Electronic letters to:
|
|
eLetters: Electronic letters published:
-
![[Read eLetter]](/icons/misc/sectionDOWN.gif)
Susan Fletcher responds to the Editor
- Susan (no middle name) Fletcher (25 March 2003)
-
The editor responds to Ms. Fletcher
- John Hoey (21 March 2003)
-
Why all the Chronic Diseases in Children? Canada Needs Rigorous Vaccine Studies
- Susan (no middle name) Fletcher (19 March 2003)
|
|
|||
|
Susan (no middle name) Fletcher, volunteer Vaccination Risk Awareness Network Inc
Send letter to journal:
susanfletcher{at}armourtech.com Susan (no middle name) Fletcher
|
Susan Fletcher Responds to the Editor I fail to see where I have said immunity to disease is not important. Why would I bother to take care of my health and be willing to occasionally pay for alternate health care with little or no government reimbursement if I didn’t want to be free of disease? Of course immunity has “contributed enormously to the observed decreases in death and illness resulting from infectious diseases.” By definition, immunity is the reason for no disease and possible subsequent death. The concept that appears to elude Mr Hoey is that vaccination is not immunization, a term loosely used by the medical community to describe every inoculation whether effective or not. Everything I have ever read on immunity indicates that immunity following recovery from infectious disease is usually permanent. One can hardly say the same for immunity following vaccination (if, indeed, any immunity follows). Mr Hoey has already admitted that pertussis vaccine lacks long term efficacy and has indicated possible problems with chickenpox vaccine. According to Walter A Orenstein MD, director of the National Immunization Program at the US CDC, smallpox is not highly contagious, does not spread rapidly and it is quite likely that quarantine alone, with no vaccinations, would have accomplished eradication of smallpox. (see ‘Smallpox Outbreak: What to do’ by Sherri Tenpenny DO at www.vran.org/vaccine/smallpox/sma_facts.asp) Polio is a story unto itself, its vaccines having been disparaged by inventor Albert Sabin himself in 1985. Acute flaccid paralysis still affects people worldwide but most of it is no longer called “polio”; the definition for polio was changed upon introduction of the Salk vaccine such that the vaccine appeared to be much more effective than it was. (see ‘Polio Perspectives’ by Edda West at www.vran.org/vaccine/vaccine_pol.asp) One outstanding Canadian statistic is the 700% increase in polio following the polio mass vaccination campaign of 1958. Of particular interest to the editor should be a Sept 1, 1955 CMAJ letter to the editor by Winnipeg doctor J F Edwards MD noting the effectiveness of iodine as both a preventive and a cure for polio (This makes me think that high concentrations of fluoride could be a causative factor in polio.) Measles was not a nationally reportable disease in Canada from 1959 to 1968. With the two measles vaccines, live and killed, having been introduced in 1963 and 1964 respectively, one cannot tell if a large drop in measles cases came before or after vaccinations began. What we do know is that like mumps, pertussis and probably chickenpox vaccinations, any efficacy due to childhood measles vaccination disappears later in life, leaving older individuals open to health risks more serious than there would be if they contracted these diseases at the normal ages they used to appear before vaccinations were given. (see ‘Immunization: History, Ethics, Law and Health by Catherine J M Diodati MA, 1999) Finally, I thank the editor for his comments about the need for vaccine trials and better adverse event reporting. Vaccination Risk Awareness Network Inc intends to have input into these and expects that families coast to coast who bear the burden of vaccine injuries will be front and center in any discussions regarding these and a compensation program. |
|||
|
|
|||
|
John Hoey, Editor CMAJ
Send letter to journal:
john.hoey{at}cma.ca John Hoey
|
Ms. Fletcher’s conclusion that “herd immunity is a flawed concept” is based on 2 undeniably true facts: 1. Infectious disease rates have fallen over historical time as living conditions have improved and: 2. Immunity after exposure to infectious diseases (by vaccination or infection) declines over time after exposure. But it is illogical to conclude that because living conditions are important, immunity is not. Both factors have contributed enormously to the observed decreases in death and illness resulting from infectious diseases. Science and common sense concur that if there is less infectious disease in the community (because almost everyone is vaccinated) then there is much less chance that those not immunized or only partially immunized will come in contact with the infectious agent and become ill. Further, if very large proportions of the “herd” are effectively immunized, diseases that survive only in humans can be eliminated. Polio and measles in Canada and many other countries are good examples; Not to mention smallpox. Vaccination and herd immunity undoubtedly play important causal roles in the declining rates of infectious diseases. But they are not the only factors. I agree with Ms. Fletcher that we need money for vaccine trials and for better vaccine adverse reaction reporting systems. Her letter also points out the need for public health in this country and elsewhere to find better ways of sharing existing scientific knowledge about the serious health effects of infectious diseases and the risks of vaccination, along with the benefits. |
|||
|
|
|||
|
Susan (no middle name) Fletcher, volunteer Vaccination Risk Awareness Network Inc
Send letter to journal:
susanfletcher{at}armourtech.com Susan (no middle name) Fletcher
|
The Naus/Scheifele commentary, ‘Canada needs a national immunization program…’ [CMAJ Mar 4, 2003; 168(5)] states that government decision makers might fear “a never-ending demand for funding of new and increasingly expensive vaccines” if they adopted ‘The National Immunization Strategy’. But, they say “this can be dealt with by agreeing on criteria – including economic considerations”. It appears that the latter has already happened; most provinces have finally said enough is enough – with continually increasing demands for health care dollars due to an increasingly sickly population, supply can no longer meet demand. The argument made by the editor [CMAJ Mar 4, 2003; 168(5)] that “Unless a large proportion (usually over 95%) of the population is vaccinated, herd immunity will not result and outbreaks will recur.” has me scratching my head. In the same article he notes that “the near- complete immunization of whole populations in childhood has led, decades later, to whole populations of adults with waning immunity to some childhood diseases.” and gives pertussis as an example saying that it “is now as common among adults as among children”. Another article by John Hoey of the same CMAJ issue says there are “new concerns over the effectiveness of the varicella vaccine”. Bear in mind that in the past there have been many other statements which question the efficacy of vaccines. For instance: Dr Alan Hinman, former director of the Division of Immunization, Center for Preventative Medicine of the US CDC, said “there is virtually no epidemiological study with absolutely incontrovertible results that allow only one interpretation.”; Edward Mortimer, staunch advocate of vaccinations, said “Clearly there are multiple reasons for the decline in mortality due to infectious disease in the United States in this century, and in many instances it is impossible to determine the relative contribution of different factors. There is little question that the natural history of some infectious diseases has changed spontaneously over the years for reasons not entirely clear.”; a statement by L Dublin in Health Progess, 1935-1945 , publication of the Metropolitan Life Insurance Co. (pg 12), 1948 corroborates and elucidates Mortimer’s thoughts: “…the combined death rate of diphtheria, measles, scarlet fever, and whooping cough declined 95 percent among children ages 1 to 14 from 1911 to 1945, before the mass immunization programs started in the United States.”; and, according to the World Health Statistics Annual, 1973-1976, Vol 2, there has been a steady decline of infectious diseases “in most ‘developing’ countries regardless of the percentage of immunizations administered in these countries. It appears that generally improved conditions of sanitation are largely responsible for preventing ‘infectious’ diseases.” “Herd immunity” was originally defined back in the early part of the last century as protection of any given population from a transmissible disease due to lifelong or long term immunity from having contracted and recovered from the disease. Immunity due to high standards of nutrition, cleanliness, sanitation, etc was a co-factor. (1)(2) As the editor’s pertussis example and other examples above show, “herd immunity” through vaccination is a flawed concept; for various reasons vaccine efficacy is highly variable and never 100% and any immunity derived from vaccines is only short-lived. (3) It wouldn’t be so bad if all we had to worry about was lack of efficacy; after all, we managed to survive thousands of years with no vaccinations. The fact that these agents of dubious effect are also harmful is another matter. After almost 60 years of vaccinating against pertussis all we can say is that some children may have short-lived immunity due to vaccinations but all the rest of us, especially newborns, are either pertussis immune cripples or have a family history of no vaccination but are increasingly at risk of new virulent pertussis strains being induced by decades of the vaccinations. (4) However, recent data from the US VAERS shows that deaths following pertussis vaccine far surpass deaths from pertussis (20 deaths yearly from the disease, 570 following vaccinations - and this is a gross understatement since, at most, only 10% of reactions are reported). (5) Chickenpox, as the editor says, is one of those diseases that “only rarely have grave effects”; the main reason given for introducing varicella vaccine was to save parents the inconvenience and cost of care for sick children home from school. Just as with pertussis vaccine, the massive use of varicella vaccine for children in the US means much of that population will have no long-term immunity, either disease- or vaccine- induced. They will be at risk for serious cases of shingles later in life and their future unborn babies will be open to congenital varicella syndrome. The suggested use of adolescent/adult pertussis vaccine has already been made; no doubt varicella vaccine will also be prescribed for this age group as well as a poke to take care of the large outbreaks of shingles that are said to be due in 10 years time (6) – and so the vaccine merry-go-round continues. I am very thankful that, according to Naus and Scheifele, underprivileged children are least likely to receive pricey new vaccines. CIDA research, the work of Dr Kalerinokos with Australian aborigines and common sense acknowledge that malnourished children, as many of these are likely to be, cannot withstand the assault of vaccines without disastrous results. (7)(8) That “vaccines are cost effective” is predicated on the fact that most disease that is probably vaccine related is not conceded to be, and even in the few cases when it is, no compensation is given. I agree with Naus, Scheifele and the editor that we need national leadership on vaccination policy and a much improved national system of recording disease morbidity and mortality (witness my use of mainly US data). Much more pressing is the need for an adverse reaction reporting system which includes all possible adverse events and is easily accessed by the general public. What we don’t need is multitudes of new expensive vaccines on top of the many we already have, added to an already faltering health care system. Why should I, as a person who does not personally support vaccination but does support prevention through the use of healthy living and alternate therapies have to pay through taxes for vaccine programs for others when my choice for prevention is not subsidized? Universal health care in Canada is a myth. In July 2002 a startling item appeared in a California newspaper: the NIH had just put aside US $2.5 million to create end-of-life care for infants. In the country that has the highest rate and longest history of vaccinations in the world, 53,000 infants per year were said to be dying from terminal diseases. (9) It is heartening to see that Health Canada and public health authorities are now starting to show concern about the dismal state of Canadians’ health, especially young Canadians’, and actively promote lifestyle changes. But with all the autism, learning disabilities, asthma, diabetes, etc afflicting so many of our children today it is imperative that we go beyond that and find and rout the environmental and other factors that are causing this chronic disease. Vaccine information groups such as the one to which I belong have for many years suggested a connection between such disease and the use of vaccines, especially multi- dose vaccines. To date we have not seen any NIH reviews or vaccine trials that have had the validity to conclusively show that such a connection does not exist. In view of the tremendous amount of non-infectious disease in our children, I propose that, rather than lobby the federal government for additional universal vaccine programs, the CMAJ lobby the government to sponsor vaccine trials of unquestionable rigour so that once and for all we can determine whether or not vaccines are a source of chronic ill health in our children. Such trials would have to be methodologically sound; rigorously controlled; involve large numbers of subjects; each be conducted over several years (one researcher who has found a correlation between vaccines and insulin dependent diabetes tells us the advent of the disease can take up to 10 years following vaccination) (10); compare similar size groups of highly vaccinated, lesser vaccinated and completely unvaccinated children; and measure all morbidity and mortality outcomes including pathological changes in immune and neurological function and genetic change in each trial subject over the entire course of the study of which he/she is a part. It’s my guess that, if this were done, it might lead to a different “Enlightenment”. March 13, 2003 Susan Fletcher, BSc Vaccination Risk Awareness Network Inc References: 1 VACCINES:What CDC Documents and Science Reveal by Sherri J Tenpenny, DO (12 yr emergency room physician now treating vaccine injured children using alternate therapies); 2002 video – www.nmaseminars.com. 2 Dorland’s Medical Dictionary, 1944, s.v. “immunity”, subheading “herd immunity”. 3 Fine, P (1993) Herd Immunity: History, Theory, Practice. Epidemiologic Review, Vol 15, No 2, pp 265-302. 4 Tony Sheldon, “Dutch Whooping Cough Epidemic Puzzles Scientists”, British Medical Journal 316 (10 January 1998): 91-94. 5 VACCINES: What CDC Documents and Science Reveal 6 Ibid 7 Universal Immunization: Medical Miracle or Masterful Mirage by Raymond Obomsawin, PhD (and several other health related degrees); 3rd edition, May 1998. 8 Interview with Dr Archie Kalokerinos, International Vaccine Network, June, 1995. 9 Studies aim to improve pediatric end of life programs, Orange County Register, pg 5, July 31, 2002. 10 New Tuskegee Experiment Planned with Pneumococcal Pneumonia Vaccine; Baltimore, Feb 18, 2000 – press release from Dr B Classen, Classen Immunotherapies, Inc, Baltimore, MD; Classen@vaccines.net. |
|||