The Lancet, Dec. 24 and 31, 1977, p.
1349.
Forrest J.M. et al, "Clinical rubella 11 months
after vaccination", The Lancet, Aug 26, 1972, p.
399.
Menses, M. A. et al, Rubella Vaccination in
Australia: 1. A Five Year follow up of Vaccinated
Schoolgirls, Medical Journal of Australia, Sat. July
29th, 1978 Vol. 2 No. 3 pp. 83-85 at p. 8.4
 180

Vaccinated Unvaccinated
Females % Males %

Immune 191 •' 86.8 139 73

Low immunity 19 8.6 -

No immunity 10 4.6 52 27
Total 220 191
i —

I note that although there is doubt about lasting immunity

from rubella vaccine, low immunity was regarded by Menser et
al as indicating sufficient immunity and therefore included
with those females who had strong evidence of rubella
antibodies. This is set out as follows:

Vaccinated Females Unvaccinated Males

Immune 95% 73%
Not immune 5% 27%

The level of natural immunity in the unvaccinated males

confirms the claim by Francis et al that:
"Before rubella vaccines became available
serological surveys showed that 13% to 20% of women
of child bearing age were susceptible to rubella"9
It is usually argued, particularly by health bureaucrats, that
the higher immunity in a vacci-, ated population compared to an
unvaccinated one is ample justification for a mass

Francis, 3.H., et al "Rubella Screening and

Vaccination Program at a Melbourne Maternity
Hospital, The Medical Journal of Australia, June
12th, 1982 pp. 502-504 at p. 502
See also Lehmann!, et al, Rubella: Results of a
serological Survey of pregnant patients in Melbourne
during 1968, Medical Journal of Australia 1969:
1;1282
And Giles, P.F.H., et al, Rubella antibody titres,
Rubella Vaccination and the Obstetrician. Aust NZ J
Obstet Gynaecol 1973: 13;65
 181
immunisation program. However:10
"The long term duration of immunity induced by
rubella vaccines remains uncertain .. . low titres
may decline further and clinical rubella infection
has been reported after successful vaccination"
Menser et al in another study concluded that:11
"The long term duration of immunity induced by
rubella vaccines remains an open guestion;, in 1977
Just reported a significant fall in antibody titres
in 9.5% of a group of . . . vaccinées 9 years after
vaccination"
If the vaccinated females in the former study of Menser et al
with low immunity were regarded as likely to have their
immunity wane over time and accordingly were allocated in the
no immunity classification, then the difference between
vaccinated females and unvaccinated males is not nearly as
significant. This is set out as follows:

Vaccinated Unvaccinated %
Females % Males
Immune 191 86.8 139 73
No immunity 29 13.2 52 27

The. former study by Menser et al also revealed that

unvaccinated females had a strong likelihood of obtaining
natural immunity. The comparison of unvaccinated females in
the study with unvaccinated males is set out in the following

10
Francis et al at p. 503 and 504
See also Best, J.M. et al Rubella Vaccines - Lancet
1979: 2:690
And Forrest, J.M. et al Clinical Rubella 11 months
after vaccination - Lancet 1972: 2:399
u Menser, M.A. et al Rubella Vaccination in Australia;
2, Experience with the RA 27/3 Rubella Vaccine and
results of a double dash blind trial in schoolgirls,
The Medical Journal of Australia, July 29th, 1978
pp. 85-88 at p. 87
 182
table:

Unvaccinated Unvaccinated %
Females % Males
Immune 16 73 139 73
Not immune 6 27 52 27
Total 22 191

Horstman et al12 in 1969 studied 190 male military recruits.

26 had no immunity, 15 had been vaccinated 2 to 3 months
previously and 149 had acquired natural immunity.

During a rubella epidemic in their camp, they assessed the

level of antibody response in each of the 190 recruits to
determine if rubella infection had occurred. They found that
all 26 susceptibles had been infected, 12 of the 15 vaccinées
were reinfected but only 5 of the 149 naturally immune
recruits were reinfected. Rubella virus was recovered from
the throats of 11 of the 26 susceptibles, from 1 of the 15
vaccinées and from none of the reinfected naturally immune
men. None of the recruits who were reinfected became ill.
This means that naturally immune individuals are extremely
unlikely to be reinfected upon exposure to rubella virus.

These results may be set out in the following table:

Horstman D.M., et al, "Rubella: Reinfection of

Vaccinated and Naturally immune persons exposed in
an Epidemic", The New England Journal of Medicine,
Vol. 283, No. 15, Oct 8, 1970, pp. 771-778.
 183

No. Infected Reinfected %

No immunity 26 26 — 100
Vaccinated 15 - 12 80
Natural Immunity 149 - 5 3.4

Horstman et al found:13
"... that after the epidemic of rubella ..had gone
through the company .. . antibodies *"of the 15
vacinees had risen so that it was similar to that of
the 26 men who had experienced primary infection ...
and also similar to the levels shown by the
naturally immune group, whose titers remained stable
throughout. "
Horstman et al raised some serious concerns about rubella
vaccination programs:14
"On the basis of marked HAI (hemagglutination -
inhibiting) and CF (complement fixing) responses,
80% of recently vaccinated young adults were
reinfected when exposed during a rubella epidemic,
in contrast to less than 5% of naturally immune
persons .. . the magnitude of the antibody response
of vaccinées suggests that they must have
experienced virus multiplication and not simply
limited replication at the portal of entry.
... if vacinees can be readily infected a few months
after successful immunisation what are the long term
prospects for durable protection of the young woman
in the childbearing age who was successfully
vaccinated at six?
. . . when reinfection occurs in persons who have lost
naturally acquired immunity the epidemiologic
evidence is that they experience inapparent
infections rather than clinical rubella, but they
respond with virus shedding and antibody rises in a
manner similar to that of the patient with primary
infection.
... if naturally immune subjects can lose detectable
HAI and CF antibodies, vacinees would seem to be
more vulnerable to the eventuality .. . one might
question the decree and quality of protection that
the young population with vaccine induced immunity

ibid p. 775.
ibid pp. 776-777.
 184
alone miaht have in 10 to 15 years. "
Horstman et al then raises the possibility that the risk of
reinfection by immune people is a serious risk of congenital
rubella syndrome. They develop an interesting argument that
as there is an approximately 85% "immune" population in the
child bearing age g.oup, the reduced circulation of the virus
infecting non-immune people and that as rubella virus can
spread rapidly through a population in which 85% possess
antibodies, the potential risk of foetal rubella might be
increased rather than decreased by vaccination.
"With so many 'ifs' in the picture, one is tempted
to re-examine the priorities of vaccination, and
consider whether a main target should not be the
susceptible adolescent or young adult woman
there would be advantage in inducing immunity in
young women whose serum antibodies might then be
expected to have a greater chance of persisting at
high enough levels during the child bearing period
to block viremia should reinfection occur. ",s
This study confirms the dubiousness of rubella vaccination at
15 months of age. It is most unlikely a significant number
of \ -.en would have immunity by child bearing age. It is for
this reason that the vaccine is given to young adolescent
females at puberty. However, the fact that the vaccination
is given at the time a female is biologically capable of
having children is certainly no guarantee that she will be
immune at the time of her first pregnancy.

This study confirms my belief that rubella vaccine should not

be given to any males and should only be given (if at all) to
females intending. to get pregnant. If properly informed
*
I5
. ibid p. 777.
 185
young women wish to minimise the risk of congenital rubella
syndrome and are not concerned about the possible adverse
consequences of the vaccine, then they should be vaccinated
prior to planning for a first pregnancy. It is possible some
women will fall pregnant without the "benefit" of a rubella
vaccine, but in this day of widespread contraception, most
women will have the opportunity of making informed choices
with respect to the vaccine.

Unfortunately the rubella vaccine has the same effect as the

mumps vaccinations. The very group it is designed to protect
(in this case, women in their first trimester of pregnancy)
are the ones most at risk as a result of being given the
vaccine.

It is estimated that up to 85% of the adult population that

acquired natural immunity to the disease prior to the
introduction of the vaccination.16

It is now well known that a substantial number of women do not

have immunity in their child bearing years although they were
immunised as children or adolescents.

It appears that the rubella vaccine provides women with

sufficient short term immunity to prevent them from
contracting the disease in their younger years only to have
*

16
. Mendlesohn fi., "How to Raise a Healthy Child in
spite of your Doctor", p. 218.
 186
that immunity wane ' over time exposing them at the very time
immunity is needed.17

Sir Macfarlane Burnet's concern with respect to waning measles

immunity is just as applicable to the rubella vaccine:18
"So far, when such immunised children have been re-
exposed to contact with measles patients, they have
proved to be completely immune. The only query
that needs answering is how long that immunity will
last. Thè vaccine would not be of much real value
if its effect waned after a few years and left
adolescents and young adults fully susceptible."
Mendlesohn has also expressed these very concerns:19
"The greater danger of rubella vaccination is the
possibility that it may deny expectant mothers the
protection of natural immunity from the disease.
By presenting rubella in childhood, immunisation may
actually increase the threat that women will
contract rubella during their child bearing years."
This concern has effectively been confirmed by the U.S. Centre
for Disease Control:20
"Adolescents and young adults continue to make up an
increasingly large proportion of cases. In 1977,
as in 1976, slightly more than 70% of rubella cases
of known age occurred in persons 15 years of age or
older. This same group accounted for approximately
62% of cases in 1975 and less than 25% of these
cases in pre vaccine years."
It is not known why some people fail to develop antibodies

* See Moskowitz fi., op. cit. pp. 149-150

18
* Burnet M. Sir, op. cit. p. 264.
19
« Mendlesohn fi., op. cit.
20
C.D.C. "Rubella and Congenital Rubella, United
States, 1977-78", Morbidity and Mortality Weekly
Report Dec 8, 1978 pp. 495-497 at p. 495.
 щ 187
after vaccination. Dr. Ronald Penny has said:21
ej
"The absence of any response to immunisation, e.g.
antibodies to rubella ... is a perturbing event for
which adequate explanation is not fully available
but suppressor cells have been implicated"
It has also been claimed that there is no herd immunity
against rubella.22 This means that a highly vaccinated

p!£!>
population will not reduce the incidence of-rubella disease
amongst non-immune unvaccinated people as well as those who
are vaccine failures or who have had waning immunity over
time. Despite vaccine failure and waning immunity, the lack
of herd immunity for rubella is then promoted as the reason to
be vaccinated against the disease so as to prevent congenital
rubella syndrome.23

3. What are the adverse consequences of the vaccine:

Menser et al found in their study that the typical reactions
to the rubella vaccine were rash, sore throat, swollen glands
and joint pain and swelling.

Burgess has claimed:

M
"The incidence of joint pain and swelling varies
with the vaccine strain and is increased in post-

(ÄI 21 Penny fi., "Understanding the Immune Process",

Current Therapeutics, August 1989 Vol. 30, No. 8,
U pp. 73-75.
22
. Klock K.E. and Rachelefsky G.S., "Failure of rubella
4 herd immunity during an epidemic", JAMA (1973) 288:
_ 69-22..
See Chappell J.A. et al, "Implications of Rubella
и
M .
Susceptibility in Young Adults", AJPH March, 1979,
J

Vol. 69 No. 3, pp. 279�281 at p. 279.

N

¡
; 1
 188
pubertal recipients"24
The New South Wales Department of Health advises as follows:
"Reactions to the rubella component of the combined
measles/mumps/rubella vaccine include fever, sore
throat, enlarged lymph nodes, rash and arthritis"25
The Department of Health Bulletin makes a mention of arthritis
without in any way indicating the severity, the risk or the
duration of this condition. In most cases, no mention is
made whatsoever of arthritis as a risk of vaccinated rubella.

The product information pamphlet with the MMR vaccine does

discuss the risk of arthritis following rubella vaccination:
"following vaccination in children, reactions in
joints are uncommon and generally of brief duration.
In women, incidence rates for arthritis and
arthralgia are generally higher than those in
children (children: 0-3%; women: 12-20%) and the
reactions tend to be more marked and of longer
duration. Symptoms may persist for a matter of
months or, on rare occasions, for years. In
adolescent girls, the reactions appear to be
intermediate in incidence between those seen in
children and in adult women. Even in older women
(35-45 years), these reactions are generally well
tolerated and rarely interfere with normal
activities" ,26

24
. Burgess, M.A., "The Complete Guide to Immunisation"
Part II; Infants and Children" in Caratheraputics
September, 1989, pp. 65-75 at p.74
M
. NSW Department of Health, NSW Public Health
Bulletin, Immunisation - Benefits outweigh the Risks
Vol. 2 No. 5, May 1991 \at p. 43.
26
. Merck Sharp & Dohme "Australia" Pty. Limited -
Product Information Pamphlet MMR Vaccine
NB the incidence rates for arthritis in children and
women is referred to in the Product Information
Pamphlet as being from "Unpublished data from the
files of Merck Sharp & Dohme Research Laboratories"
 189
Bolliger and Heller27 found in their study of 3000 schoolgirls
vaccinated with three different rubella vaccines that the
antibody response varied between one quarter and one half of
natural immune girls.

They found that for 2 of the vaccines which resulted initially

in low titres, the peak titres were not reached within.8 weeks
of vaccination. The importance of their work is not only the
confirmation that natural immunity is much stronger than
vaccinated immunity, but also because it raises the
possibility that a rising titre might mean the rubella virus
has persisted in the body after vaccination:
"The reason for this late rise in titre might be of
interest to study further. Is it 26 caused by live
virus still present after 2 months?"
Chantier et al have found an alarming link between rubella
virus and chronic arthritis in children.29

Chantier et al isolated rubella virus from the lymphoreticular

cells in 7 of 19 children with chronic rheumatic disease.
Rubella virus was not isolated from a control group which
included 8 normal subjects and 8 patients with other connected

Bolliger M. and Heller L., "Experiences from

Vaccination and revaccination of teenage girls with
three different Rubella vaccines", Jounal of
Biological Standardisation 1976, 4, pp. 107�114 at
p. 113.
ibid p. 113.
Chantier, J.К. (PhD.) et al � "Persistent Rubella
Virus Infection Associated with Chronic Arthritis in
Children" The New England Journal of Medicine,
October 31, 1985, Vol. 313 No. 18 pp. 1117�1123
 190
tissue diseases or traumatic joint effusion.

With direct bearing on the early discussion of slow viruses

and the persistence of viruses in the body after vaccination
Chantier et al found:30
"persistence of rubella virus .. . may be an
etiologie agent in chronic human joint disease"
Chantier et al claimed that:31
"infection or immunisation with rubella virus has
been recognised as producing an acute synovitis
which, although normally self limited, has been
reported to occur in certain persons for months or
years after the acute stage. In these patients it
appears that the joint symptoms are accompanied by
persistence of the virus at some site in the body
... it is clear that rubella virus can persist in
human beings infected postnatally, despite the
presence of an immune response and that persistent
virus may be associated with chronic joint
manifestations in certain persons"
"A correlation between rubella virus
persistence and chronic joint manifestation has been
found in women immunised with HPV 77. DE5 or RA 27/3
vaccine strains. These findings greatly strengthen
the case for an etiological role Of rubella virus in
the induction of joint disease ... in no case was
there a history of recent rubella infection,
although most of the patients had received rubella
vaccine in the past. One interesting observation
was the high number of patients with juvenile
rheumatoid arthritis whose serum was negative for
rubella: a total of 9 patients, including 7 with
titres under 1:4 who had been vaccinated .... these
results concur with our findings in a separate study
of 11 adults in whom seroconversion failed to occur
(by the hemagglutination-inhibition test) after
rubella vaccination. These patients with "failed
immunisation" were also found to have rubella
specific antibody ... and three had persistent
rubella virus infections in peripheral blood
mononuclear cells up to two years after
immunisation.

ibid p. 'J.117
ibid at p. 1117
 191
Our studies have concentrated on isolation of virus
from cells of the lymphoreticular system, it is
possible that this is not the primary site of long
term viral persistence. A study of rabbits
congenitally infected with rubella virus showed by
immunofluorescence that virus concentrated in
chondrocytes of hyaline cartilage, delaying
ossification and thus retarding bone growth. The
investigators speculated that a similar pathogenic
mechanism might explain growth retardation in the
congenital rubella syndrome and also the arthritis
that freguently accompanies rubella infection or
immunisation in adults. Moreover, chondrocyte
cultures are known to support rubella virus
replication in vitro without resulting in cell
death, making chondrocytes ideal targets for
persistent virus. Persistence of virus in
chondrocytes, with only periodic reactivation and
infection of synovial and lymhoreticular cells, may
explain the difficulties that we and many other
groups have had in detecting a viral agent in
rheumatoid arthritis, since in most cases the
studies have not included an examination of
underlying cartilage.
In conclusion, the results reported here showing the
presence of rubella virus in lymphoreticular cells
from 35 per cent of our patients with juvenile
rheumatoid arthritis provide circumstantial evidence
that the virus has a role in the pathogenesis of
disease."
Ogra and Herd32 as early as 1971 found a strong association
between rubella vaccination and childhood arthritis. Their
study was conducted in New York after a large number of
children developed various joint symptoms after immunisation
with rubella virus vaccines.

Ogra and Herd observed four children "who developed arthritis

with effusion of the knee joints at approximately 2 weeks
after being immunised with rubella vaccine".

Ogra P.L. and Herd J.K., "Arthritis Associated with

Induced Rubella Infection", The Journal of
Immunology, Vol. 107, No. 3, 1971 pp. 810-813.
 192
Three of the children had no medical history and the remaining
child "was a 10 year old Indian girl with moderate severe
active juvenile rheumatoid arthritis".

With respect to the three previously well children, Ogra and

Herd were able to recover rubella virus from their joint
aspirate for up to 4 months, after, immunisation with rubella
vaccine:33
"The observation of particular importance ... is the
recovery of infectious rubella virus from the joint
fluid of apparently normal children who had been
recently immunised with ... live rubella virus
vaccine.
there seems to be a clear cut temporal
relationship between the ... administration of
rubella virus vaccine, appearance of rubella
antibody in serum and joint fluid, the demonstrable
presence of rubella virus in the serum and joint
fluid and the induction of arthritis.
... rubella virus may have distinct predilection for
the joint tissues."
Ogra and Herd concluded:34
"Repeated episodes of arthritis which follow
immunisation with rubella vaccine seem to be related
to continued replication of rubella virus in the
affected joints, and to a selective distribution of
rubella virus antigen in synovial and other body
fluids."
Spruance and Smith35 found that:
"following a state wide immunisation campaign
conducted in April 1970 in Utah ... 6 weeks after
the immunisation campaign, 9.9% of children who

33
ibid p. 812.
34
ibid
«
35
Spruance S.L. and Smith C.B., "Joint Complications
associated with derivative of HPV-77 Rubella
Vaccine", American Journal of the Disabled Child
122: 1971.
 193
received the HPV-77DK12 rubella vaccine developed
joint symptoms."
In a later study of these children conducted 8 months after
vaccination Spruance et al36 found that in 225 of the original
287 children complaining of joint symptoms contacted 8 months
later, only 11 still had recurrent attacks of pain and
stiffness of knees after being vaccinated wi£h the HPV-77DK12
rubella vaccine.
"In each child the symptoms first appeared 2 to 7
weeks after vaccination; these were recurrent
attacks at 1 to 3 month intervals, and these lasted
1 to 7 days. The severity of the symptoms was
generally less with each attack; however recurrent
symptoms usually interfered with school attendance
and other activities. This syndrome was
infrequent, occurring in only 3 of 255 children who
initially had joint symptoms following the
vaccine. "31
"... these 3 children represent 1.3% of those with
joint symptoms after vaccination and 0.13% of the
original group of vaccinated children who were
surveyed. и 3 8
Spruance et al believed that the recurrent condition was
probably temporary but observed that:39
"long term follow�up will be necessary to assure
that these children will not develop chronic
arthritis"
Spruance et al also concluded:40
"It is possible that abnormal immune mechanisms play

Spruance S.L., et al, "Recurrent joint symptoms in

children vaccinated with HPV�77DK12 Rubella
Vaccine", The Journal of Pediatrics, March 1972 pp.
413�471
ibid p. 413.
ibid '^p. 416
ibid p. 416.

ibid p. 417
 194

a rol e. "
And in reference to the work of Ogra and Herd they said
that:41
"The fact that rubella vaccine virus could be
recovered from joint fluid as late as 3 to 4 months
after vaccination, and in the presence of rubella
antibodies in serum and joint fluid, suggests this
virus may have potential for producing chronic
infection of synovial tissue."
The vaccine used in Australia for rubella is RA 27/3 which has
a reported failure rate of up to 5%.42 This vaccine is used
in preference to HPV-77 because of that vaccine's even higher
failure rate.

RA 2 " i s the same vaccine which obstetricians in Los Angeles

refu; JL to take for fear of adverse conseguences.43

Tingle et al studied 13 vaccine failures 2 of whom had been

vaccinated with RA 27/3 rubella vaccine. 3 of the 13 had
chronic inflammatory joint symptoms and an additional subject
had.
"a syndrome of poly articular arthritis [which]
began two to three weeks after administration of the
RA 27/3 vaccine ... and has continued with recurrent
flare-ups through three years of follow up study ...
... persistence of rubella virus in peripheral blood
mononuclear cells was detected in three individuals

ibid
Tingle A.J., et al, "Failed Rubella Immunisation in
Adults: Association with Immunologic and Virologicai
Abnormalities", The Journal of Infectious Diseases
Vol. 1 , No. 2, Feb 1985, pp. 330-336.
Orenst,in W.A., et al, Rubella Vaccine and
susceptible Hospital employees Poor Physician
Participation, JAMA, Feb 20, 1981 - Vol. 245, No. 7
pp. 711-713.
 195
at 12, 24 and 31 months respectively after
immunisation. In addition, rubella virus antigens
were detected in mononuclear cell cultures from a
fourth patient . .. ',44
Tingle et al's assessment of the implications of vaccine
failure, persistence of rubella virus, chronic arthritis, auto
immune disease and its implications for mass vaccination
programs should be carefully considered by health bureaucrats,
doctors and especially parents about to "immunise" their
child.
"Despite the widespread acceptance of current
rubella virus vaccine programs, difficulties have
remained over the interpretation and significance of
vaccine failure in both pediatric and adult
populations. Specific areas of concern have
included the lack of a clear understanding of the
mechanisms underlying the failure of rubella virus
vaccine, unresolved questions regarding the
protection present in vaccine failures against
reinfection with wild or vaccine strains of rubella
virus and the potential development of adverse
reactions after reinfection with rubella virus.
The present study of 13 adults who failed to
seroconvert . . . after single or repeated courses of
rubella virus vaccine has provided evidence
supporting altered or abnormal host immunologic
reactivity to rubella virus as the principal
mechanism underlying vaccine failure in this age
group.
Additional support for altered host immunologic
responses in the failed immunisation group included
the observation of persistent infection with rubella
virus in peripheral blood mononuclear cells in three
members of the group. Previous reports have
documented the isolation of rubella virus in
mononuclear cells of congenital rubella syndrome, in
adults during the acute stages of infection with
both wild and vaccine strains of rubella virus, in
adults with prolonged rubella-associated arthritis.
However, persistence of rubella virus has not been
detected in adult control groups seronegative for
HAI antibody to rubella virus, and the isolation of
rubella varus in members of the present failed

Tingle op. cit. pp. 332-333.

 196
immunisation group is therefore of some potential
concern.
The final indirect support for altered host
immunologic responses in this group has been the
observation of a striking incidence of autoimmune
disease (e.g. Hashimoto's thyroiditis and
lymphosialadenitis) and connective tissue disorders
(e.g. ankylosing spondylitis and juvenile rheumatoid
arthritis) in which immunoregulatory abnormalities
are thought to play a primary pathogenetic role.
Failed rubella immunisation, in adult populations may
therefore have more clinical significance than was
previously recognised, including an association with
altered host immune responses to rubella virus and
an increased association with persistence of rubella
virus 45 in populations of peripheral blood mononuclear
cells.
In what is a stark warning of the consequences of blind mass
immunisation and its implications for auto immune disease
Tingle et al concluded:
"... these findings emphasise the need for
assessment of host responses to individual antigenic
determinants of rubella virus before we can fully
understand the nature and significance of altered
immunologic responses to current rubella virus
vaccine programs."

4. Obstetricians resist vaccination for rubella;

If women in their first trimester of pregnancy are to be
protected by a vaccinated population then surely the first to
submit to a rubella vaccination should be Obstetricians and
Gynaecologists but an attempt to achieve this very thing in
Los Angeles approximately 10 years ago was singularly
unsuccessful. In a Los Angeles Uni' rsity of Southern
California Medical Centre, it was found that 14% of all staff
were susceptible to rubella and an attempt to vaccinate all

ibid pp. 334-336

 197
staff was then undertaken.46

105 out of 197 personnel followed up for participation and

vaccination program were actually vaccinated. It is
interesting that only 1 out of 11 susceptible
Obstetricians/Gynaecologists were vaccinated.

The employee participation in this vaccination program is

summarised in the following table:

Services NO. No. (%)

Participât
ing
Nursing 104 60 (57.7)
Physicians, 32 7 (21.9)
total
Obstetrician-Gynaecologists 11 1 (9.1)
Pediatricians 13 4 (30.8)
Others 8 2 (25.0)
Laboratory 38 24 (63.2)
Dietary 8 4 (50.0)
Maintenance and power 15 10 (66.7)
Total 197 105 (53.3)

Orenstein et al commented on the unwillingness of specialists,

particularly Obstetrician/Gynaecologists in being vaccinated
against rubella.
"Immunisation of physicians already employed has
been generally unsuccessful: fear of unforseen
vaccine reactions prompted by the Gullain-Barre
syndrome seen with the influenza vaccine was the

Orenstein, W.A., op. cit.

 198
reason given most often by house officers"47

In other words, doctors would tell you or your children to

have a vaccination but they are unlikely to be particularly
willing to have one themselves. It would be interesting to
determine the level of rubella immunity amongst Obstetricians,
Gynaecologists and medical person el generally in this State.
The predicted unwillingness of specialists to undertake a
rubella vaccination ought to be a sure warning that at least
some doctors are not so certain that the benefits of the
vaccine outweighs the risk of the disease.

5. Does the vaccine prevent congenital rubella?

Young women are told constantly that they must ensure that
they have their rubella shots before falling pregnant so as to
remove any possibility of their child suffering congenital
rubella syndrome.

These same women are not told of either possible vaccine

failure or that even if the vaccines gives "immunity" it may
not necessarily prevent congenital rubella.

Forrest and Menser48 reported in 1977 of a 23 year old woman

who had been vaccinated for rubella four months before
conceiving her child. At 10 weeks pregnant she developed a

47
. ibid p. 713
48
. Forrest J.M. and Mens- M.A., "Failure of Rubella
Vaccination to preve. congenital rubella", The
Medical Journal of Austzalia, Jan 15th, 1977, p. 77.
 199
rash after a rubella outbreak at the woman's workplace. The
child developed normally but by 9 months was assessed as
suffering from profound deafness:49
"The aetiologic diagnosis of congenital rubella was
confirmed by the presence of rubella HI antibodies
in the child's serum at 13 and 15 months of age,
when maternally transmitted antibodies would have
disappeared. "
Forrest and Menser were unable to explain congenital rubella
following rubella vaccination and offered the following:50
"This woman's rubella antibody titre of 1 in 640, 24
days after her rash, was high: in our experience
vaccination with Cendevax does not give titres as
high as this. She may have failed to respond to
the vaccine and then have suffered a primary attack
of rubella when 10 weeks pregnant. Alternatively,
she may have responded to the vaccine with only a
low antibody level, which boosted with a clinical
reinfection at 10 weeks. The former possibility
appears more likely, since rubella vaccination has
been associated with a failure rate of up to 5%
particularly when the vaccine has been improperly
stored."
In other words, they just did not know why this had occurred.
Could it be that the rubella virus had persisted in the
woman's body well after vaccination and that this left her
less protected to further exposure than she might have been
without the vaccination?

In what is one of the most unreported conclusion of any

research Forrest and Menser left this message for women
vaccinated against rubella:51
"As we feel confident that our patient has

ibid
 200
congenital rubella, this case highlights the fact
that it is possible for a woman to think she is
protected because she has been vaccinated against
rubella, and yet to have a rubella affected child".
Bott and Eizenberg52 have also reported on a rubella
vaccinated woman being infected in the first trimester of
pregnancy and delivering a baby suffering from congenital

rubella.

The woman had been vaccinated nearly three years before her
pregnancy "with proven sero conversion from a rubella
haemagglutination-inhibition titre of 1:10 to 1:80". When
she booked for pregnancy in December 1975, "her rubella HAI
titre at that date was 1:640". The baby was born small the
following July suffering from a range of problems which
ultimately caused its death some 3 months later.
"The baby's rubella HAI titre measured on August
29th, 1976 was 1:320. The baby died on October
28th, 1976 from an upper respiratory tract infection
and post mortem examination confirmed the diagnosis
[of congenital rubella] ...
Transmission of rubella virus to the foetus must
have taken place in the first trimester despite what
it regarded as an adequate HAI titre level ...
The evidence presented suggests that infection with
rubella virus occurred, despite adequate levels of
immunity. Infection after successful rubella
vaccination is rare but the foetus may occasionally
be affected. "S3
This unfortunate woman had not displayed symptoms of rubella
and is regarded as having had a subclinical rubella infection.

52
. Bott L.M. and Eizenberg D.H., "Congenital Rubella
after successful vaccination", The Medical Journal
of Australia, June 12, 1982, pp. 514-515.
53
ibid
 201
Bo-tt and Eizenberg also noted:54
"subclinical reinfection with the wild rubella virus
is more common in those with vaccine immunity than
with natural immunity."
Qujtte clearly, rubella vaccine does not give a guarantee that
yo-u will neither contract rubella nor will your child be born
wi-thout congenital rubella. This is something which should
be carefully considered when deciding whether or not to
va ccinate.

6. Conclusion;
Given the vaccine failure rate, the extremely high rate of
naturally acquired immunity and the risk of arthritis and slow
virus auto-immune diseases, this vaccination should be
di spensed with.

Ho»wever, if parents or individuals are concerned about

cotngenital rubella syndrome, then I believe this vaccine
slkould at least be limited to adolescent females only bearing
in mind that approximately 5% will not obtain immunity in this
way in any case. However, the vaccine is neither a guarantee
against rubella infection or a foetus developing congenital
rubella.

larents or individuals, when assessing the risk/benefit

analysis of this vaccine, should consider the following:-
1. The likelihood of natural immunity, given that at least
73% of males, and possibly higher, acquire immunity

54
. ibid p. 514.
 202
without vaccine.
2. The insignificant consequences of naturally acquired
rubella in children.
3. If the vaccination is not given, then the ease with which
immunity from natural rubella can be detected at puberty.
4. If no immunity at puberty then whether or not the vaccine
should be jnly given to females.
5. What are the risks of arthritis and slow virus auto-
immune diseases from the rubella vaccine?
6. Is the risk of congenital rubella syndrome far greater
than any adverse consequences from the vaccine?
7. Is immunity obtained from 100% of vaccine recipients?

Once chese factors are properly assessed then an informed

decision can be made.

*
 I

ffl

12. POLIOMYELITIS

сщ

rpi

И
 203
CHAPTER 12
POLIOMYELITIS
1. The disease and its History.
The Department of Health has provided a good description of
this disease:1
"Poliomyelitis is an acute illness resjtøLting from
the invasion of the gastrointestinal tract by
poliovirus. The infection may be clinically
inapparent or range in severity from a fever to
aseptic meningitis or paralysis and possible death.
Symptoms include headache, gastrointestinal
disturbance, malaise and stiffness of the neck and
back, with or without paralysis.
The most important complications of polio are
respiratory failure caused by paralysis of the chest
muscles, pneumonia and pulmonary embolus."
There is no doubt that polio caused much suffering and
disability prior to its effective disappearance from our
midst. This disease was the only infectious disease that
actually increased in incidence after living conditions and
hygiene were improved:2
unlike every other infectious disease,
poliomyelitis has responded to improving standards
of comfort and hygiene not by disappearing but by
becoming increasingly prevalent."
"... in 1947 there was a steep rise in disease
incidence ... poliomyelitis ... seemed now to affect
the relatively well to do and not merely the nations
poor"3
This is rather a strange outcome given that improved hygiene,
sanitation, nutrition and general living conditions had a
dramatic impact on all other infectious diseases.

Department of Health, "Benefits and Risks of

Immunisation" p. 11.
Burnet M. Sir, op. cit. p. 236.
Mowle A.F., op. cit., p. 32.
 204
Being exposed to the polio virus did not mean the disease
followed as a result. In fact, over 90% of those exposed to
the virus never showed symptoms of the disease:4
"the wild-type poliovirus produces no symptoms
whatsoever in over 90 percent of the people who
contact it, even under epidemic conditions, and, of
those people who do come down with recognizable
clinical disease, perhaps only 1 or 2 percent ever
progress to the full-blown neurological picture of
'poliomyelitis', with its characteristic. lesions in
the anzerior horn cells of the spinal cord or
medulla oblongata.
Poliomyelitis thus presupposes peculiar conditions
of susceptibility in the host, even a specific
anatomical susceptibility, since, even under
epidemic conditions, the virulence of the poliovirus
is so low, and the number of cases resulting in
death or permanent disability was always remarkably
small."
The wide dissemination of the polio virus and its impact on
only a small population is confirmed by what Sir Macfarlane
Burnet had to say in the early 1960s:5
"The polio virus is far commoner than the paralytic
disease that is its most important manifestation.
In any large American city the virus can usually be
shown to be circulating through the community during
the late summer months even when there is no frank
epidemic. By appropriate tests evidence of
infection in the intestine can be obtained from a
small percentage of children - but the percentage is
large enough to make it likely that by the time they
are ten to eleven years of age almost all children
have been infected at least once by the virus.
When one considers the difficulty of isolating the
virus, it is an extraordinary fact that in any
summer when poliomyelitis is present in New York or
Chicago, polio virus can be isolated from a few
cubic centimetres of city sewage from any of the
main out-fall channels. It gives a very vivid
realization of the wide extent of invisible
infection that goes on in the presence of relatively
few cases of paralysis. Since studies on polio
infection have been extended to crowded cities of

Moskowitz fi., op. cit., p. 152.

Burnet M. Sir, op. cit. pp. 232-233.
 205
warm climates and low standards of child care �
Cairo, Bombay, the native 'locations' in
Johannesburg � it has become even clearer how widely
the virus spreads amongst� infants with a minimal
number of paralytic cases."
Before embarking on the issue of the effect of the polio
vaccine on the incidence of the disease, it must be considered
just what caused the incidence of the disease to increase with
improved living conditions.

Moskowitz speaks of susceptibility of a particular person to

the polio virus. This merely asks a further question: Why
was this particular person one of the few people susceptible
to the polio virus when most peopie are not?

The only explanation which has been given for this phenomena
is one linked to diet and nutrition.

Davis has claimed:6

"It was found when polio was common that vitamin С
both increased the production of polio antibodies
and caused the infection to be mild"
I have already discussed the findings of Dr. Archie
Kalokerinos and Professor Linus Pauling that vaccinations
reduce the level of vitamin С in the body of a vaccine
recipient. If vitamin С is important for the production of
polio antibodies, then the destruction of vitamin С by any
immunisation might increase substantially the risk of

Davîs A., "Lets have Healthy Children", Unwin

Paperbacks, 1981, p. 273.
See also Pauling L. , Vitamin С and the Common Cold
and Flu (San Francisco: W.H. Freeman, 1976) p. 64
 206
developing the disease in some vaccine recipients. Lovett7
has provided evidence of a temporal association between
vaccinations and increased incidence of polio between 1933 and
1950. She alleges that of 112 cases of paralytic polio
admitted to Park Hospital, London, during 1947�1949, 14
occurred 9 to 14 days after vaccination with either pertussis
or diphtheria or both.

However, this is only approximately 10% of those cases and

still does not fully explain susceptibility. Not all polio
cases would have been vaccinated with vaccines directed at
other diseases.

Borléis is convinced that the incidence of polio disease has

far more to do with diet, nutrition and exercise than being
exposed to the virus itself:8
"Polio is the extreme result of an imbalanced
ecology in the body . .. polio does not exist in
countries where consumption of sugar is less than 42
kilos per person per year. Phosphoric acid in cola
drinks destroys calcium due to excess of sugar
consumption. There are numerous other links which
have been established between polio and metabolic
disturbance due to diet anć ack of exercise. The
body stores up carbohydrates» m the form of glycogen
or liver starch, which is used up during muscular
activity."

A possible link between carbohydrate and sugar consumption and

the incidence of polio has been noted by Dr. Arthur Mowle
(Phd):9

7
. Lovett L.A., op. cit. p. 11.
Borléis �С. ,
8
. op. cit. p. 15.
9
. Mowle A., op. cit. p. 32.
 207
"An interesting observation has been made linking
the tendency to contract poliomyelitis10 with intakes
of refined sugars and carbohydrates. Apparently
there was a campaign in the State of North Carolina
in 1949 to drastically cut down the intake of sugar
and carbohydrates among young children. The result
was that the number of reported incidences of
poliomyelitis in the State dropped 90% in 1949
compared to the 1948 season."
The increased consumption of sugar and carbohydrate and the
insufficient intake of vitamins provides an attractive
explanation as to why improved sanitation and living
conditions did not reduce the incidence of polio. In other
words, as the polio virus was widespread irrespective of
improved community health generally, it was more important how
each individual maintained his own health by way of diet and
exercise. This is really no different from diseases
generally.

The polio virus, widespread as it was, required the right

disease conditions in a particular person which then rendered
them susceptible to the symptoms of polio disease once
exposure to the virus took place.

As Dr. Herbert Shelton said more than 20 years ago in respect

of germs generally:11
"The germ alone could no more cause disease than a
match alone can produce a fire. Just as the fire,
so the microbe, if it is to have any part in causing
disease, must find an organism that produces a
suitable soil for its activities. ... We cannot

See - Sander B.P., "Diet Prevents Polio", Milwaukee

Lee Foundation for Nutritional Research, 1951
Hygienic Review, Feb 1972 in Allen H. , op. cit. p.
16.
 208
avoid germs. We must be proof against them ... We
can avoid diseases only by keeping ourselves in such
a high state of health that they are powerless
against us. "

2. The vaccine.
"The vaccine is prepared from three antigenic types
of live attenuated polio viruses propagated in
monkey kidney tissue."*2
The decline in the incidence of the disease following .
introduction of the vaccine is generally given as the reason
for the virtual eradication of polio.

Polio did increase in incidence substantially from 1947 to

1950 but after that a substantial decline occurred well prior
to the introduction of the vaccine in the mid 1950s. The
vaccine was not responsible for this decline so it should not
be given all the credit for all the decline after its
introduction.

The vaccine does not guarantee that a recipient will not get
polio and may even be the cause of it.

Even the product information pamphlet which accompanies the

vaccine says:13
"The great majority of vaccinated subjects will be
adequately protected after a full course of
vaccination. However, due to various non-specific
factors, all these viruses may not multiply in the
gut of all susceptible subjects and thus they may
not acguire immunity against all three types of

Smith Kline & French Laboratories (Australia)

Limited'Product Information Pamphlet, 1989.
13
. ibid
 209
polioviruses even after three doses of the vaccine.
The antibody titres decrease with time and repeat
doses . .. are recommended to maintain protective
immunity."
In fact, almost all, if not every case of polio is now vaccine
related either by a recipient of the vaccine or a close
contact of the recipient.

Esteves conducted a study on behalf of the World Health

Organisation of 13 countries from 1980 to 1984 on the safety
of the oral polio vaccine. He found:14
"A total of 395 cases of acute persistent spinal
paralysis was recorded from this population of 547
million over the 5 year period. The number of
cases among recipients of the vaccine and among
contacts with vaccine recipients was less than 0.3
per million doses of the vaccine distributed or
administered in all but one of the 9 countries where
the live vaccine was widely used. The risk was
considerably higher in one country with nearly 5
recipient cases and 6 contact cases per million
doses of the vaccine administered."
Dr. Fulginiti of the United States has compared the safety of
the Salk killed (IPV) vaccine with the Sabin live virus
vaccine (OPV). His attitude with respect to the risk of the
live virus vaccine is of great concern:15
"The shift from IPV to OPV in the United States (and
most other countries) occurred for several reasons
. . . the growth and excretion of attenuated virus
during immunisation would result in its spread to
nonvaccinated contacts of the vaccinée, thereby
immunising them as well and simplifying the task of
immunising the entire population - an essential step

Esteves К., "Safety of oral poliomyelitis vaccine:

results of a WHO enguiry", Bulletin of the World
Health Organisation 66(6): 739�746 (1988) at p. 739.
Fulginiti V.A., "The problems of Poliovirus
Immunisation", Hospital Practice, Aug 1980, pp. 61�
67.
 210
if the disease was to be abolished.
OPV can induce paralytic disease in a very small
fraction of individuals who receive it and sometimes
in their nonimmunised contacts as well. The actual
figures for 'vaccine associated' cases of paralytic
polio have averaged only about seven per year over
the past decade.
... the handful of paralytic cases in the U.S. each
year is considered by most experts as the necessary
price we pay as 'insurance' against more serious
outbreaks in the future."
Cutter has noted that:16
"1982 and 1983 were the first years in which all
reported cases of paralytic polio were vaccine
associated"
I doubt that the victims of vaccine induced polio paralysis
which occurs each year in the U.S. would gain much comfort
from Fulginiti's assurance that they were merely the victims
of a national disease insurance policy.

The Salk killed polio vaccine has also not been without
incident. It has been claimed that many cases of paralytic
polio occurred in people vaccinated with the salk killed
vaccine.17 But of perhaps most concern is the contamination
of the Salk injectable vaccine with simian virus 40 commonly
known as SV-40.

Dr. Howard Buttram has claimed that in the early 1960s that
SV-40 virus was obtained from 10 of 35 children vaccinated

Cutter K., "Vaccination - Does your immune system

want it?", Natural Health, August 1987, p. 15.
See Allen H., op. cit. pp. 41-42;
Mendlesohn fi., "How to Raise a health' Child in
Spite of your Doctor", pp. 228-229.
 211
with polio vaccine. Most people in Australia in their late
30s to early 40s were vaccinated with the Salk killed vaccine.
Dr. Buttram provides some sobering material on how many people
may have been infected with the SV-40 virus:18
"Foremost virologists studying AIDS, including Drs.
Gallo of the USA and Montaignard of France, agree
that SV-40 is closely related to the AIDS virus.
The SV-40 has been extensively studied 'since 1960
and its clinical manifestations in laboratory
animals are similar to the so-called AIDS virus.
It has also been linked to tumor growth and birth
defects.
According to sources cited by Dr. Snead, cells from
the African green monkey have been used since 1953
as a growth medium for the polio vaccine. The use
of the polio vaccine contaminated with this virus,
she speculates, is responsible for the current
epidemics of childhood cancer,leukemia, birth
defects and AIDS. These diseases coincidentally
increased dramatically after the introduction of the
polio vaccine 30 years ago, she said.
No one knows how many batches of polio vaccine have
been contaminated with SV-40, but exposed
individuals may number into the millions."
The incidence of polio amongst recipients of both killed and
live vaccines is in Mendlesohn's view reason enough for
opposing both:19
"Supporters of the killed virus vaccine maintain
that it is the presence of live virus organisms in
the other product that is responsible for the polio
cases that occasionally appear. Supporters of the
live virus type argue that the killed virus vaccine
offers inadequate protection and actually increases
the susceptibility of those vaccinated to the
disease.
This affords me a rare opportunity to be comfortably
neutral. I believe that both factions are right

Buttram H.E., "AIDS Immunisation-related Syndrome",

Health and Healing Vol. 7, No. 2, Dec-Feb, 1988, p.
36.*
Mendlesohn R., "How to Raise a healthy Child in
Spite of your Doctor" p. 229.
 212
and that use of either of the vaccines will
increase, not diminish, the possibility that your
child will contract the disease.
In short, it appears that the most effective way to
protect your child from polio is to make sure that
he doesn't get the vaccine!"
Moskowitz both doubts the real impact of the vaccine and its
ability to ensure polio never occurs again:20
"Given the fact that the- poliovirus was ubiquitous
before the vaccine was introduced, and could be
found routinely in samples of city sewage wherever
it was looked for, it is evident that effective,
natural immunity to poliovirus was already as close
to being universal as it can ever be, and a fortiori
that no artificial substitute could ever equal or
approximate that result. Indeed, because the
virulence of the poliovirus was so low to begin
with, it is difficult to see what further
attenuation of it could possibly accomplish, other
than to abate as well the full vigor of the natural
immune response to it.
For the fact remains that even the attenuated virus
is still alive, and that the people who were
anatomically susceptible to it before are still
susceptible to it now. This means, of course, that
at least some of these same people will develop
paralytic polio from the vaccine, and that others
may still be harboring the virus in latent form,
perhaps within those same cells.
... in any case, the whole matter is clearly one of
enormous complexity, and illustrates only too well
the hidden dangers and miscalculations that are
inherent in the virtually irresistible attempt to
beat nature at her own game, to eliminate a problem
that cannot be eliminated, i.e., the susceptibility
to disease itself. "
3. Conclusion;
Polio was a debilitating disease which thankfully is now no
longer an important source of suffering in our community.
The role of the polio vaccine in achieving this is debatable.

Moskowitz fi., op. cit.

 213
The polio vaccine, whether killed or the live virus strain,
are not without some great risk. Even if there is only a
small chance that a recipient or a contact will contract polio
following vaccination, that is a matter which should be
carefully weighed prior to receiving the vaccine.

Some evidence suggests that an adequate diet, low in the

consumption of sugar and carbohydrates and sufficient intake
of vitamin С will prevent the disease even with widespread
dissemination of the virus and exposure to it.

*
 и
i 'I
—
'•}
i�il

Г'!

. I

!
;!

13. MEDICINE AS A MEANS OF SOCIAL CONTROL

M

¡'f

Di
Di
г
•fl

L'I

15
� ;
 214
CHAPTER 13
MEDICINE AS A MEANS OF SOCIAL CONTROL
The safety and effectiveness of vaccines and why people so
readily submit themselves or their children to immunisation
invites a wider discussion.

The health and well being of a person is the most important

consideration of each and every individual throughout life.
The medical profession has a monopoly on a large part of the
diagnosis and treatment of sickness, disease and general ill
health. For this reason alone doctors are able to exert
great influence on how people conduct themselves in their
daily lives.

Doctors are held in extremely high regard by a large section

of the community.1 In the comsumption of goods and services
consumers generally are quite discriminating with respect to
price and quality before purchasing or continuing to purchase
from the same supplier. However, with respect to the
consumption of medical services, this discriminating behaviour
all but disappears.
"The health care market is unlike any other because
of the special dependent relationship between a
doctor and a patient. The nature of this
relationship, it is argued, detracts from the
patient's ability to assess, in a rational and
sovereign manner the costs and utility gains of

See- for example Aitken D., "Why Doctors continue to

rank* Highly", The Bulletin May 1, 1984, pp. 23-24.
And also Ballantyne T. , "How the Professionals rate
in the Status Stakes", Sydney Morning Herald,
22/6/82 p. 7.
 215

consumption.2
The strong sense of loyalty to a regular doctor,
which was characteristic of the behaviour of our
sample population was not matched by any widespread
critical assessment of the performance of the
practitioner. "3
Lloyd et al found that:
"Far from demonstrating consumerist behaviour
(especially the considered selection and evaluation
of services) the survey population was strongly
attracted to the traditional model of medical care,
which is characterised by the trusting and dependent
relationship of patients with their doctors."4
The importance of our state of health, the social position of
doctors in our society and patient loyalty and unwillingness
to adopt consumerist behaviour to medical services are all
factors which dramatically increase the role of medicine in
our daily lives.
"Medicine is becoming a major institution of social
control, nudging aside, if not incorporating, the
more traditional institutions of religion and law.
It is becoming the new repository of truth, the
place where absolute and final judgements are made
by supposedly morally neutral and objective experts.
And these judgements are made, not in the name of
virtue or legitimacy, but in the name of health.
Moreover, this is not occurring through the
political power physcians hold or can influence, but
is largely an insidious and often undramatic
phenomenon accomplished by 'medicalising' much of
daily living, by making medicine and the labels
'healthy' and 'ill' relevant to an ever increasing

Lloyd P., et al, "Consumerism in the health care

setting: an xploratory study of factors in
underlying the selection and evaluation of Primary
Medical Service", Australian Journal of Public
Health, 1991, Vol. 15, No. 3, pp. 194-201 at p. 194.
ibid Pi 199.
4
ibid p. 194.
 216
part of human existence."5
Dr. Arthur Mowle (Phd) argues:
"We are now a nation that is very much obsessed with
health and disease matters. Indeed, many- people
are of the opinion that the human body has some
inherent frailty about it, and that without modern
medical technology and the constant intervention 6 of
its practitioners, we couldn't possibly survive."
Ivan Illich goes somewhat further than this» and even seems to
be suggesting that we would be better off without doctors. I
don't think this is a view he would find has more than minimal
acceptance:7
"... medical practice sponsors sickness by the
reinforcement of a morbid society ... by
transforming pain, illness and death from a personal
challenge into a technical problem, medical practice
expropriates the potential of people to deal with
their human conditions in an autonomous way and
becomes the source of a new kind of un-health.
. .. Professional practice is both ineffective and
increasingly sought out. This technically
unwarranted rise of medical prestige can only be
explained as a magical ritual for the achievement of
goals which are beyond technical and political
reach. It can be countered only through
legislation and political action which favours the
deprofessionalisation of health care."
Zola has provided an interesting account of why doctors have
significantly increased their impact on society generally
during this century:
"The full exercise of medical influence is however a

Zola I.K., "Medicine as an institution of Social

Control: the medicalising of Society", Sociologigal
Review (1972) 20(4): 487-504 in Basic Readings® in
Medical Sociology, ed. Tuckett D. and Kaufert J.M.,
Tavistock Publications, 1978, pp. 254-260 at p. 254.
Mowle A.,op. cit., p. 29.
Illich I., "Medical Nemesis", The Lancet (1974)i:
918-222, May 11 in Basic Reading in Medical
Sociology pp. 263, 268.
 217
20th century phenomenon. Only now is the process
of 'médicalisation' upon us - a phenomenon which
Freidson has operationalised most succintly. 'The
medical profession has first claim to jurisdiction
over the label of illness and anything to which it
may be attached, irrespective
8
of its capacity to
deal with it effectively'.
... In the exclusive right to prescribe and thus
pronounce on and regulate drugs the power of the
physician is even more awesome.9
... when health becomes a paramount value in
society, but also a phenomenon whose diagnosis and
treatment has been restricted to a certain group ...
that group ... is in a position to exercise great
control and influence about what we should and
should not do to attain that 'paramount value' . "10
Zola argued that individuals have lost freedom over their own
bodies and that the labelling of something as illness results
in the consideration of how and when to intervene but not
whether or not to intervene.11

Dr. Robert Mendlesohn regards modern medicine:

"... as a psuedo-religion with physicians linked
unto priests, investigations and treatments the
rituals and sacraments and patients very much
sacrifices."n
Mendlesohn refers with approval to an essay on "The
Médicalisation of Politics", by John McKnight then Professor
of Communication Studies at North Western Univerity in the

Zola I.K.fOp. cit., pp. 254-255.

ibid p. 256.
10
ibid p. 258.
u 9 ibid p. 260.
12
Mowle A., op. cit. p. 29.
Mendlesohn fi., "Confessions of a Medical Heretic",
pp. 240-243.
 218
United States:13
"The essential function of medicine is the
médicalisation of politics through the propagation
of therapeutic ideology. This ideology, stripped
of its mystifying symbols, is a simple triadic
credo :
1. the basic problem is you,
2. the resolution of your problem is my
professional control,
3. my control is your help.
The essence of the ideology is its capacity to hide
control behind the magic cloak of therapeutic help.
Thus, medicine is the paradigm for modernised
domination. Indeed, its cultural hegemony is so
potent that the very meaning of politics is being
redefined. Politics is (usually) interaction - the
debate of citizens regarding purpose, value and
power. Medicalised politics is unilateral - the
decision of the helpers on behalf of the helped."
Despite patient loyalty and the overwhelming domination of the
health care industry by the medical profession, doctors can
and often do get it wrong.

It is not particularly well known that between 30,000 and

40,000 hospital admissions and between 700 to 900 deaths each
year are directly attributable to adverse drug reactions.14
Some of these can be attributed to deliberate drug overdose
but many are due to either incorrect prescriptions or correct
prescriptions but wrong dosage recommended.
"With 160 million prescriptions being dispensed from
Australian pharmacies every year and probably a
further 20 million from hospital pharmacies small
probabilities of error can compound into a

Mendlesohn R., op. cit., pp. 252-253.

National Health Strategy, "Issues in Pharmaceutical
Drug Use in Australia", Issues Paper No. 4, June
1992.
 219
significant number of adverse drug reactions."15
The process linking the patient's presentation of symptoms to
a doctor and that patient receiving "safe and effective
treatment" has been described as a "fragile therapeutic

chain" -16
"... recent studies still find inappropriate drug
prescribing and use causes a significant amount of
morbidity and mortality.""
Non-compliance with what has been prescribed can be a source
of ill health1" but incorrect prescription is the much greater
concern.
"... there are major gaps in our current knowledge
about the effects of drugs, drug-drug relationships,
and drug disease interactions, especially in older
people; and even where there is good information,
doctors may not know it; even when they are aware,
they may not necessarily use that information when
prescribing. "X9
Criticism of the infallibility of doctors has come from within
the profession itself. I have referred at length throughout
this paper to the views of Drs. Mendlesohn, Moskowitz,
Kalokerinos and Stewart. There are a number of other
doctors, particularly in the United States, who have grave
concerns at the level of medical fallibility.

15
ibid P- 50.
16
ibid P- 42.
17
ibid P- 37.
18
ibid P. 49.
" 19
ibid P- 44.
 220
Dr. George Crile of the United States has said:20
"The values of ultra radical surgery, of routine
postoperative irradiation, and of adjuvant
chemotherapy have been grossly exaggerated to the
public".
Dr. Crile considers that radiation and chemotherapy do have a
place in the treatment of cancer but the abilities of these
treatments to combat cancer is not anywhere "near as effective
as most doctors would have their patients believe. Dr. Crile
even believes that in many cases the real battle with cancer
is won or lost before the patient ever sees the doctor .2,But:
"if you don't send a patient for chemotherapy, you
may get controversy among your colleagues. "22
Dr. Alan Levin, Associate Professor of Immunology and
Dermatology at the University of • California, School of
Medicine, has expressed strong concerns with respect to the
promotion of prescription drug use by pharmaceutical
companies, amongst the medical profession, and the ineffective
or even wrong treatments prescribed by doctors:23
"one glaring example is cancer chemotherapy.
Chemotherapy is lifesaving treatment for leukemias,
lymphomas and several rare carcinomas, but
chemotherapy does not work for the majority of
cancers. Documented evidence, existing for over a
decade, shows that chemotherapy does not eliminate
breast, colon and lung cancers. Documented
evidence has shown that studies reporting positive
effects of chemotherapy in these tumors have been
manipulated to such an extent that the possibility

Crile G. , "Treatment for Some Cancers", in Dissent

in Medicine, Nine Doctors Speak Out, Comtemporary
Books Inc.
ibid p. 29.
ibid p. 28.
Levin A., "Corruption in American Medicine", in
Dissent in Medicine, p. 82.
 221
of fraud becomes very real .. Most cancer
chemotherapy studies consider patie..zs who die of
drug toxicity as 'unevaluable'."
Dr. Levin then gives the example of the chemical rather than
24
nutritional treatment of a patient with colon cancer:
"The same physician will not be reimbursed for
treating the patient with high�dose vitamin C. In
fact, he will be in jeopardy of losing his medical
license. There is no evidence found in the medical
literature supporting the claim that it is dangerous
to use nutritional support in the treatment of
cancer patients. However, there is voluminous
literature supporting the scientific rationale for
using this type of treatment."
What is of alarming concern is Dr. Levin's allegation that
doctors know that chemotherapy is often ineffective but have
allowed themselves to be manipulated by the drug industry:25
"Most physicians agree that chemotherapy is largely
ineffective for the majority of cancers. Despite
this fact, honest physicians are coerced into using
these treatment modalities by special interest
groups who have a vested interest in the profits of
the drug industry."

Dr. Levin then argues that these physicians who are themselves

constrained in turn place constraints on the general

26
practitioner:

"Уоиг family doctor is no longer free to choose

treatment modality he or she feels is best for you,
but must follow the dictates established 'v
physicians whose motive and alliances are such t
their decisions may not be in your best interests.

Dr. David Spodick, Professor of Medicine at the University of

Massachusetts has expressed alarm at the number of incorrect
treatments, drugs and surgery which have been administered

24
. ibid p. 82�83.
25
. ibid p�. 82.
26
. ibid p. 84.
 222
over the years by modern medicine for almost every conceivable
ailment.27

Dr. Spodick argues that unlike scientists who operate in a

field of uncertainty where nothing is obvious many doctors are
unscientific in that they claim certainty wj,th respect to
treatment when such certainty often does not exist.

Dr. Spodick argues that over the years many "obvious cures"
for disease were not supported by scientifically controlled
trials which would have established objectively the value of
the treatment and then allowed the medical profession to
justifiably claim it as a "cure". He gives as an example an
imaginary vaccine for heart disease and his comments in this
regard apply equally to the whole of this paper generally:28
"... the death rate ... of coronary disease ...
rises in all categories of the population until
roughly 1967. Then there is a sharp break and
death rates come sharply down. Coronary disease
mortality - the death rate - has been falling,
falling, falling and it is still falling. It is
about 40% now below the peak.
Now consider this: If, in the middle 1960s you
had developed your own pet treatment, an
immunisation, lets say, for coronary disease, you
could have administered it to the vast majority of
the population, and if you'd gone around and done
that just before the death rates sharply turned
around, you would have earned the Nobel Prize.
You'd have been "responsible" for the "breakthrough"
- all that unless you had done a controlled study, a
study in which half your patients couldn't get your
treatment. Then half of your patients would have
had exactly the death rate that the "immunised" half

Spodïck D., "Effectiveness of Treatment", in Dissent

in Medicine, Nine Doctors Speak Out, pp. 112-123.
28
ibid p. 117.
 223
had. That is one of the main reasons for doing
controlled trials. Time changes disease."
Dr. Spodick then claims that, in a completely different area,
the adminisation of DES (diethylstilbesterol) to women to
prevent habitual abortion, the real scandal was not the
discovery of the disastrous effects of this drug on these
woman or their children, but that some of these studies were
available to doctors who were still prescribing the drug prior
to it being banned in 1971.29

The incorrect or ineffective treatment and an individuals

willingness to submit to it have been dealt with by Dr. Edward
Pinckney a U.S. Consultant on internal and preventive
medicine:30
"People who seek out discount stores and generic
labels, who spend weeks searching for the very best
values, who question every word of a warranty prior
to making a purchase ... will not hesitate to throw
caution to the wind when it comes to undergoing
medical tests. These people will blindly commit
themselves ... to diagnostic technology that could
possibly kill them, bankrupt them, or both. This
paradoxical myopic reverence for medical tests
should be kept in mind whenever medical testing is
discussed, for, in truth, it is the ridiculous
worship of, and demand for, medical testing that is
the primary cause of the high cost of medical care
today, along with the even greater risk to life and
limb. "
Dr. Pinckney raises the very real possibility that treatm° nt
or even surgery can be given for a condition which does t

ibid p. 122; See also Mendlesohn fi., Confessions of

a Medical Heretic, pp. 61-63.
Pinckney* E., "The Accuracy of Medical Testing" in
Dissent in Medicine, op. cit. p. 86.
 224
exist.31
"medical tests . .. are not too accurate or
significant in themselves ...[a study] by the Centre
for Disease Control of the Public Health Service ...
[found] that year after year the results of one out
of every seven tests were totally in error, or in
some way absolutely useless to apply to the patient
being tested.
... As an example of test inaccuracy an ¿article in
the Journal of the American Medical "Association32
disclosed that when two diabetes specialists
reviewed 344 patients who, as a result of medical
tests, were told that they had diabetes, they found
that half of those patients were wrongly diagnosed
and were being treated for a disease they did not
have."
The variation of results from different laboratories and
therefore the possibility of error in each one is well
known.33

I have attempted to show that the position of doctors in our

society and the loyalty of their patients places the medical
profession in a very powerful position in the community. I
have also attempted to establish that the almost unquestioning
acceptance of the medical profession as almost infallible is
misplaced at best and simply dangerous at worst.

If the medical profession gets it wrong so often on the

prescription of drugs, the diagnosis of disease and the

31
ibid p. 92.
32 Turkington R.W. and Weindling H.K., "Insulin
Secretion in the Diagnosis of Adult - Onset Diabetes
Mellitus", Journal of the American Medical
Association, 24 (1978): 833-836.
33
. Mendlesohn R., Confessions of a Medical Heretic, pp.
21-50.
 225
treatment used for illness, then why would it not be just as
fallible when it comes to the question of immunisation.

Unfortunately, the same stupefying acceptance of medical

advice on health matters also occurs when a parent vaccinates
a child. Most parents do not even think to ask if it is the
right thing to do let alone research. the matter and make an
informed decision.

It should be considered that doctors and health bureaucrats

might not be right - that to immunise might be harmful to an
individual rather than medically good for him or her.
Doctors will point to a community well being by an alleged
reduced incidence of disease as a result of mass immunisation
but each individual will have to point to the foreign
substances injected or ingested into their bodies for this
purpose.

I am not in anyway suggesting there is not a place for doctors

in health care. That would also be absurd and dangerous.
But what I am saying is that the doctor does not necessarily
now what is best and in receiving treatment a questioning and
sceptical individual patient is less likely to be done harm by
the "cure".

All of this equally applies to im. .sation. Unfortunately,

the debate is so one-sided as to merely confirm my notion that
medicine is used* as a means of social control. Even
(••"'A

F 226
j organisations such as the Council for Civil Liberties and
MR}

J Choice Magazine have been almost totally overcome by the

'¿ alleged wonders of modern immunisation.

The Council for Civil Liberties has had this to say on the
matter:34 ,,
"A review of the scientific evidence indicates that
1
the case for immunisation is so overwhelming and
conclusive that it is difficult to proceed with an
argument against immunsation.
4

p. . . . It is considered that immunisation is a public

¡¿, health issue. If the evidence supporting
immunisation outweighs the evidence against
5 immunisation then laws or practises designed to
r
support it are not infringements of civil rights."
L This is an astounding and astonishing acknowledgement from an
h

¿* organisation whose very charter is to protect civil liberties

• not to thwart them. Dr. Mendlesohn had this to say about
П their counterpart organisation in the U.S.:35
"I'm not too surprised that normally alert and
h

p powerful organisations like the ... American Civil

[ Liberties Union haven't responded to this threat
�» against our freedom. They fail to acknowledge the
й» problem because they subscribe to the religion of
Modern Medicine . . . you'll stand alone."
|S> Choice magazine is one promoted as a means by which consumers
can exercise an informed free choice on the acquisition of
goods and services. However, their Special Report on
Immunisation is so biased in favour of immunisation that such
1 ^

a choice, based on the material in the Report, would simply

7
Г!

34
. NSW Council for Civil Liberties "Immunisation", ed.
Alvarez P., April 1988.
35
. Mendlesohn R., "Confessions of a Medical Heretic",
p. 250.
 227
not be possible.36 For example in the introduction to the
report readers are greeted with the following:37
"Immunisation is one of the most effective, safe and
low-cost methods of primary health care available in
the world ...
Yet in Australia today health authorities are
becoming increasingly anxious that a proportion of
our community seems to be missing out on this basic
opportunity to safeguard one of our most precious
assets - our health.
There is a whole cocktail of reasons why in recent
years immunisation has somewhat fallen by the
wayside. These reasons vary from dangerous
complacency to genuine concern about risks versus
benefits, laced with sheer ignorance ..."
The debunking of opposition to immunisation generally and the
wholesale supporting of vaccines is then presented in the body
of the report:38
"Most . .. anti immunisation arguments can be easily
rebutted...
Vaccines ... offer you the chance to jump
straight into immunity without having to pass
through disease."
Mendlesohn would probably also explain the puzzling position
taken by Choice Magazine as being caused by its subscription
also to the religion of modern medicine.

The presentation of the benefits and risks of immunisation in

the general media are usually no different to the approach
taken by either Choice Magazine or the Council for Civil

36
Choice, August 1990, pp. 8-14.
37
ibid p. -8.
38
ibid p. 11.
 228
Liberties.39 Journalists who normally go to great lengths to
present both sides to an issue almost always give a one-sided
version from the Department of Health or public health doctors
concerning the death and suffering that will follow if
vaccination rates are not kept up. This sort of media
coverage typically follows a small number of measles cases
which are played up as if every child is potentially on deaths
door if not vaccinated. The failure of the media to
adequately present the two sides of the immunisation debate
leaves it open to the claim that its members too have been
indoctrinated with the infallibility of medicine as much as
the community in general.

The legislative proposal requiring proof of a child's

immunisation record at the point of enrolment in a school or
child care centre is a clear exercise of social control by the
medical profession.

Having failed to persuade all individuals of the need to

vaccinate themselves and their children the first step towards
compulsion is now about to take place. Parents will not have
their children refused enrolment in schools as occurs in some
States in the U.S. if vaccination has not taken place,
however, the forced presentation of immunisation status
documents should be resisted as the first foot in the door of
making immunisation itself compulsory.
»
39
. Harding M., "Immunisations as depicted by the
British National Press", Community Medicine (1985)
7, 87-98.
ra

id

i
I

и 14. CONCLUSION

ШІ

рЩ

li
_ �i

Vi
 229
CHAPTER 14
CONCLUSION
When I commenced research for this paper I started with a
general concern that the side effects of vaccines generally
may have been seriously understated. My fears were
completely confirmed.

However, I was not at all familiar with the literature on

vaccine failure or waning immunity. Parents are assured that
if they do not wish their child to contract a disease then he
or she should be immunised against it. But they are not told
that the vaccine might not give immunity for their child or
that this might be initially obtained but that the
effectiveness of it could be lost over time.

I was also not aware of a possible link between the

persistence of live virus vaccines in the body and arthritis,
chronic disease and auto-immune diseases. Nor was I aware
that the whooping cough vaccine could be one of many causes of
sudden infant death or that polio paralysis can be caused by
the polio vaccine.

In Chapter 13 I discussed the alleged "infallability" of

doctors and the obvious dangers to health of receiving
treatment for a condition which does not exist. Treatment,
whether accurate or not, is sought for a condition which a
patient regards as requiring attention. Doctors are normally
sought out to treat, what an individual regards as a state of
 231
pamphlets from the Department of Health or the dire
predictions from their local doctor of death or disability
which will follow if vaccination does not occur.

However, health is really secondarily a community matter as it

is primarily a personal matter whereby the giving of treatment
to remove or ameliorate ill health must follow a genuine
informed and free choice in favour of receiving it by an
individual. If individuals and parents do not have the
knowledge to make such a choice, then the exercise of their
will is not a free one. Any attempt to further erode this by
making immunisation quasi compulsory must be vigorously
resisted.

I have attempted in this paper to present as much material as

possible on the issue of immunisation so that hopefully the
scales will be slightly tipped in favour of individuals being
able to make an informed free choice as much as possible.

Coulter and Fisher1 have also commented on this:

"The truth is that if a product is overwhelmingly
safe and effective, it will not need legislation for
mass acceptance. And conversely, if it proves to be
guestionable, legislation is the only way to ensure
mass acceptance ... As parents in a democratic
society, we are responsible for protecting the
rights and well being of our children, and the
choice of whether or not to inject them with a drug
or vaccine should remain with us.
There should be no misunderstanding about the
responsibility that comes with freedom. The

'. Coulter* H.L. and Fisher B.L., DPT: A Shot in the

Dark, p. 408.
 233

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Aitkin, D., "Why Doctors continue to rank highly", The

Bulletin, May 1st, 1984, pp. 23-24
Allen, H., "Don't get stuck", The case against Vaccinations
and innocculations, Natural Hygiene Press 1985.
American Academy of Pediatrics. "Measles: Reassessment of the
Current Immunization Policy", Pediatrics Vol. 84,
No.6, December, 1989, pp. 1110-1113.
Anderson, R.M. & May, R.M., "Vaccination and herd immunity to
infectious diseases", Nature, Vol. 318, 28th
November, 1985, pp. 323-329.
Barkin, R.M. & Pichero, M.D., "Diptheria-Pertussis-Tetanus
Vaccine: Reactogenicity of Commercial Products".
Pediatrics Vol. 63. No. 2, Feb 79, pp. 256-260.
Barraf, L.J., Ablon W.J. St Weiss,R.C., "Possible temporal
association between diptheria-tetanus toxoid-
pertussis vaccination and sudden infant death
syndrome", Pediatric Infectious Disease Vol. 2 No. 1
pp. 7-11.
Barraf, L. "In reply" Pediatric Infectious Disease 1983: 2:
492-493.
Barrie, H. "Campaign of Terror" Ammerican Journal of the
Disabled Child, Vol. 137, Sep. 1983, pp. 922-923.
Ballantyne, T. "How the professionals rate in the status
stakes", Sydney Morning Herald, Tuesday, June 22nd,
1982, p.7.
Begley, S. "Is Science Censored? Ideology may influence what
studies get published", the Bulletin, Sept. 29th,
1992. p. 71.
Bernier, R.H., et al "Diphtheria - Tetanus Toxoids - Pertussis
Vaccination and Sudden Infant Deaths in Tennesee"
Journal of Pediatrics 101 (5) 1988, pp. 419-421.
 235

Christopher, P.J., MacDonald, P.A., Murphy, A.M. & Buckley,

P.R., "Measles in the 1980s", The Medical Journal of
Australia, Nov. 12th, 1983, pp. 488-491.
Choice Magazine "Special Report Immunisation", Aug. 1990, pp.
8-14.
Commonwealth Serum Laboratories, CDT Vaccine, Product
Information Pamphlet.
Commonwealth Serum . Laboratories, Triple Antigen, Product
Information Pamphlet.
Communicable Diseases New Zealand, "Judge 4Not Satisfied' that
whooping cough vaccine causes brain damage" (1988)
88/8: 4 - 5 .
Cody, C.L., Baraff, L.J., Cherry, J.D. Marcy, S.M. & Manclark,
C.R., "Nature and Rates of Adverse Reactions
Associated with DTP and DT Immunizations in Infants
and children", Pediatrics Vol. 68, No. 5, Nov. 1981,
650 - 658.
Conway, S.P., "BCG Vaccination in Children" British Medical
Journal 1990, 301, pp. 1059-1060.
Corbyn, J.A., "Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide Levels in the
vicinity of Seeping Infants and Sudden Infant Death"
Institute of Engineers Australia, Vol. GE. 15. No. 1
Aug. 1991
Coulter, H.L. & Fisher, B.L., DPT: A SHOT in the DARK,
Harcourt Brace Jovanovich, 1985.
Crile,G., "Treatment For Some Cancers" in DISSENT IN MEDICINE
Nine Doctors speak out, The New Medical Foundation,
Contemporary Books Inc., pp. 21-33.

Cutter,K., "Vaccination, does your Immune System Want It?"

Natural Health, Aug, 1987, pp. 14-18.

Davis, A., Lets have Healthy Children, Unwin Paperbacks

1981.

Davis, B.A., Dulbecco, R., Eisen, H.N. & Ginsberg, H.S.,

Microbiology, 3rd edition, Harper International
Edition.

Department of Health & Social Security (UK), Whooping Cough,

Her Majesty's Stationary Office, 1981.
 237
Forrest J.M., Menser, M.A., Honeyman, M.C., Stout, M., &
Murphy, A.M.,"Clinical Rubella Eleven Months after
Vaccination" The Lancet, 26th Aug. 1972, pp. 399.
Francis, B.H., Hatherley, L.I., Walstab, J.E. & Taft, L.I.,
"Rubella screening and vaccination programe at a
Melbourne maternity hospital", a five year review.
The Medical Journal of Australia, June 12th, 1982.
pp. 502�504.
Fulginiti, V.A., "Sudden infant death syndrome, diptheria �
tetanus, toxoid � pertussis vaccination and visits
to the doctor: chance association or cause and
effect?" Pediatric infectious disease, Vol. 2, No.
1, 1983, p. 5�6.
Fulginiti, V.A., "The problems of Poliovirus Immunisation"
Hospital Practice, Aug. 1980, pp. 61�67.
Galazkam, et al "Indications and Contraindications for
vaccines used in the expanded program on
immunisation" Bulletin of the World Health
Orginisation 1984; 62: 357�366.
Gallo, R., London Times, 11th May, 1987.
Gold, R., "Does pertussis vaccine cause brain damage?" Journal
of the Pediatric Child Health (1990) 26 pp. 240�241.
Golden, I., "Vaccination. A Campaign of Fear",Simply Living,
p. 20ff.
Gordon, D.L.,"Complete guide to Immunisation, Part IV: Elderly
and Immunocompromised", Current Therapeutics, Nov.
1989. pp. 81�87.
Grob, P.R., Crowder, M.J. & Robbins, J.F.,"Effeet of
vaccination on severity and dissemination of
whooping cough" British Medical Journal, Vol. 282
13th June, 1981, pp. 1925� 1928.

Griffin, M.R., Wayne, A.R., Mortimer, E.A., Fenichel, G.M., &

Schaffner, W.,"Risk of Seizures and Encephalopathy
after Immunisation with the Diphtheria � Tetanus
� Pertussis Vaccine". Journal of the American
Medical Association, March 23/30, 1990, Vol. 263,
No. 12, pp. 1641�1645.

Gustafson, T.L., Lievens, A.W., Brunell, P.A., Moellenberg,

R.G., Buttery, С & Sehulster, L.M., "Measles
outbreak in a fully immunized secondary � school
population". The New England Journal of Medicine,
Vol. 316, No.13, pp. 771�774.
 239
Kalokerinos, A., Every second child, 1974, Thomas Nelson & Son
Ltd.
Keens, T.G., Ward, S.L., Gates, E.P., Andrée, D.I. & Hart,
L.D., "Ventilatory Pattern following Diphtheria -
Tetanus-Pertussis Immunisation in Infants at Risk
for Sudden Death Syndrome", American Journal of the
Disabled Child, Vol. 139, Oct. 1985, pp. 991-994.
Lambert, H.J.,"Epidemiology of a small pertussis outbreak in
Kent County,Michigan", Public Health Report, 1965
80: pp. 365-369.
The Lancet, "Rationalising Measles Vaccination". Aug.1st,
1981, pp. 236-237.
The Lancet, "Licence Application for pertussis vaccine
withdrawn in Sweden", Jan. 14th, 1989, p. 114.
The Lancet, "Serum Antibodies 9 years after cendehill rubella
immunisation", Dec. 24 & 31, 1977, p.1349.
Lawrence, G.,"Vaccine to combat child mortality", AFAR,
April, 1984. pp. 370-371.
Levin, A., "Corruption in American Medicine", in DISSENT IN
MEDICINE, Nine Doctors Speak Out, The New Medical
Foundation, Contemporary Books Inc., pp. 78-84.
Lewis, S.L.,"Vaccination Heresy, the real dangers for
•children", Natural Health, July, 1988, pp. 13-14.
Lloyd, P., Lupton, D. & Donaldson, C , "Consumerisum in the
health care setting: an exploratory study of factors
underlying the selection and evaluation of primary
medical services", Australian Journal of Public
Health, 1991, Vol. 15 No. 3, pp. 194-201.
Lovett, L.A., Immunity - Why not keep it?
Malleson, P.N. & Bennett, J.C., "Whooping-cough admissions to
a paediatric hospital over ten years", The Lancet,
Jan. 29th, 1977, pp. 237-240.
McEwenn, J., "Early - onset reaction after measles
vaccination", The Medical Journal of Australia, Nov.
12th, 1983, pp. 502-505.
Medical News "Pertussis vaccine issues unsettled" Dec. 1st,
1978, Vol. 240, No. 23, p. 2519.
Melchior, J.C., "Infantile spasms and early immunisation
against whooping cough, Danish survey 1970 - 1975",
Archives of disease in childhood, 1977, 52, pp. 134-
137. *
 241
Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report, "Rubella - United
States 1977-1979", Aug. 17th, 1979, pp. 374-375.
Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report, "Measeis in an
immunised school-aged population - New Mexico", Feb.
1st, 1985, Vol. 34, No.4, pp. 53-59
Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report, "Measles Prevention:
Recommmendations of the Immunisation Practices
Advisory Committee (ACIP), Dec. 29th, 1989, Vol. 38
No. 5-9, pp. 1-18
Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report, "Rubella and Congenital
Rubella, United States, 1977 - 1978", Dec. 8th,
1978, pp. 495-497.
Mortimer, E.A., Jones, P.K. & Adelson, L. , "DTP and SIDS",
Pediatric Infectious Disease 1983:2 p. 492.
Moskowitz, R. , "Immunizations, A Dissenting View", in DISSENT
IN MEDICINE, Nine Doctors Speak Out, The New Medical
Foundation, Contemporary Books Inc., pp. 133-165.
Mowle, A.F., "Infectious Diseases: A matter for
immunisation...or a matter for further inquiry", The
Australiasian Nurses Journal, May 1981 in Health and
Healing Dec. 1981 - Feb. 1982 pp.29-35
National Health Strategy, Issues in pharmacutical Drug use,
June, 1992.
National Centre for Homeopathy of the USA, "Homeopathy Today",
Sept. 1984, Vol. 1, No. 2, pp. 6-11
National Health and Medical Research Coucil, "Immunisation
Procedures", Fourth Edition 1991
National Health and Medical Research Council, "Recommended
Minimum Exclusion Periods from School, Pre-School
and Child Care Centres of Infectious Diseases Cases
and Contacts", June, 1992
Nightingale, M., "Vaccination and Immunisation", in Journal of
Society of Homeopaths, pp. 109-113
NSW Doctor, "Shortening odds for doctors in tall poppy game"
May, 1992 pp.9-11
NSW Deparment of Health, "Immunisation - Benefits outweigh
Risks", Public Health Bulletin, Vol. 2, No. 5, May
1991, pp. 40-43
NSW Deparment of Health, "Benefits and risks of immunisation",
1991.
 243
Roberts, S.C., "Vaccination and cot death in perspective",
Archives of Disease in Childhood, 1987, 62, pp. 754-
759.
Ronne, T., "Measles Virus infection without rash in childhood
is related to disease in adult life", The Lancet,
Sat. 5th Jan. 1985, pp. 1-5.
Royal Alexander Hospital for Children,"Measles in New South
Wales, Communicable Disease Intelligence", Vol. 15
No. 13, pp. 208-209.
Scheibner, V., & Karlsson, L., "Cot Death & Vaccination Link",
Natural Health, Vol. 4, No. 5, Aug/Sept, 1991, pp.
2-4.
Smith Kline & French Laboratories (Australia) Limited,
Prescribing Information for Live attenuated Polio
vaccine (sabin) for oral administration.
Spodick D., "Effectiveness of Treatment in DISSENT IN
MEDICINE, Nine Doctors Speak Out, The New Medical
Foundation, Contemporary Books Inc. pp. 112-131.
Spruance, S.L., and Smith, C.B., "Joint Complications
associated with derivative of HPV-44 Rubella
Vaccine", American Journal of the Disabled Child,
122:1971.
Spruance, S.L., Klock, L.E., Bailey, A., Ward, J.R., & Smith,
C.B.,"Recurrent joint symptoms in children
vaccinated with HPV-77DK12 rubella vaccine", The
Journal of Pediatrics, March, 1972, pp. 413-417.
Stanier, R.Y., Adelberg, E. A. & Ingraham, J.L., General
Microbiology, Fourth edition.
Stewart, G.T. & Bassili, W.R., "Epidemiological Evaluation of
immunisation and other factors in the control of
Whooping Cough", The Lancet, Feb. 28th, 1976,
pp. 471-473.
Swansea Research Unit of the Royal College of General
Practicioners, "Effect of a low pertussis
vaccination uptake on a large community", The
British Medical Journal, Vol. 282, 3rd Jan. 1981,
pp. 23-26.

Taylor, E.M. & Emery, J.L., "Immunisation and cot deaths",

The Lancet, Sep. 25th, 1982, p. 721.

The Australian, . "Studies find an Asbestos link in Sudden

Infant Death", Friday June 3rd, 1988.
v;
pi

; í

У
t
il

в
i
i

Ì
i

APPENDIX A

•Sii

M
11,
!
(*i

LH
У

~y

�J I
 a ate л *�?
# ЛГн4 T U 2
0 FEB i" .
NEW SOUTH WALES
ANO COMMI ir Л1Y SERVII T S

Mr. P.C. Scully. MP.,

Member for Smithfield,
Suite 5, 1st Floor,
6 Harris Street,
FAIRFIELD. N.S.W.. 2165.

Dear Mr. Scully,

Immunisation has prevented more suffering and saved more lives than any other medical
intervention in this century. It is one of the safest and most effective procedures in modern
medicine. It is also the most cost efficient.

In the 1970s, smallpox was eradicated by a rational, coordinated vaccination campaign; this
remains one of the miracles of modern medicine. The World Health Organization (WHO) had
considered the possibility of eradication in 1948. organised a program to start in 1959. consolidated
the campaign in January 1967 and officially announced eradication in December 1979.

This relatively recent success has stimulated health authorities to attempt eradication of other
common viral diseases which cause widespread morbidity and considerable mortality. Poliomyelitis,
measles, mumps and rubella could be eradicated with vaccines introduced 20�35 years ago.

Immunisation programs in New South Wales have been extremely effective in reducing the risk of
disease. However, vaccine�preventable viral and bacterial diseases, such as measles and
whooping cough, continue to occur in the community, indicating that immunisation levels are not
optimal.

On 29 January 1992. I announced that the New South Wales Health Department would develop a
proposal which would require parents to provide documented evidence of age�appropriate
immunisation on enrolment to day care centres, preschools and schools. This is not compulsory
immunisation. Exemptions on medical, religious and conscientious objection grounds will be
incorporated in this proposal. However, in the event of an outbreak of an infectious disease in a
day care centre, preschool or school, unimmunised children would be excluded for the specified
incubation period of the disease, for their own protection.

I have written to relevant organisations inviting them to become involved in the extensive
consultation process that will be undertaken by the Department prior to the implementation of the
proposal, planned for the start of the 1993 school year.

If you have any inquiries regarding this proposal or on immunisation please contact Ms Sue Jobson.
Immunisation Program Coordinator (NSW) on (02) 391 9217.

Yours faithfully,

The Hon. John Hannaford, M.L.C.,

Minister for Health and Community Services

Г? tj.li»� Strom NrvlH Ч�rlnov NSW ?060 LockTl Ma« Вяа 951 North Syrln»y NSW ÎOS"1 T-i-pi-v«. "??. 1?1 • « « r.,.,, о •"•> °Ł=� " г л
 с

о
wj

.^•••^

•и

/i

APPENDIX В

'� i
'J

»1
'v'

bl

4
. .s

щ
�i;i

Ú
 Recommended Minimu m
Exclusion Periods from
School, Pre�school and
Child Care Centres of
Infectious Diseases Cases
and Contacts

Approved by the U3th Session of the National Health and Medical

Research Council, Hobart, June 1992 and produced in this interim format
pending publication.

І I
NATIONAL HEALTH
AND MEDICAL RESEARCH COUNCIL
RECOMMENDED MINIMUM PERIODS OF EXCLUSION FROM SCHOOL, PRESCHOOL
AND CHILD CARE CENTRES OF INFECTIOUS DISEASES CASES AND CONTACTS
(1992)

Important Notes
These guidelines have been drawn up on the premise that
children who have been ill with an infectious disease will
not return to school until they have fully recovered. The
only exception to this rule is that children with certain
skin diseases may return once appropriate treatment has
commenced (see below).

These recommended periods are issued as a guide to teaching

staff and medical practitioners, and may be modified in
individual cases as circumstances warrant. Variation in the
recommendations may be warranted in cases of local epidemics.
In cases of doubt, or for guidance about conditions not
mentioned on the list, advice should be sought from the
appropriate clinician, school medical officer or medical
officer of a health authority. Similarly, advice on possible
preventive measures should be sought if cases occur in
boarding institutions amongst children housed in dormitory-
type accommodation.
Records of immunisation status of children should be accurate
and kept up to date.
All children should be immunised against measles, mumps,
rubella, poliomyelitis, diphtheria, pertussis and tetanus,
according to the NHMRC recommended schedule before entry into
a day care centre, pre-school or school. Therefore the need
to exclude case contacts should not arise.
Non-immunised contacts of index esses with a vaccine -
preventable disease of childhood snould be referred to a
medical practitioner or an immunisation clinic.
Staff of schools, preschools, and child care centres should
also ensure that they have adequate immunity to measles,
mumps, rubella, poliomyeltis, diphtheria and tetanus.
Immunity to rubella is particulary important for female staff
of child-bearing age.

[EHB)PHC2660
Condition Cases Contacts

Chicken Pox Exclude till fully Any child with an

(Varicella and recovered or at least immune deficiency (eg
Herpes Zoster) 5 days after the leukaemia or receiving
eruption first appears. chemotherapy) should
Note � some remaining be excluded for their
scabs are not an own protection.
indication for continued Otherwise not excluded.
exclusion.

Conjunctivitis Exclude until discharge Not excluded.

(Acute infectious) from eyes has ceased.
Diarrhoea (Rotavirus, Exclude until diarrhoea Not excluded,
Shigella, Giardia, has ceased.
Salmonella,
Campylobacter)
Diphtheria Exclude until medical Exclude family/
certificate of recovery household contacts
following at least until cleared to return
two negative throat by an appropriate
swabs, the first not health authority.
less than 24 hours after
cessation of antibiotic
treatment and the other
4 8 hours later.

Glandular fever Exclusion is not Not excluded.

necessary.
Hepatitis A Exclude until receipt of Not excluded.
a medical certificate
of recovery but not
before 7 days after
the onset of jaundice.
Hepatitis В Exclusion is not Not excluded.
necessary.
Hepatitis С Exclusion is not Not excluded.
necessary.
Human Exclusion is not Not excluded.
Immunodeficiency necessary unless
Virus infection the person has
(HIV) secondary infection
requiring exclusion in
its own right.

ГЕИВ1РНС2Е60
 3.
Condition Cases Contacts

Impetigo (School Exclude until Not excluded.

sores) appropriate treatment
has commenced and sores
on exposed surfaces
are covered with a
dressing.

Leprosy Exclude until approval Not excluded.

to return has been given
by an appropriate health
authority.
Measles Excluded for at least Immunised contacts
4 days from the not.excluded.
appearance of rash. Non-immunised contacts
should be excluded
until 14 days after
the first day of
appearance of rash
in the last case.
If non-immunised
contacts are vaccinated
within 72 hrs of their
first contact with the
index case, they may
return to school.
Meningitis Exclude until well. Not excluded.
(Bacterial)
Meningococcal Exclude until well. Not excluded.
Infection
Mumps Exclude for at least Not excluded.
9 days after onset of
symptoms.
Poliomyelitis Exclude for at least Not excluded.
14 days from onset.
Readmit on a medical
certificate of recovery.
Ringworm, Scabies, Exclude until the day Not excluded.
Pediculosis (Lice), after treatment has
Trachoma commenced.

[ZHB]PHC2660
Щ

Condition Cases Contacts

j Rubella (German Exclude until fully Not excluded.

jj Measles) recovered or for at NOTE: Female staff of
least 4 days after the childbearing age should
¿. -j
onset of rash. ensure that their
immune status against
rubella is adequate.
Vj Streptococcal Exclude until the Not excluded.
M infection person has received
*ï (including antibiotic treatment
c'' Scarlet fever) for at least 24 hours
U and the person feels
well.
Tuberculosis Exclude until production Not excluded.
of medical certificate
from appropriate health
authority.
щ
{
Typhoid and Exclude until production Not excluded.
Paratyphoid fever of a medical certificate
of recovery.
5(55?

Whooping Cough Exclude for five days Exclude unimmunised

(Pertussis) after starting household contacts
antibiotic treatment. aged less than 7 years
for 14 days after the
last exposure to
infection or until
fWt they have received
5 days of a 14day
course of antibiotics.

•Щ

L
тг

¡Li
n

ti
У, i

U
í.
ü
ÆST-

(гнв)рнсзбво