Q. Dear ThinkTwice Global Vaccine Institute,
I am a second year MD/PhD student at the Medical University of.... I have recently penned a review article regarding hepatitis B vaccination in neonates. I enjoyed reading the various viewpoints about the vaccine on your website and I was wondering if you would like to post my article as an alternate perspective. I have attached the article for your consideration, complete with references to peer-reviewed scientific journals. Your contribution to the internet is commendable. It is a true testimony to the flexibility of the first amendment.
A. Dear L...,
We'll make you an exchange offer. If you can convince the CDC to permit us to post one of our articles on their website, we'll post your article on our site. I am attaching the article we'd like posted. P.S. You neglected to attach your Hep B article.
Q. Dear Thinktwice,
You are correct. I did forget to attach my article. It is interesting, however, that you assume that my viewpoint requires some form of negotiation. You assume that my viewpoint may threaten the agenda of your website and may somehow need to be counter balanced. How foolish to make assumptions. By the way, the secret database that you are charging people for on CD is available for free. [Here is the link: Searchable VAERS.] But to make my own assumption, I am guessing that you already know that. I will however, make certain that the proper authorities know you are charging for such information in order to turn a profit. I have screen captured your page, but if you still feel the need to "educate" the public, you may want to link your website to VAERS. It would be the only decent thing to do.
A. Wow L...,
Your attitude has quickly changed from false appreciation regarding the merits of our website to outrage that we caught you in your transparent scheme. Whatever happened to your concern for the flexibility of the first amendment? You expect us to post your vaccine propaganda on our website but are unwilling to request from the CDC an honest and balanced viewpoint. That's truly pathetic. Your initial correspondence with us was intentionally deceptive and obviously dishonest; it always saddens us to see new medical recruits with all the wrong qualifications for the important field they're entering.
Regarding the VAERS database, it's public information that we've made convenient and easily accessible for interested people, all on one CD. It's perfectly legitimate for us to charge for this service. (If you're truly concerned about profiteering, turn your attention in the proper direction: vaccine manufacturers and your own chosen profession.)
I'm still waiting to read your article.
Q. Dear Thinktwice,
I have attached my article regarding neonatal hepatitis B vaccination. If you need any assistance regarding comprehension of the scientific/medical jargon, may I suggest consulting Stedman's Medical Dictionary.
A. Dear L...,
I read your paper and will provide some comments. But first, I'd like to address your email statement regarding the possible need for "assistance regarding comprehension." Many people who write to us comment on the extreme arrogance of their doctors, many of whom speak to them like little children. My guess is that your "suggestion" was intended to be sincere so I can only assume that your pomposity is naturally ingrained. May I suggest that you work on your "bedside manner."
Having said that, please excuse my language in describing my initial impression of your paper. I can't help but perceive that you are on your way to becoming a full-fledged industry whore. If you remain on your current path, you are sure to become a darling of the medical elite. You will be paid handsomely for your allegiance and will be granted many benefits and great prestige for your cunning defense of the allopathic sacred cow (Vacca).
Briefly, my comments:
Where is your documentation for your opening statement that before universal infant vaccination for hepatitis B, 18,000 children under age 10 were infected annually? (I would like to see the listed statistics, not simply a blanket statement issued by the CDC.) According to Alter, et al, and others, less than 1% of all cases occur in children younger than 15 years. Also, please provide your documentation for your second sentence regarding the number and cause.
Your third sentence, claiming that the high numbers of Hepatitis B cases in infants is the reason the ACIP made their recommendations in 1991 is simply false. Pro-vaccinators usually make this claim, but if you go back to the original rationale, high-risk groups were considered inaccessible, and babies (who are accessible) were to be vaccinated so that passive immunity could be passed on to the high-risk groups. Let me reiterate, the hepatitis B vaccine was originally given to babies to protect adults.
Your 2nd paragraph providing "evidence" supporting universal vaccination is odd; the only finding is that babies vaccinated at birth are more likely to receive additional vaccines.
You are correct that data regarding duration of immunity shows that the vaccine is worthless within months or a few years (depending on the study). Pro-vaccinators' answer to an ineffective vaccine is always the same: give more of it. Furthermore, your comment that the booster shot is a surrogate for exposure to natural virus is nearly meaningless in light of the fact that 6 and 7-year-olds are generally not at risk from this virus. You claim that this "proves" that the childhood vaccination series provides immunity for at least the first 7 years of life. That is not "proof."
You have made several claims about our organization that are clearly false or purposely deceitful. First, our website is not just a compilation of personal testimonies. We offer numerous studies as well. Next, our focus is not that mass vaccinations do not benefit the public and merely serve the financial interests of doctors and the vaccine makers. Our focus is on the misinformation perpetuated by the medical industry, the right of informed consent, and the freedom for parents to accept or reject the shots. Third, nowhere on our site do we make the claim that hepatitis B vaccination is a "death sentence." Your quotes around that term represent a clear misappropriation. Next, CDC literature is the original author of the link between hepatitis B infection, gays and IV drug users. (We never used the word "junkie" so placing it in quotes to indicate our use of the term is a form of literary fraud.) We stand by our claim (supported by the studies) that children are very low risk for contracting hepatitis B.
Regarding Super Immune-Enhancing Nutritional Products, we NEVER made the claim that they are alternatives to vaccines, nor that Redi-Beets is designed to protect the liver against hepatitis B. If you insist on publishing this false assertion, you open yourself up to litigation. We provide several books on holistic health that have nothing to do with vaccines, and the nutritional products that we offer are neither intended nor marketed as alternatives to vaccines.
Regarding your explanation of our disclaimer, it has nothing to do with hepatitis B (try not to be so defensive regarding your subject). Disclaimers are widespread throughout society and are provided for clarity. You'll find them in health books, diet books, on appliances, and even in manufacturer's vaccine inserts!
Regarding peer-reviewed literature showing links between hepatitis B and "certain" adverse reactions, these are well-documented in the journals. Regarding VAERS and establishing a "causal relationship," your powerful vaccine brotherhood has long claimed that adverse reactions are merely temporally linked or coincidental. This is extremely convenient. In a more perfect world, authorities would invest more time and money rectifying the serious problems with vaccines rather than covering them up with bogus studies by paid consultants to the vaccine industry (this is well-documented) and claims of temporal associations. The damage being inflicted on our future generations is immense. MS and other neurologically-based insults resulting from hepatitis B vaccination are real. The damage is much greater than what VAERS has revealed. Studies have shown that drug reporting systems barely document 1 percent of the true rate of adverse reactions. Your final paragraph blaming TV programs and websites for parents' reactions is insensitive and shows a lack of understanding. Many parents have damaged babies that resulted from vaccines (not temporal links). Your studies and "proofs" will never convince them of what they know in their hearts: vaccines damaged or killed their babies. We have been studying this problem for 20 years; you are but a neophyte with certain belief propensities that drew you into the medical field. Your weapons of defense (ultimately a defense of your own belief systems) appear to be the use of selective data and an inner drive to "prove" your own merit -- hardly valid explanations for neglecting to discover the real truth. As you continue your climb (descent?) try to remember what it's all truly about. Go visit families who claim vaccines damaged or killed their babies. Listen to their stories. I'm not asking you to suspend reason; rather, I'm requesting that you simply invoke compassion and understanding. You might be surprised at what you discover and of the good works that you can provide within an even larger framework. It may be too late, your indoctrination too great, but I remain hopeful.
Q. To Whom It May Concern:
I am a medical student at the Medical University of... and am trying to find out some more information as to the validity of your website and as to why you are attempting to spread some unjust information.
A. We're not spreading unjust information; we're providing valuable information that is not being taught in medical schools and not being provided by the medical industry. Consider your own biases when determining truths from untruths.
Q. Just looking over it briefly...
A. We recommend that you spend more time on our site and other similar sites.
Q. ...I noticed that you had some fairly incorrect information that I wanted to bring to your attention. First and foremost you talk about in the smallpox that 8 out of 10 countries had reported that smallpox was eradicated prior to inoculation of the people in that country. It was because of the WHO and their efforts that help to diminish the spread of small pox in a number of African Countries. The use of the vaccine in the United States with the notion of herd immunity has led to the demise of that horrific disease.
A. The evidence does not support this claim. Smallpox cases decreased in regions where the vaccine was discontinued. You may want to actually research smallpox from all of the available sources, not just from CDC, before mimicing standard propaganda.
Q. You also mention that the plague and scarlett fever were not cured from
vaccination, but you forget to mention how these 2 other bacteria are transmitted (yes I mention bacteria because small pox is a virus and scarlett fever is transmitted by the bacterium Streptococcus and the plague is transmitted by another bacterium called Yersinia pestis). So first compare apples to apples instead of apples to oranges.
A. There is no logic to your argument. Apples ARE being compared to apples. Years ago, several diseases were prevalent throughout society. Vaccines were developed for some of them but not others, yet all of the diseases declined. How then can the medical industry claim that vaccines are responsible? Obviously, some other factor must have been influential.
Q. In the hepatitis B section you mention that Hepatitis B is a disease of junkies, gays and promiscuous heterosexuals.
A. No. The CDC is the originator of the statement that hepatitis B is mainly a disease of IV drug users, gays, and sexually promiscious adults. If you have a problem with this claim, take it up with the CDC. (Also, you're referring to an unsolicited letter that we received from a parent and posted on our website; we did not use the term "junkie" nor compose that letter.)
Q. The truth is that any person that comes into contact with blood contaminated with the HBV virus (which can live outside of the body in a dried form for up to 2 weeks) can contract this disease.
A. Yes, but that doesn't change the fact of the matter, that children are very low risk to contract this disease. Medical students are often young and impressionable; you believe everything they tell you in medical school. However, if you research the original rationale for vaccinating babies with hep B, it was NOT because they were susceptible to the disease. Babies were NOT vaccinated to gain protection from hepatitis B. The CDC and AAP found it difficult to locate high-risk groups (IV drug users, gays, and sexually promiscious adults) who were considered inaccessible, so they made a decision to vaccinate babies who were "accessible" to provide passive immunity to high-risk groups. Again, babies are subjected to all of the risks of the vaccine to protect adults!
Q. Secondly the HBV vaccine is not a live or so called attenuated virus. It is only the surface antigen (ie HBVsAg). This is only the surface capsule portion of this virus ... therefore it does not have the genetic material of the virus and therefore can not replicate within the body. Our immune system comes into contact with the
surface antigen through vaccination and allows for the initial immune response. When exposed through alternative means we have the ability to build a secondary response faster and with a larger antibody response.
A. The vaccine immune response to this vaccine is very poor. Some studies show efficacy rates are virtually nil within months. That is why they recommend booster shots -- a silly "solution" to an ineffective vaccine, giving more of it!
Q. So ultimately all I am asking is that you present my side of the arguement instead of saying how bad vaccinations are.
A. If you are so concerned about just presentations of information, we'll make you an offer: contact the CDC, the organization that promotes biased pro-vaccination propaganda without an honest explanation of defects, and convince them to post one of our articles on their sites, and we'll post your information on our site. I'm including the polio article that I'd like posted.
Q. The truth is that yes there are times when you need not to take the vaccination (should not be sick is one example). But the fact still remains and will remain for the remainder of man kind. The use of vaccinations have reduced the incidence of viral and bacterial infections in both humans and non-human animals.
A. ...and has caused untold damage in numerous other ways, i.e., hepatitis B vaccine causes MS-like symptoms and neurological damage, MMR is linked to autism, DPT to SIDS, polio to cancer, Hib to diabetes, and much, much more. We have been studying vaccines for 20 years; you have just started, and merely repeat what you have been told without honest investigation.
Q. Thank you for taking the your time in reading my response to your ill informative website. God I hope for mankinds sake that people do not listen to you.
A. Read some of the letters on our site. Here is the polio article that I discussed. [Polio Article] (You'll need the free Adobe Reader to read this paper. This polio article is 13 pages long, so please be patient while it loads.)
Q. Thank you for the article ... But first of all lets look at Figure 1 of this article. The date goes from 1935-1954. The problem is that the Sabin and Salk vaccines were not produced until 1955. Hmmm ... Let's think here for a quick minute. Okay, now let's look at the prevalance of Polio in the United States after the introduction of this vaccine. Actually let's take one step further. In this same figure there is indicated that the rate of polio in the United States alone in 1950-1954 to be 24.8 per 100,000 cases. The US at that time was about what 100 million.. So roughly 2480 infections noted at that time. This year alone there is only 1047 cases presented in 6 different countries. So that menas that in the 1950's there
were twice as many cases of Polio in the US alone than there is now in a combination of 6 countries.
Also your data reporting to the deaths in Vermont back in the 1950's was to the Sabin vaccine which is once again a live, attenuated vaccine. This means that there is potential that the vaccine could mutate to a wild virus and infect people. The United States uses the Salk vaccine which has no and I repeat no documented causes of side effects. So again thank you for attempting to mislead people. Hopefully there are not that many people out there that are listening to the information that you are providing.
A. Dear D...,
You do not even understand the polio article. Figure 1 is explaining that polio cases increased after injections for diphtheria and other injections. The medical industry was responsible for causing the epidemics of polio before the polio vaccine was introduced. You may wish to actually read the polio article, especially the text that precedes the reference to Figure 1. Regarding the differences between the Sabin vs Salk vaccines, they are explained in the article. There is no misleading information, except for people like you who are easily misled by your own misunderstanding of the information presented.
You should know that most of the letters that we receive are from people whose children were either damaged by vaccines or who wish to thank us for sharing this information with them. A small percentage of the letters are from people like you who are unhappy that we offer parents choices. However, of these, most are intelligently written. Your two correspondences with us were not very logical and showed poor reasoning powers. Are you sure that you can handle the course load at school?
Q. Now that you have on both occassions attacked me personally I will not stoop to your level. As for the ability to handle the load of school and my so called nieve status you apparently did not look at my initial credentials.
A. Didn't mean to personally attack you; I was being honest. Your letters contain many biases and exhibit poor reasoning abilities (plus many misspellings) that I don't always see from people in your position writing to us with their concerns.
Q. I do not have a problem with you giving parents the opportunity to have a choice, that is by far the American way. The right to choose. The problem that I have is that you are using the plights of parents and families to promote your so called remedies.
A. Nonsense. Is it not possible to believe in something and offer products for sale that support those beliefs? Again, poor reasoning.
Q. The truthful fact is that you are using scare tactics to help promote something you believe in.
A. You are describing the CDC and medical industry here. Be careful not to project your own unconscious patterns on others.
Q. Something to help promote your business. That is all you are doing, simple and straight to the point. It has nothing to do with your idealistic belief of allowing parents the right to choose. It is an advertising ploy that you have concocted to sell books and herbal medicine.
A. Again, this is pure nonsense. Are the pharmaceutical companies permitted to profit from the sale of vaccines, or must they provide them for free to "prove" their sincerity.
Q. Well after further reading your "peer reviewed polio article" I am further disgusted to the information that you are so called reporting. I especially like the notion that you have that the simian virus (which is in the family of papovoviridae as the cause of the HIV virus).
A. No such claim was made.
Q. Once again let's look at this. The HIV is a retrovirus, a double stranded positive RNA virus that uses reverse transcriptase to inject it's genetic material into the human host. The simian virus aka SV-40 is a virus of the papovoviridae family which is a DNA virus. WOW.
A. The studies link SV-40 to cancer, not to HIV.
Q. Amazingly the two viruses are completely different in their genetic make-up. So how can a DNA virus that was unfortunately a contaiminent of the origianl polio vaccines mutate to form a RNA virus. If you can explain that one then you will have the cure for the AIDS epidemic and a Nobel Prize in science and medicine. So have your friend Neil Miller (who apparently has no credentials) go back to school and get his PhD or MD and perform some research on the simian viruses ability to cross mutate to become the so called HIV virus.
A. Again, the studies link SV-40 to cancer, not to HIV. Gallo and other eminent scientists quoted in the article suggest a possible link between SIV (a simian immunodeficiency virus) and HIV (not between SV-40 and HIV). SV-40 and SIV are unique simian viruses. Read the article. By the way, a PHD or MD is not required to engage in intelligent debate. You may not realize it, but smart people with important things to contribute do not always have these letters behind their names. Be careful of falling into the illusion that "credentials" correspond with truth. Also, many medical doctors speak out against vaccines.
Q. Once again thank you for contributing to the mis-information of America. I ask myself why do I even bother continue ... but then it falls back to the fact that somethings are worth fighting for ... especially the misinformation that is being produced out there from shear ignorance of a non-medical / non-research individual.
A. Again, be careful of believing that only medical personnel are qualified to comment on or debate vaccines. This is pure folly.
Q. Once again I am thoroughly enjoyed by the information that you have presented on the Flu Lie by Mr. Neil Miller (who I still can not find
any credentials on).
A. Mr. Miller is a member of Mensa and asserts that he is capable of thinking, reasoning, and analyzing data without the aid of medical authorities.
Q. In this article Mr Miller makes reference that the CDC does not promote the "pneumonia vaccine". Well the fact is that they do promote the pneumonia vaccine ... look at the childhood vaccination chart under Hib.
A. The point being made is that the CDC simply offers the pneumonia vaccine but does not tout it in the same manner as the flu vaccine. The flu vaccine is presented as a magic cure (after the CDC thoroughly frightens the public about the dangers of flu).
Q. This is the Hemophilus influenza bacteria that was a leading cause of infection in neonates (which at one point included the leading cause of neonatal meningitis, but thanks to the Hib vaccine has greatly reduced that cause).
A. Actually, this is another example of a disease created by the medical industry then "cured" by another vaccine. Hib cases were low prior to the introduction of the DPT vaccine, then skyrocketed after this vaccine was introduced.
Q. The other vaccine that is promoted is the pneuomococcal vaccine for people over the age of 65 and some immunocompromised individuals. Why just the age of 65 you ask. Because this is the major bacterial organism that attacks this age group. Once again Mr Miller forgot to realize that there are other causes of bacterial pneumo which includes Klebseilla pneumonia, Staphylococcus infections, previously mentioned Hemophilus influenza, Mycobacterium pneumonia, Legionella pneumophilia.
A. This was not forgotten by Mr. Miller; it is not mentioned publicly by the CDC and their medical comrades. They don't want to admit that when they do offer the pneumonia vaccine it is only designed against a small fraction of causes of pneumonia. This is very convenient when the vaccine fails to work (the main reason this vaccine is not highly promoted in the same manner as the flu vaccine) and they can claim the pneumonia that was contracted was a different type than the vaccine was designed to protect against.
Q. WOW ... once again you are not presenting the whole story and thus are attempting to convince people with factless information.
A. Sarcastic again.
Q. The reason that the CDC promotes the flu vaccine is that the influenza virus (this is the virus that causes the flu) puts the body into an immunocompromised state which in turn allows for other opportunistic infections (ie the pneumococcal bacterium) to infect the individual. Yes the flu vaccine is a guess, actually they do not travel to China like you say, but use the previous 2 Influenza A strains and the last Influenza B (with the notion that their will be some mutations, but still have the necessary antigenic effect). Again the people that they promote this to is the elderly, very young and immunocompromised individuals.
A. Actually, the CDC has been promoting this vaccine to healthy individuals lately, mainly because the vaccine makers have been threatening (blackmailing) the CDC, and country, that it's no longer profitable to produce this vaccine unless there is a larger market.
Q. So to further conclude this email and the ability to release my so called niave knowledge of medicine and the inability to handle my studies of medicine (escpecially the immunology / microbiology / virology ... or for you the study of the immune system, bacteria and viruses).
A. Listing courses of study is not synonymous with reasoning aptitude nor with being able to fully grasp large concepts.
Q. First have Mr Miller obtain his PhD or MD and then start writing so called scientific
papers that are not endoresed by only 1 dot.com website.
A. Again, be careful of the illusions. Truth is truth whether one person understands it, or 1 million people cannot perceive it. The world was considered flat for centuries by the vast majority of the population until a handful of people were able to reveal the truth. Medical "science" is still a baby. Many studies are performed by paid consultants to the pharmaceutical companies (this is well documented). Visit some other sites similar to ours; here are some links. You may be surprised at what you discover if you step outside of your personal and medically-based biases and maintain an open mind.
Q. Rebuttal: H influenza ... more information for you. You indicated that H influenza
was declining prior to the introduction of the vaccine. In the US: Before a vaccine became available in 1988, the annual attack rate of invasive Hib disease was estimated at 64-129 cases per 100,000 children younger than 5 years. From 1989-1997, the incidence rate declined
to 0.4 cases per 100,000 children per year. With the success of the Hib conjugate vaccine, at least half of invasive H influenzae infections are now caused by the nonencapsulated strains, and Hib meningitis has almost disappeared in the United States and Canada.
During the early 1980s, in the US, the estimated incidence of H. influenzae type b was approximately 20,000 cases per year. There has been a larger than 99 percent decrease in H. influenzae type b, since the advent of the vaccine. In 1996 and 1997, only 144 cases of H. influenzae type b were reported. So please do tell me where you got your information about the decline in H influenza prior to the introduction of the vaccine?
Secondly, do you know what meningitis is? Haemophilus influenza was the leading cause of neonatal meningitis prior to 1990. This is not some random disease created by the "Gods of medicine". The history of this disease dates back to the Spanish Flu of 1918-19 where isolates where taken from individuals that had both the flu and pneumonia (hence the misnomer in the name H influenza).
Also ... the Mensa ... very interesting. The whole notion that a person can be a member because they have a high IQ. Very interesting indeed. Took the little quiz that they have associated and was told that I would have passed their admission entrance exam. So I guess I to could be a
Mensa. Just because someone has an above average IQ doesn't give them the ability to justify logically to a group of parents that it is right or wrong to vaccinate.
A. Dear D...,
Once again, you did not fully comprehend what I explained to you. I never said that Hib was declining prior to the introduction of the Hib vaccine. I said that Hib cases were low prior to the introduction of the DPT vaccine, then skyrocketed after the DPT vaccine was introduced. This is very similar to what happened with polio after diphtheria injections were introduced (as shown in Figure 1 of the polio article). Apparently, babies' immune systems were compromised after DPT and permitted opportunistic infections.
Here is a summary:
During the 1970s and 1980s, there were an estimated 16,000 to 20,000 Hib infections per year in the United States. [These figures are offered by the CDC and NIH.] Official statistics were not kept, so these figures may have been inflated when the vaccine was being developed. Hib infections occurred at a much lower rate during the 1940s and 1950s. In fact, Hib rates jumped 400 percent between 1946 and 1986. [Smith, E., et al. "Changing incidence of haemophilus influenzae meningitis." Pediatrics, 1972; 50(5):723-727. Also, Bjune, G., et al. "Effect of outer membrane vesicle vaccine against group b meningococcal disease in Norway." Lancet, 1991; 338(8775):1093-1096.] Rates tumbled beginning in the 1990s, with just 329 cases of Hib in American children under five years of age in 1994, 259 cases in 1995, and 144 cases in 1996 and 1997 combined. [CDC figures.]
What caused Hib rates to dramatically increase? Several factors indicate that mass immunization campaigns with pertussis and other non-Hib vaccines may have been responsible for the unprecedented epidemics of invasive bacterial infections, such as Hib, during the 1970s and 1980s. Let's look at some of these possible factors:
1) Introduction of the pertussis vaccine. The pertussis vaccine became available in 1936 and was put into general use during the 1940s -- a period coinciding with the start of Hib's dramatic rise. Mass immunization campaigns and mandatory state vaccine laws for entry into school were established in the 1960s.
2) The peak age of invasive Hib disease. Hib-induced meningitis peaks in children 6-7 months of age. The DTP vaccine is administered at 2, 4, and 6 months. A probable link between the DTP vaccine and invasive bacterial infections is further strengthened by data showing that the number of cases in babies less than three months old has remained stable since 1942. [Bjune, noted above.]
3) "Provocative" disease. Several studies confirm that vaccinations can "provoke" or cause new diseases. For example, in 1975 the Journal of Infectious Diseases published a study confirming "disease accentuation after immunization." [Craighead, J. E. "Report of a workshop: disease accentuation after immunization with inactivated microbial vaccines." J of Infectious Diseases, 1975; 1312(6):749-54.] More recently, the CDC conducted a study of polio victims and discovered that "a significantly higher proportion of cases [when compared to matched control children] received a DTP injection within 30 days before paralysis onset." Authors of the study concluded that DTP injections are an important cause of provocative disease. [Sutter, R., et al. "Attributable risk of DTP injection in provoking paralytic poliomyelitis during a large outbreak in Oman." Journal of Infectious Diseases, 1992; 165:444-449.]
4) The Swedish experiment. In 1979, Sweden stopped vaccinating with pertussis due to an unacceptably high incidence of adverse reactions and insufficient protective benefits. In 1986, Sweden decided to revisit the DTP controversy because a new and supposedly safer "acellular" pertussis vaccine became available. Sweden tested this new vaccine (two separate versions) on 2,840 children, and quickly ended further testing when it was discovered that the vaccine was a) insufficiently effective at preventing whooping cough, and b) responsible for causing several deaths and a statistically significant number of invasive bacterial infections. [Hinman, A., et al. "Immunization practices in developed countries." Lancet, 1990; 335:707-710. Also, Kimura, M., et al. "Acellular pertussis vaccines and fatal infections." Lancet, (April 16, 1988): pp. 881-882.]
5) Japanese data. In 1975, Japan stopped vaccinating infants with pertussis. Instead, the vaccination age was raised to two years. In 1981, Japan switched to the acellular pertussis vaccine and continued its policy of not vaccinating children under two years of age. A few years later, researchers studied meningitis mortality rates in Japan between the years of 1971 and 1985. [Kimura, noted above.] According to Dr. Viera Scheibner, research scientist, who analyzed the data, there was "a clear decline in the incidence of meningitis [in children up to two years of age] after 1975, while the incidence of the same skyrocketed in two and three year olds, clearly reflecting the consequences of the shift in vaccination age to two years." [Scheibner, V. Vaccination: 100 Years of Orthodox Research. Blackheath, Australia: Scheibner Publications, 1993; p.133.] In other words, the national mortality rate for Hib-induced meningitis declined in babies that were not vaccinated with DTP, and increased in DTP-vaccinated toddlers.
By the way, you mention that a high IQ does not provide justification for telling parents that it is right or wrong to vaccinate. We do not tell parents what to do, irregardless of our IQs. We simply provide information that they are not getting from the medical establishment and the general media. We encourage further investigation so that they can make more informed decisions.
Q. Hello, I am a new mother who is now faced with the difficult decision of whether to vaccinate my son or not. How can I be confident in the validity of the information presented on your website? None of the personal stories can be verified as there is no contact information provided. Also, why do you suppose the government would be interested in harming its citizens? What benefit is it to them? If vaccines caused disease, it seems to me it would be detrimental to the government in terms of higher health care costs, also the government could save money by not providing free vaccines.
A. We recommend that you do NOT accept anything on our website as truth until you have done your own research and determined the truth on your own.
Q. I am a journalist at work on a history of vaccination. I wanted to get in touch with Neil Z. Miller, author of Vaccines: Are they Really Safe and Effective?
A. I received your email. What would you like to discuss?
Q. I had some questions about your book. First, have you really sold more than 100,000 copies?
A. Yes, the number is now greater than 150,000 copies.
Q. I had some questions about some of the graphs and tables in your book. To take a small sample, 1) is Figure 1 actually intended to show that the DPT vaccine induced polio? What evidence for this? What single medical study or individual has ever asserted this with serious intent?
A. All of the statements in my book are documented. Your question asking me about evidence and studies showing correlations between injections and polio is very curious considering that I provided the evidence and studies in my book. See Notes 11 through 18.
Q. 2) In Figure 3, you seem to be suggesting that polio vaccination led to an increase in polio cases.
A. This is true and well-documented. If you're going to provide a history of vaccination, you can't just pick and choose which historical events you'd like to pretend didn't exist. For example, the Cutter incident is quite infamous.
Q. Would you stand by that claim, given the steady decline of polio in the United States, to the point where it hasn't been reported here in something like 30 years?
A. It is not true that polio has not been reported in the past 30 years. Where are you getting your "history" from? In fact, every case of polio in the U.S. since 1979 has been caused by the polio vaccine. This is a CDC-acknowledged fact.
Q. Or is the lack of polio reports in that year simply a matter of changed diagnosis, or a government/medical conspiracy? In other words, are you stating that we are still having the same kinds of polio epidemics we had in, say, 1952?
A. My "beliefs" are not as important as the facts. The facts are clear that the polio vaccine did cause polio (and still does wherever the oral vaccine is administered). They are also clear that polio definitions were redefined, conveying the impression that the vaccine was more effective than it really was. However, I'll also share with you my belief that some vaccines, including the polio vaccine, are capable of reducing the incidence of the disease throughout society. The more important question, however, is at what cost? For example, polio vaccine researchers permitted SV-40 to taint millions of polio vaccines. This carcinogenic monkey virus has now been proven in more than 62 studies throughout the world to be responsible for increases in several different types of cancer. Does the medical industry have the right to experiment on individuals and society as a whole? Are they permitted to determine for all of us that increases in cancer are more acceptable than risks of polio? And will you discuss SV-40 and increased cancer rates in your "history" of the polio vaccine?
Q. 3) Figure 12 argues that CRS has gone up since rubella vaccination, which you claim started in 1971. In fact rubella vaccine was licensed in 1969.
A. I never claimed that rubella vaccination started in 1971. Where are you reading this? My text and chart both indicate that rubella vaccination in the U.S. began in 1969.
Q. The MMWR issue that you site as a source for your argument [Oct 25, 1996] in fact contains a chart showing that rubella incidence dropped from 25/100,000 to something less than 1/100,000 from 1969 to 1981. In the 1964-65 outbreak there were an estimated 20,000 cases of CRS, according to the medical literature and scientists I have interviewed on the subject (as well as most of the popular literature of the day, which was full of reports of mothers agonizing over whether to abort their possibly CRS-afflicted babies). While it is true, as your graph and text state,that CRS cases spiked with 47 in 1990, that is a tiny spike compared to the mid-1960s. After that, according to the MMWR report you site, cases of CRS fell to 11 in 1992 and steadily declined afterward. There was one case of CRS reported in 2003, and the provisional count for 2004 is 0. Don't you think your chart distorts this larger picture, especially considering that you reissued your book just last year?
A. I stand by the figures I presented in the book; they came directly from official sources. You can choose undocumented estimates to create your history or you can accept the CDC's own published data, which I chose to use. Am I to be faulted for not quoting offical sources when that is convenient, and also to be faulted when I do quote official sources? Also, regarding these estimates; how are they determined? Furthermore, did you investigate to determine whether frightened pregnant women who chose to abort their babies were listed as probable CRS cases, or whether that skewed estimates of vaccine efficacy? Journalism requires investigative diligence; too many journalists today are unwitting apostles for the promotion of vested interests.
For a more thorough understanding of rubella and the rubella vaccine, I suggest reading my other book, "Vaccines, Autism and Childhood Disorders." The final chapters are devoted exclusively to measles, mumps and rubella.
Q. 4) Figure 26 says that smallpox deaths ranged from 1/5000 cases to 4/1000 in Europe in the 18th century. Your source is the Annals of Internal Medicine 10/15/97. Indeed, in the article you source has a line that reads "the ravages of smallpox were apparent in 18th c Europe, with case fatality rates ranging from 20 to 400 per 100,000 per year" but this is clearly simply a writing error. No study of smallpox in the world's history has ever described such a low fatality rate. The paragraph from which you lifted this unfortunate sentence actually begins, "The case fatality rate associated with smallpox varied between 20 percent and 60 percent and left most survivors with disfiguring scars." The sentence you use for your .0002-.004 figure concludes swith the phrase that "smallpox was responsible for 10 percent of deaths in Europe during that century." Hardly possible if case fatality rate were 1 in 5000.
I guess my larger question is this: did you mean these graphs and tables to be truthful, or simply to carry the larger argument that vaccination is not a good idea?
A. Of course I mean for all of my data to be truthful. Your question is one of philosophy and psychology that I could easily ask of you, for I believe your history will be shaded with all sorts of biases that you will accept as truths, picking and choosing what your "history" will consist of. For example, you are willing to accept estimates as facts, yet made no mention of the many doctors that I quoted in my book speaking out against the smallpox vaccine. Why do you pick some aspects of history to document and reject others?
Regarding The Annals of Internal Medicine, this is not the only source of smallpox-related data, and the section in my book on smallpox only covers a small fraction of what I have discovered. I have written on this topic more extensively elsewhere. (I will go back and re-read the Annals article. Did you contact the publisher and/or authors to question them on the perceived inconsistencies?)
Regarding my goals, they are very simple: to provide parents and health practitioners with important documented data that may not conform with ubiquitous medical propaganda so that they may begin the process of thinking for themselves when making important health-related decisions.
Q. THE CUTTER INCIDENT, AND MANY OTHER MISHAPS OF VACCINATION, ARE WELL COVERED IN MY BOOK. MINE IS NO WHITEWASH OF HISTORY. HOWEVER THE CUTTER INCIDENT, TRAGIC AND AWFUL AND FULL OF HUBRIS AS IT WAS, DID NOT CAUSE AN OVERALL INCREASE IN POLIO, DESPITE WHAT YOU SAY. IT CAUSED SOMETHING LIKE 260 CASES OF POLIO AND WAS AN ISOLATED INCIDENT. THE TREND, EVEN IN THE YEAR OF THE CUTTER INCIDENT, WAS A DRAMATIC DECREASE IN THE NUMBER OF POLIO CASES.
[Regarding your statement that] "...every case of polio in the U.S. since 1979 has been caused by the polio vaccine." YOU ARE RIGHT ABOUT THAT, AND IT REPRESENTS AN OMMISSION IN MY EMAIL THOUGH NOT IN MY BOOK. HOWEVER VAPP ACCOUNTED FOR SOMETHING LIKE 10 CASES OF POLIO A YEAR IN THE US. AND IN CASE YOU DIDN'T NOTICE, THE ORAL POLIO VACCINE IS NO LONGER GIVEN IN THIS COUNTRY--WAS STOPPED IN 1997, I BELIEVE.
[Regarding your question whether I will discuss SV-40 and increased cancer rates in my "history" of the polio vaccine?] AD HOMINEM AGAIN -- FEELING A BIT DEFENSIVE, ARE WE? YES I WILL MENTION SV-40 IN MY BOOK. IN FACT I INTERVIEWED HILLEMAN ABOUT IT AND LISTENED TO SEVERAL ARCHIVED INTERVIEWS WITH BERNICE EDDY. I'LL ALSO MENTION HOW LIES AND SHALLOWLY RESEARCHED, INTENTIONALLY MISLEADING BOOKS CAN HAVE AN IMPACT ON GULLIBLE, POORLY INFORMED PEOPLE AND EVEN SMART PEOPLE WHO DON'T HAVE THE TIME TO LOOK UP THE ACTUAL DATA THEMSELVES.
[Regarding my use of undocumented estimates] I'M REFERRING TO THE VERY SAME MMWR REPORT THAT YOU SOURCE FOR YOUR MISLEADING POINT ABOUT THE "INCREASE" IN CRS CASES DURING THE 1989-91 RUBELLA OUTBREAK. THE 20,000 CASES FROM 64-66 IS AN ESTIMATE. IT MAY HAVE BEEN ONLY 10,000. OR IT MIGHT HAVE BEEN 30,000. EVEN IF IT WAS ONLY 5,000, DON'T YOU THINK THAT'S KIND OF A LOT MORE THAN 47? YOU CHOSE TO PRESENT MISLEADING DATA BASED ON A TINY SLICE OF THE TIMELINE OF RUBELLA INCIDENCE IN THE UNITED STATES. THERE IS NO WAY THAT ANY FAIR-MINDED INDIVIDUAL COULD TAKE WHAT YOU'VE DONE WITH THAT CHART, COMPARE IT TO THE ACTUAL DATA IN THE SOURCE YOU MENTION, AND NOT CONCLUDE THAT YOU ARE TWISTING THE TRUTH. [The estimates] ARE DETERMINED BY THE FACT THAT DOCTORS IN NEW YORK CITY, FOR EXAMPLE, TREATED OR OBSERVED THE MISCARRIAGE OF MORE THAN 1000 CRS BABIES. THAT DATA, PLUS DATA FROM OTHER CITIES, WAS USED TO MAKE AN ESTIMATE.
[Regarding journalism requiring investigative diligence, and your comment that too many journalists today are unwitting apostles for the promotion of vested interests.] OH YES - BRING IN THE "VESTED INTERESTS." WHEN YOU CAN'T DEFEAT THE ARGUMENT, ATTACK THE PERSON MAKING IT. WERE THAT I HAD SOME VESTED INTERESTS. BUT THE FACT IS I'VE SPENT SEVERAL YEARS BURNING UP DEBT TO CAREFULLY INVESTIGATE THESE DIFFICULT ISSUES AS CAREFULLY AS I CAN. I INTERVIEW PEOPLE ON ALL SIDES OF THE ISSUE. I READ AS MUCH AS I CAN. YOU'VE SOLD 120,000 COPIES OF YOUR BOOK? WOW. TALK ABOUT VESTED INTERESTS. GOOD FOR YOU. I SAW YOUR BOOK ON HEALTH FOOD STORE SHELVES THROUGHOUT COLORADO AS I WENT AROUND INVESTIGATING THE LATEST PERTUSSIS UPSWING THERE THIS WINTER. DO YOU EVER THINK ABOUT THE CASES OF INFANTILE PERTUSSIS YOU ARE PROBABLY HELPING TO BRING ABOUT? I WISH I HAD THE GALL TO PUT OUT A PIECE OF JUNK LIKE THE ONE YOU'RE RAKING IN THE BUCKS ON.
A. I was hoping your letter would be intelligently and respectfully formulated.
However, it is full of emotional rantings. You accuse me of the very things
that you are doing. Psychologists call this "projection." For example, my
question to you about SV-40 and whether it would be included in your history
was sincere. I wanted to know if you were planning to include polio debacles
as well as the official story. (I'm still not sure how you're planning to
address the debacles, but I have some pretty good ideas.) You assert: AD
HOMINEM AGAIN -- FEELING A BIT DEFENSIVE, ARE WE? Then you proceed to attack
me rather than the data I presented. This continues with increasing venom as
your letter continues. Also, no one accused you of having vested interests;
your emotional state didn't allow you to comprehend what I was saying. I
called you an unwitting apostle of vested interests. All of this causes me
to suspect that you have secret misgivings regarding your own selective use
of information to formulate your history.
The bottom line is that much of what has been documented as fact regarding
vaccines is simply a whitewash of the truth. For example, the cutter
incident was hardly a fluke; there were numerous cases that were never
included in the offical figures. Generally, the vaccine industry only admits
to the bare minimum of culpability when they get caught with their pants
down. Unofficial damage from vaccines is extensive. I've been studying
vaccines for 20 years. I have no bones to pick with anybody; my children
were not damaged from the shots. Our website receives unsolicited stories of
vaccine damage every day. The stories we post are a fraction of those we
receive. I see the patterns that exist when new vaccines are introduced and
when changes are made to existing vaccines and vaccine schedules. Many of
the children damaged from the shots are not reported to the CDC and FDA
VAERS database. Doctors and other vaccine-promoters (yourself included) find
it convenient to label vaccine damage as temporal associations. Many studies
are not scientifically conducted; they are bogus papers with pre-conceived
results by paid consultants to the vaccine industry. This is well-known. The
committees for recommending and licensing vaccines, run by the CDC and FDA,
are corrupt. I've known this for years; Congress proved it a few years ago.
The U.S. infant mortality rate increases every time new vaccines are added
to the schedule. Write about this in your history. Children are sicker than
they've ever been. I am not the only one railing against a corrupt industry
that is ruining families and damaging generations of children. Autism is
linked to vaccines despite the bogus studies and medical coverup, just as
SIDS is mostly related to vaccines as well. Truth is truth whether we agree
or disagree, debate the subject, or bury our heads in the sand.
Again, I am not the only one railing against an archaic system for achieving
health. Talk to Dr. Mercola. His website is listed on our links page. He is
a medical doctor who understands the damage being inflicted on our children.
Talk to Dr. Buttram who wrote a forward to my book. He is a family doctor
who originally recommended vaccines until he saw what they were doing. Talk
to Dr. Tenpenny. She gives lectures on the problems with vaccines throughout
the world. She made a DVD that shows her giving a seminar; it is quite
good. You may wish to acquire it. Talk to Dr. Cave. She has a bestselling
vaccine book that uncovers the shadow side of this industry. Look it up on
Amazon. Talk to Guillain Lanctot, a medical doctor. When she wrote a
bestselling book speaking out against vaccines (The Medical Mafia), they
took her license away. This is one reason many doctors learn to keep quiet;
why throw away years of medical school, one's livelihood, and be ostracized
from the medical brotherhood? So when non-doctors speak out, they are told
they have no credibility, but when doctors venture to speak their minds,
they are ostracized from the community or lose their licenses. That's a
rigged, corrupt system, and children are the victims.
If vaccines are as wonderful as you and the industry believe, why do they
need to be mandated? Under normal circumstances, most people naturally
gravitate to that which benefits them.
By the way, regarding sales of my book, 120,000 copies over 15 years or so,
hardly qualifies as raking in the bucks. (If I really wanted the big bucks,
I'd manufacture vaccines.) My motivation is not monetary; in fact, I'd
rather be doing something else, and I am moving in that direction, but I
recognize my current role. I look forward to the others who are now joining
the ranks of those speaking out, and authors whose books will contribute to
the necessary public dialogue.
Q. I by no means have a closed mind toward the victims of vaccination. Read my Washington Post Magazine article in 1998. Nor do I lack understanding for parents who believe their children were victims of vaccination, whether or not on balance the evidence supports their conclusions. Read my New York Times Magazine article about thimerosal in November 2002. There are lots of reasons to have doubts about vaccination, and I intend to write about them in my book.
On balance, for any parent the decision on whether to vaccinate has to be one of balancing risks and benefits however they perceive them. If people on balance feel that a vaccine, or vaccination in general, isn't worthwhile, I support their right to exempt their children. But some writers, you included, have created a false sense of that balance for your audience, by distorting the historical record. You downplay the effects of infectious disease and downplay the efficacy record of vaccines.
A. I would argue that the medical industry is responsible for distorting the historical record and that some writers, like myself, have served to re-establish a small degree of balance to the dialogue. And yes, I do downplay some infectious disease. For example, before the chickenpox vaccine was introduced, doctors would recommend exposing your child to the disease. After the vaccine was introduced, doctors received their instructions from the CDC and are now warning parents how dangerous this disease is! What a sad joke. The rationale for introducing the vaccine was that mothers would no longer have to tend to their sick children. Yet, I receive numerous emails -- and there are many VAERS reports -- attesting to the serious problems this vaccine is causing -- all for the love of money. Shingles in the recipients and in close contacts of the recipients, with reactivations when the immune system is low, are common. You are also correct that I downplay the efficacy record of vaccines because many factors culminated to lower the incidence of some diseases. What is your explanation for the disappearance of scarlet fever when no vaccine was introduced? Furthermore, efficacy is irrelevant if the immune system is compromised and new ailments are created in the process. Vaccination -- the process of injecting live viruses, bacteria and chemical substances into an otherwise healthy individual -- is a barbaric practice that will appear obvious to the masses in due time. It is an unscientific belief system kept alive by the faithful and priestly medical caste (and with laws mandating mass subjection!), complete with baptismal indoctrination into the system beginning at birth.
By the way, did you read the studies showing that DPT injections provoke polio? Will this be in your history? This is important for understanding how vaccines are created to control diseases that were caused by vaccines. I document this cyclic hooliganism with the Hib vaccine as well.
I'm enclosing a peer-reviewed Research Paper on Polio that I recently wrote for Medical Veritas.