Whole Living Guide > by Dylana Accolla
Off Target: Problems with Vaccination
Illustration by Jim Bliss

Diseases desperate grown
By desperate appliance are relieved,
Or not at all.
—Hamlet, Act iv, Sc.3, William Shakespeare

Vaccines are a compulsory part of our world. Credited with the enormous decreases in infectious, life-threatening diseases, vaccines have been deemed a necessary cornerstone of the health and welfare of the country. So necessary that children cannot enter public school without being vaccinated. The distribution of public health benefits depends on whether or not the kids have had their shots. Successful disease prevention programs in this country are guided by the idea of “herd immunity,” whereby a high percentage of vaccinated people are needed to make the vaccine work. So when parents refuse to have their children vaccinated, they are strongly advised otherwise. They are accused of neglect. Some doctors refuse to treat unvaccinated children. And still some parents, with only the best interests of their children in mind, refuse to vaccinate.

What’s going on here? In the next two issues of Chronogram, we will examine the vaccine issue.

Unsteady Legs to Stand On
History credits Edward Jenner with the development of the smallpox vaccine. But before vaccines were invented, the method of treating diseases with an innoculation method was referred to as variolation. The first written record of such attempts appears in The Correct Treatment of Smallpox, attributed to a Buddhist nun practicing in China in the 11th century. She recommended collecting exudate from smallpox scabs that were less than a month old, which she then pulverized and combined with specific herbs. She then blew the powder up a curled silver tube into the nostrils of those not yet ill.

Oral vaccination was also mentioned in texts from 11th-century China, and it seems doctors in the Middle East and India also exercised the practice. Paracelsus, the great Swiss physician-philosopher of the early 1500s, taught isopathic medicine, the attempt to cure disease by use of its own products. Druid priests from ancient Britain and Germany also used this method in the Middle Ages.

By the 1700s, the idea that natural immunity arose out of naturally occurring disease was a recognized phenomenon. The upper classes regularly allowed apothecaries to induce mild forms of disease in their children by scratching their arms with a knife and covering the wounds with bandages smeared with the dried scabs of smallpox victims. They were then kept secluded in the barn for two to three weeks until their fevers subsided and their smallpox scabs dried. The problems with this method were that not only did it lead to serious cases of smallpox, neither did it confer immunity. Furthermore, the scabs were often contaminated with other diseases, such as syphilis and tuberculosis.

Edward Jenner emerged from this environment, taking credit for the observation that dairymaids who caught cowpox were immune to smallpox. (A young farmer named Benjamin Jesty actually successfully inoculated his family with the cowpox vaccine first. Jenner credited him years later.) Jenner went on to inoculate people with cowpox exudate and claimed to successfully immunize people with this method. Jenner’s claims were disputed, since there were many instances of dairymaids who had caught smallpox. Jenner persisted and eventually became the first to systematically attempt the practice of mass inoculation.

There were numerous reports of smallpox among the vaccinated, however. At first the cases were denied. When they could no longer be denied, they were proclaimed milder cases. When it became obvious that the vaccinated were dying, it was said the cowpox was “spurious”. Revaccination was suggested. The idea that in order for vaccines to work, the entire population should be vaccinated so that the disease could not find a susceptible host was also suggested, laying the foundations for the “herd immunity” concept that guides vaccination programs used today.

Left to nature, smallpox epidemics were regionally contained and self-limiting. History shows that the most severe epidemics of smallpox occurred in several European and Asian countries only after vaccinations were begun. As Neil Miller (author of Immunization: Theory Versus Reality, New Atlantean Press, 1999) explains, “Before England passed a mandatory vaccination law in 1853, the highest death rate from smallpox in any given year was 2,000 cases. Between 1870 and 1872 alone, after more than 15 years of mandatory shots, nearly 45,000 people died from the disease.” In fact, there was a grim correlation between the percentage of babies vaccinated and death rates in several countries: the greater the number vaccinated, the greater the loss. Once people began refusing the shots, the death rate rapidly decreased.

Eighty-seven years passed between Edward Jenner and Louis Pasteur. A research chemist, Pasteur developed germ theory—that different organisms cause different diseases. Pasteur’s concept provides the basis for modern bacteriology, immunology, and medicine. Pasteur is credited with the first successful rabies vaccine, although the vaccine was highly reactive—many of his contemporaries claimed the vaccine killed more people than it cured. Pasteur is also credited with developing a method for attenuating viruses. But there are questions about Pasteur’s integrity and originality. In 1905, the Pasteur Institute-trained physician who oversaw anti-rabies treatment in Constantinople revealed that the Institute had quietly concealed a high incidence of paralysis and other neurological disorders from the rabies vaccine in order to avoid adverse publicity. And in 1887, Pasteur claimed credit for the first cholera vaccine, which US scientists Edmund Salmon and Theobald Smith had developed 16 months earlier.

By the end of the 19th century, the sciences of vaccinology and immunology had matured while Pasteur and company had clearly defined the enemy—germs. Modern medicine pursued its battle against infectious organisms with an almost religious ferocity. There were two live human virus vaccines developed, smallpox and rabies: along with three killed bacterial vaccines, cholera, plague, and typhoid. The pertussis (whooping cough) vaccine was developed in 1912.

As the United States entered its victorious post-war era after 1945, the country’s efforts to conquer disease redoubled, and vaccines tumbled out one after the other. Jonas Salk’s killed polio vaccine was first given to children in 1955 and he was hailed a miracle worker for preventing the spread of the dreaded poliomyelitis. Salk went on to create the Jonas Salk Institute for Biological Studies and received several important awards for his work for world peace, such as the Presidential Medal of Freedom and the Nerhu Award for International Understanding. When it was discovered that Salk’s killed virus vaccine failed to immunize fully, however, Sabin’s oral live virus vaccine became the American Academy of Pediatrics’ polio vaccine of choice in 1964, without adequate testing.

The measles vaccine didn’t appear until 1963, after the virus was isolated and cultivated in chicken egg embryos. The mumps virus was also propagated on embryonated chicken eggs for a vaccine in the 1960s. The rubella vaccine did not reach the market until 1969. The 1980s and 1990s saw the development of several new vaccines for children including the hepatitis B vaccine, Hib (hemophilus influenza type B), chicken pox, and the rotavirus vaccine. Work on vaccines continues, with much energy and research going into the development of vaccines for HIV and cancer. Genetic engineering is being used in vaccine development for injectibles (hepatitis B) as well as for the development of food vaccines (such as an edible measles vaccine). Efforts to create an all-in-one vaccine are also underway, in an attempt to decrease the number of times children must be subject to injections. (For more on the history of vaccines, and for a clear, insightful discussion on vaccination, see Aviva Jill Romm’s Vaccination:
A Thoughtful Parent’s Guide, Healing Arts Press, 2001).

Vaccine Efficacy: How well do they really work?
Since the inception of Jenner’s smallpox vaccine, vaccine efficacy has been controversial. While it is clear that vaccines have played a role in eliminating disease, a close look at epidemiological and historical records clearly shows that other factors such as improved hygiene and water quality, better nutrition, sanitation and living conditions have been responsible for reducing most infectious disease incidence. (See Edward J. Mortimer, “Immunization against Infectious Disease,” Science 200, May 26, 1978).

According to medical historian Ivan Illich, “The combined death rate for scarlet fever, diphtheria, whooping cough, and measles from 1860 to 1965, for children up to 15, shows that nearly 90 percent of the total decline in death rate over this period had occurred before the introduction of antibiotics and widespread immunization of diphtheria.” (Romm, page 22) Ninety percent is not the whole pie, however. Have vaccines eradicated the remainder? It’s a difficult question to answer, because some vaccines are more effective than others. The pertussis vaccine, for example, is estimated to be 70 to 90 percent effective. But resurgences continue to occur in appropriately vaccinated communities.
Most of the reference material from schools and physicians does not question the idea that infectious disease declines can be attributed primarily to vaccinations. But not all physicians agree that vaccines are as successful as proponents maintain. As Richard Moskowitz, MD, a long-time family physician and author of several pediatric books, has written, “The customary assumption that the decline is attributable to the vaccines remains unproven, and continues to be questioned by eminent authorities in the field.” Moskowitz quotes epidemiologist D.D. Dauer, who wrote in 1943, “If mortality from pertussis continues to decline at the same rate during the next 15 years, it will be extremely difficult to show statistically that pertussis vaccination had any effect in reducing mortality from whooping cough.”

Scientists have come up with two basic criteria to determine vaccine efficacy. First, the vaccine should be able to produce antibodies against the disease, and second, the vaccine should be able to provide protection in the face of exposure. The antibody criterion is problematic, however. Most people produce antibodies after receiving a vaccine, but it is well documented that not everybody does. But if you don’t have antibodies, it doesn’t mean that you aren’t immune; you might be. It is also documented that not everybody who produces antibodies is immune.

Tracking and comparing disease incidence in vaccinated and non-vaccinated populations over a long period of time seems to be the best method for determining vaccine efficacy. But tracking and comparing poses a plethora of almost insurmountable difficulties for statisticians. For example, it is difficult (if not impossible) to find unvaccinated cohorts in this country. Other factors, such as whether the child was breast-fed, whether the child have greater immunity or susceptibility to infection, and socioeconomic and nutritional status, must all be taken into account. Under-reporting and misdiagnosis can skew statistics. Nevertheless, there have been some attempts to track and compare disease incidence. Aviva Jill Romm, from whose book I quote many of the efficacy rates, bases her statistics on Stanley Plotkin and Edward Mortimer’s book Vaccines (W.B. Saunders, Philadelphia, 1988), as well as other sources.

Safety Issues
While vaccines may not be as effective at preventing disease as we have been told, there is another aspect to them that needs to be examined, which is that they cause adverse reactions in some people. Most of these are mild and temporary, but in some instances, they are not. Parents are supposed to be informed of these reactions every time their child is vaccinated, but it seems this is not always the case, especially when physicians and scientists themselves don’t know what the reactions will be (as in the cases of hepatitis B vaccine, for example, which will be discussed later).

It is important to educate yourself before allowing your child to be vaccinated. When facing the vaccination question it is important to consider: What is the individual disease incidence and severity? How efficacious is the vaccine in preventing disease? What are its possible adverse effects? “Risking a serious vaccine reaction in order to prevent a mild childhood disease may not be the best alternative for your child,” writes Randall Neustaedter in The Immunization Decision: A Guide for Parents (North Atlantic Books, 1990). “On the other hand, preventing life-threatening disease may be worth the risk of vaccine if your child has a significant chance of exposure.”

Vaccines can cause several types of serious adverse reactions. Toxic reactions can occur when killed or attenuated bacteria or heavy metals from a vaccine release toxins into the bloodstream. If they make it through the blood-brain barrier and reach the brain, they can cause neurological problems, including autism, ADD, and behavioral problems. An autoimmune reaction can be triggered if the body begins to attack parts of the body that are chemically similar to the vaccine. Autoimmune reactions have been reported for measles, tetanus, and flu vaccines. In rare instances, vaccines can also cause infections of the very diseases they are supposed to prevent. For example, it has become well established that the only new cases of polio in the United States since 1980 were the result of the vaccine or shedding from the recently vaccinated. (In 1976 Jonas Salk testified that the live virus vaccine was “the principle cause if not sole cause” of all reported polio cases in the United States since 1961.) The measles, mumps, rubella, and chickenpox vaccines sometimes lead to the diseases they were designed to prevent. Allergic reactions are common as well, particularly to people with allergies to eggs (MMR) and antibiotics (MMR, polio). (For a compelling discussion about the delayed reactions and permanent disabilities due to vaccines, see Neusteadter, pages 8-10. See also Dr. Harris Coulter’s Vaccination, Social Violence, and Criminality: The Medical Assault on the American Brain, 1990.)

Recipes for Disaster?
In addition to varying rates of efficacy, it is also important to examine the ingredients of a vaccine to determine whether its administration, particularly to infants and children, is appropriate. Many readers are aware that substances like aluminum, formaldehyde, and mercury are toxic and shouldn’t be ingested. Yet they are in vaccines that we routinely inject into the blood of our babies. Aluminum, added to vaccines in the form of a gel or salts, is added to the DTP, DPaT, and hepatitis B vaccines to promote the production of antibodies. Aluminum has been named as a possible cause of seizures, Alzheimer’s disease, brain damage, and dementia. Formaldehyde is a known carcinogen. In vaccines, liquid formaldehyde, or formalin, is used to inactivate germs. Critics vociferously question its adequacy as a disinfectant and charge that its addition to several vaccines “violates the principle of nonmalefence” (not doing harm) (Catherine Diodati, Immunization: History, Ethics, Law, and Health).

Thimerosal, a preservative that contains nearly 50 percent ethylmercury, was used in nearly every vaccine on the market for decades. Thimerosal has been associated with the dramatic increase in autism that has occurred since the mid-1980s. (For example, autism increased 513 percent in the state of Maryland between the years 1993 and 1998. California reported a 273 percent increase between 1987 and 1998.). One possible cause of this autism increase may have been the initiation of administering hepatitis B vaccines to infants beginning in 1991. This vaccine contains 12.5 micrograms of mercury (thimerosal), which is more than 25 times the EPA “safe level” of mercury (0.1 microgram per day). Babies were given two more doses of the vaccine by six months. In addition, infants were also given four doses of mercury-containing Hib, plus four doses of mercury-containing DTP. By the age of six months, vaccinated children had received 187.5 micrograms of mercury in their bodies. Mercury accumulates in their bodies because the production of bile, which helps clear this toxin, is not developed in children before four to six months.

When mercury is trapped in the body it travels to the brain, travels through the blood-brain barrier, clings to brain tissue, the cerebellum, amygdala, and hippocampus—areas associated with the execution of balance and movement, emotional processing, and the formation, sorting, and storage of memory. These are the very areas of the brain that are affected in autism. Critics suggest that the autism diagnosed in recent years is a form of mercury poisoning. (The MMR vaccine has also been associated with autism. See, for example, an article from the Telegraph, a British newspaper, by Lorraine Fraser, “MMR Doctor Links 170 Cases of Autism to Vaccine,” January 21,2001. To read more about this subject, refer to Stephanie Cave, MD, and Deborah Mitchell’s What Your Doctor May Not Tell You About Children’s Vaccines, Warner Books, 2001.) The mercury controversy created a demand for thimerosal-free vaccines, which are available for almost all vaccines, but not all doctors have switched. You have to ask.

Other questionable ingredients in vaccines include ethylene glycol, the main ingredient in antifreeze. It is used in some vaccines (DTaP, polio, Hib, hepatitis B) as a preservative. Phenol, the coal-tar derivative that is used in plastics, disinfectants, preservatives, and germicides, is harmful to the immune system in certain doses and is used in the typhoid vaccine. Neomycin and streptomycin are antibiotics used to prevent the growth of germs in vaccines. They may cause allergic reactions in some people (found in the MMR and polio vaccines). Benzethonium chloride, in the anthrax vaccine, is a preservative and has not been evaluated for human consumption.

Next month, in Vaccinations, Part II, we will examine individual vaccines to compare their efficacy rates, disease incidence, and adverse reactions. We will also discuss the alternative medicine understanding of vaccination and methods for increasing your natural immunity.