New Publication
Homeopathy in Intensive Care
and Emergency Medicine
Homeopathy First Magazine
Best Vitamin C Drink 
Learn More With Caralyn 


Homeopathy World Community

Creating Waves of Awareness

Introduction 2009:
This article was first published more than 15 years ago, yet it has not lost its significance. It does not condemn vaccination, but raises important issues and draws some valid conclusions.

Th. Quak. Translated by Hans Weitbrecht

Much has been, and still is, reported on complications following vaccinations. Among others, the literature describes the following (rare) Vaccination Induced Side Effects (VISE) of the MMR and polio vaccinations: Local erythemas (inflammation of the skin), Fever, Irritability, Tiredness, General rashes (acute urticaria), Conjunctivitis, Arthropathies (Arthritis like Symptoms), Peripheral tremor, Cough and/or coryza, Post-vaccine meningitis (aseptic meningitis), Guillain-Barre syndrome, Brachial neuritis (Pain of the nerves of the underarm), Anaphylactic shock (sudden collapse, live threatening), Multiple sclerosis, Chronic arthritis.

Most feared are lasting damages like the consequences of a post-vaccine meningitis and life threatening diseases like anaphylactic shock. The short lasting smaller side effects are usually interpreted as the normal reaction of the immune system to the attenuated disease (i.e. the vaccine) and therefore regarded as harmless. Since, according to available statistical data, the "side-effects" of the real diseases are much more frequent than those of the vaccination, the following conclusion is commonly drawn: vaccinations prevent more damage than they cause and are therefore of considerable benefit to society.

Side-effects of vaccinations

Legally, only symptoms, which appear within a certain well-defined time (normally a few days or weeks) after the vaccination, and thereby suggest a causal link to it, are considered to be side effects of the vaccination (VISE). Symptoms that develop slowly or only after considerable time are difficult to link to the vaccination because of the multitude of other environmental influences to which the patient is exposed in this period. Since data on these delayed effects are difficult or impossible to treat in a statistically meaningful way, these side-effects are not recognized as caused by the vaccination: up to the year 1991 "only" 1870 patients in Germany filed claims based on VISE under the BSeuchG [21] (German bill for the prevention of the spreading of infectious disease). According to Buchwald [31], until 1992, 3407 cases of VISE have been legally confirmed in Germany. This corresponds to a prevalence of 4.3 per 100,000 .. For the population of Germany this translates into about 170 confirmed VISE per year. The number of filed claims is of course much higher.

Gathering data on long-term VISE requires very expensive and labour intensive observations over long time periods. Those would only be useful, however, if comparable groups of vaccinated and unvaccinated subjects were available for long term study. Many ethical and forensic problems arise at this point. Furthermore, it is difficult to find a sufficient number of unvaccinated people. There are no long-term studies comparing vaccinated and unvaccinated groups.

An important factor in the assessment of how frequently VISE occur is that: how much attention is given to the observation of VISE and how frequently side-effects are brought in connection with vaccination in general. The editorial of the J. Med. Microbiol. [11] comments: "The rate of post-vicinal meningitis varies between studies and may be dependent on how hard the investigators try to uncover such cases." This comment was made with respect to a study on the MMR vaccination in the United Kingdom. In this study the authors show that the risk of aseptic meningitis is not, as previously thought, between 0.4 and 10 per million, but rather between 100 and 11000 per million vaccinated[16]. This is a shockingly high number of complications [32], since in this case everybody, without exception, comes into contact with the (attenuated) virus; not just a part of the population as with the naturally occurring disease.

Between the introduction of the MMR vaccination in the UK in 1988 with the so-called Urabe-Mumps-Strain (sold under the brand names Pluserix and Rimparix in Germany before they were removed from the market in 1992) until the realization of the high risk involved, several years elapsed until this strain was replaced by a different one (Jeryl Lynn) in 1992. It is generally assumed that this strain does not, or not as frequently, lead to aseptic meningitis, even though cases of meningitis have already been reported for this particular vaccine [26].


Surprisingly, there are different strains of the vaccines in use against the same disease.This is the result of different production methods. All vaccines in use today contain live, attenuated viruses (as do measles, polio, rubella, influenza, yellow-fever, chickenpox).

The "transmutation" (attenuation) of a virulent wild strain into a vaccine is today still an empirical process. The virus is subject to several passages in various cell cultures under non-optimal growth conditions. Through this process the virus changes some of its specific properties, yet it remains however a "live" virus. The mechanism involved in this attenuation is unknown. Following that, a few safety investigations are made and the reactivity and efficacy is tested on laboratory animals and volunteers.

This process basically has not changed since the early experiments with vaccines during Pasteur's time. Pasteur, for example, developed a rabies vaccine [52] by cultivating the virus in rabbits and "attenuating" it through variable length of exposures to air. It was this still incomplete method that made Pasteur famous and at the same time ill reputed since many people died from rabies caused by the vaccination itself [57].

In the case of cowpox vaccination, which has been abandoned in our latitudes, the origin of the virus contained in the vaccine is not even known. The original vaccine from cowpox used to be transferred from child to child because there was no way of conserving it. Re-cultivation on cows was only successfully accomplished after several decades. In the meantime, attenuation of the vaccine had been achieved in thousands of human bodies -- a very dangerous process indeed, since not only the cowpox virus was transmitted but also all other infectious diseases of the person. "This vaccine is molecular-biologically significantly different from the chickenpox virus as well as the cowpox virus." [58]

Nowadays there are different vaccines,(depending the manufacturing processes), sold by various companies, all with differing properties. However, the molecular basis of the active principle is in most cases still unknown. The natural virus can not be distinguished by serological methods from the attenuated virus. The Urabe mumps virus and the Jeryl mumps virus are identical on that basis. Only through the modern technique of gene sequencing has it recently been possible to identify several differences. It is, however, still unknown why one strain is more reactive than the other. Also unknown is how these genetic differences come about during the process of attenuation. After all, the injection of a live, attenuated virus is a process involving many unknowns and non-predictables. Still this is taken as the as the lesser of two evils due to the alleged success fighting the so-called mass epidemics.

Reaction of the Immune System

It is important to realize that the reaction of the immune system to the injected vaccine is only known partially: "It has been observed frequently that antibody levels do not go hand in hand with immunity to the disease... The investigation of the second branch of immunity, the cell mitigated immune response, has been technically much more difficult and turned out to be very complex ... There exists now a large number of experimental data and insights into the different mechanisms of the cell mitigated immune response including their interactions among each other and with the humoral immune system. Despite that fact, we have only fragmentary knowledge about the concrete role of the cell mitigated immune response to an infection by isolated pathogens in the human body." [58, p270].

The following conclusions are of great importance:

1. The potentially disease-provoking properties of a vaccine are unknown (the structure of the genome is not known).

2. The reaction of the immune system to the injected vaccine is not known in any detail.

3. The interaction of the altered state of the immune system after the vaccination with other variables is unknown.

We don't know which long-term consequences may arise from this, because studies are mostly focused on short-term reactions to the vaccination. There are, however, indications of long-term side effects of the immunization.

Long-term Consequences

The occurrence of arthralgias ( muscular pain) has been documented since the first studies about the rubella vaccination [1-10]. Based on these studies the Institute of Medicine states: "The committee concludes that a causal connection exists between the RA 27/3 rubella vaccination strain and incidents of chronic arthritis in women." "Thompson et al. report: arthralgias in 1973 on 11 children with recurrent arthritis which lasted at least for 36 months after vaccination with HPV 77; other cases of potential arthritis have since then reported, some with the RA 27/3 strain." [12].

Arthralgias and arthritic affections occur frequently in connection with diseases for which auto-immune reactions 9 A situation where the immune system attacks healthy body cells) are responsible. Examples are Systemic Lupus Erythematodes (SLE), sclerodermia, Sharp-syndrome, polymyositis [23], or rheumatoid arthritis (Aids, Cancer). It would be advisable to study the connection between activation of the immune system and auto-immune diseases, since the number of diseases in this class is large and grows steadily with our increase in knowledge of their pathophysiology: Thyreoiditis Hashimoto. Primary myxedema. Pernicious anemia. Auto-immune atrophic gastritis. Morbus Addison. Premature menopause. Goodpasture syndrome. Myasthenia gravis. Sterility in men. Pemphigus vulgaris. Sympathic ophtalmias. Multiple sclerosis. Auto-immune hemolytic anemia. Primary biliary scirrhosis. Uclerative colitis. Sjogren syndrome, etc.

We know that immunizations can lead to deterioration in existing auto-immune diseases [23]. The symptoms that the body exhibits in these cases because of its specific predisposition, are an indication of a weakness in the regulatory system. They are usually overlooked in the "still" healthy person, yet probably present nonetheless (Coulter refers to these cases as "cracked eggs"). "It is generally advisable to abstain from active immunization with live vaccines in the cases of patients with auto-immune diseases or chronic inflammatory processes and vaccinate only in special circumstances and in the presence of strong indications." [23] Further:

"It is not aberrant to assume that immunizations, being a considerable interference with the regulation of the immunologic network, can influence the progression of vasculitic illnesses." 23]

Even direct side effects are known: "Ten of 1000,000 vaccinated Americans developed auto-immune post-vaccine encephalitis or peripheral neuritis (Guillain-Barre syndrome) one or two weeks after immunization with attenuated influenza (Flue-) vaccine." [64].

However, it has been difficult to prove that immunizations are actively involved in the emergence of auto-immune diseases, because these illnesses develop after a considerable latency period. Furthermore, studies, in particular if they are supposed to be predictive, have not been carried out so far.

Patho-Mechanism (Ways in which disease organizes itself)

It is high time to launch these important studies, since a patho-mechanism which might be involved in causing such auto-immune diseases has been known for a long time: the cross-reaction between foreign pathogens (or vaccines), and body chemistry and tissues, so-called molecular mimicri [59]. One can imagine such a relationship between body tissues and foreign matter on three planes:

"1. Between two types of cells, tissues, or micro organisms (e.g., bacteria or viruses), if they use a similar or identical kind of molecule in their structure.

2. Between two antigen molecules if, on their surface, they have besides different also identical determinants.

3. Between two determinants, if they are sufficiently similar to react with the same antibody. In this case the group homologue to the antibody will react strongly while the differently configured determinate (F1 generation) will yield a weaker reaction."

All these possibilities apply to vaccines or their constituents. If one introduces antigenes into the body (e.g., through vaccination) which have similar structural groups as some body tissue, even if the similarity is only partial, the production of antibodies in the sense of an auto-immune reaction is possible. A well known medical example for this process is the cross reactivity between poly-saccharine of the cell membrane of beta-hemeolytic streptococci and the human cortical valve during rheumatic fever. In this case, damage to the valve can occur by means of antibody production.

One may remark that the natural infections can trigger autoimmune reactions, too. However, it needs to be pointed out that vaccination induced infection differs from the natural one in three ways, and therefore possesses a different antigen makeup from the latter:

1. The pathway of infection is different from the natural disease (i.e., direct confrontation with the antigenes by intramuscularly injection).

2. The time of infection is determined by the time of vaccination (e.g., all children in the third month), not by the susceptibility of the body or the "random" contact with the virus (readiness of the immune system).

3. The vaccine is an artificial product with additives modifying the action of the pathogen (modified antigen makeup).

For these reasons, vaccination and natural disease are difficult to compare with respect to their risk potential. Both harbour their own risks.

Another point should not be neglected: it is possible to develop tolerance to certain antigenes, the exact opposite of what has been described so far [27]. This principle is exploited by desensitising techniques used therapeutically against hay fever and allergic asthma: the patient is injected with small doses of the allergen (pollen, dust mites, etc.) in order to make them adept to it.

In a similar manner, the body may develop a tolerance for things that it would normally eliminate due to their harmful nature. Along these lines one could imagine a weakening of the immune response against certain pathogens, e.g., cancer cells:

"A derailment of the immune system may be responsible for the development of various tumours." [60] "Animal experiments have shown that the foetus, with its immature immune system, can develop a tolerance by exposing it to antigenes." [61] However, the exact time when the immune system has matured fully is unknown, and "other factors like age, genetic background, and nutritional status" [27] are also relevant to the induction of a tolerance.

Furthermore, the exact mechanisms leading to a antigen tolerance are still mostly in the dark. Therefore, according to current understanding, there exists a real possibility to develop a tolerance to surface antigenes of tumour cells induced by vaccines exhibiting a cross-reaction with tumour antigenes. As a consequence, tumour (cancer) cells would not be effectively recognized by the immune system and hence also not fully eliminated.

Especially when one thinks about the DTP immunization (Diphtheria, Tetanus, Whooping cough), which is given in the third month, such reactions seem possible. We don't yet fully understand the highly sensitive interplay between fight and tolerance in our immune system. What consequences our interference from outside bears is impossible to predict. Further study is badly needed in this area since we know of numerous other mechanisms involved in the development of autoimmune diseases (e.g., formation of immune complexes after infection following vaccination [64], etc.).

Purity of Vaccines

Another important issue is the purity of the vaccine. As already shown, several vaccines (MMR, polio) are produced by attenuation in living organisms or cell cultures (kidney cell cultures of monkeys). Despite the utmost cleanliness strived for, it is technologically impossible to exclude all possible risks of contamination entirely.

One such risk is, for example, the infestation of the sample by various viruses (slow virus, BSE, retro- viruses, onco-viruses, etc.) or mycoplasms (candida), all of which are difficult or impossible to detect because of their specific properties. "Virus contaminated cell cultures are a significant problem of the bio-industry." [28] In addition, the latency period of diseases caused by these contaminants is long enough. A causal connection is almost impossible to detect.
Live vaccines possess a higher risk of contamination with microorganisms than other vaccines. Oncogenetic (Cancer-causing) viruses are, for example, present in mammalian cell strains used in vaccine production. [64]

Live vaccines attenuated by conventional procedures are commonly carriers of unknown genetic modifications. Particularly when these modifications are only minor, like localized mutations, the danger of back mutation into a pathogenetic virus is possible. The difference, for example, between the Sabin strain and one of the virulent poliomyelitis strains is only the addition of one nucleotide. The mutation into neuro-virulent strains occurred with rabies vaccines and Sabin-polio strains (oral vaccination) of types 2 and 3 [64]. Another drawback of live vaccines lies in their possibility of complementation or recombination with closely related wild strains or vaccine strains. The likelihood and possible consequences of this are totally unknown.

Reference [64] poses important thoughts to the issue of vaccination risks.
Because vaccines are applied million-fold on entire populations, overlooked viral contaminations, back mutations, new mutations of the attenuated vaccine, or insufficient attenuation of the pathogene may have disastrous consequences for a large number of people. [30] Big immunization accidents happen not infrequently. Here are a few examples taken from the history of medicine: 102 people contracted encephalitis and 17 died 1944 in Brazzaville due to a yellow fever vaccination. A yellow fever vaccination contaminated with hepatitis virus was conducted in the US in 1942. The consequence was 28585 cases of hepatitis and 62 deaths. In 1955, the so-called Cutter incidence: 250 cases of polio and 10 deaths, due to active pathogenes in the vaccine. 1960 in Berlin, within four weeks there were 25 cases of paralytic poliomyelitis reported, after using an insufficiently attenuated vaccine. [56] Finally, 1988-92 the increase in encephalitis cases after MMR vaccination.

Undesirable reactions to vaccinations are often the consequence of toxic substances in the vaccine, "of contaminants which are not antigenes and have been introduced in the preparation of the vaccine (like, e.g., substances used in cell cultures on which the vaccine virus grows, or insufficiently purified bacteriological antigenes), or in-vivo replications of the viral or bacterial organisms. Hypersensitivity reactions may conceivably be due to additives to the vaccine, like, for example, neomycin in the MMR-vaccine or the mercury contained in Thimerosal, a preservative used in the DTP-vaccine." [25].

Development of Allergies

In today's paediatric practice(Children’s clinic) we try hard to delay a possible allergen contact of the baby in order to avoid hyper-allergic reactions later on (e.g. eczema, hay fever, allergic asthma, recently also hyper kinetic syndrome). A study of more than 2000 children showed that feeding them with cow milk during the first 9 months resulted in 7 times more frequent complaints of eczema afterwards [62]. Therefore, there are a large number of hypo allergic nutritional products on the market, used by many parents, even though the study could not confirm a connection between ingestion of milk protein and occurrence of eczema.

On the other hand, the children are already at a very early age aggressively exposed to foreign proteins (allergen’s) in the form of immunizations: BCG ( Tuberculosis) diphtheria, tetanus, pertussis, poliomyelitis, hemophilus influenzae, measles, mumps, rubella, meningitis and all the corresponding booster shots. Adding to this is the fact that the vaccines (with the exception of polio) come in direct contact with the blood circulation and hence are not subject to a antigen modification by, e.g., the gastro-intestinal tract.

Seeking to avoid contacts with allergenes on one hand, while massively promoting it on the other hand by means of vaccinations seems inconsistent. At least there ought to be studies aimed at investigating the connection between immunizations and subsequent atopias.

The Meaning of Childhood Diseases

What role the so-called childhood diseases play in the development of children has been subject of many discussions. Reports of developmental leaps are frequent, yet usually very subjective. There are, however, some observations that childhood diseases do not just harbour risks but can be quite useful.

In Annals of Tropical Paediatrics [53] the following case is reported: "1984 a 5 year old girl presented with a bad case of psoriasis( Form of Eczema). She showed large affected areas on her body and extremities, also involving to a significant degree her scalp. During the following year she was treated by Paediatricians and Dermatologists with coal tar preparations, local steroids, UV light, and dithranol wraps. Despite these therapies and two hospitalisations, the psoriasis was refractory and remained essentially unchanged until she came down with measles. As the measles rash began to spread over her skin, the psoriasis disappeared. Since then she has been free of psoriasis."

Another startling effect is described in Am. J. Med. Hyg.: "The prevalence of parasites and average density of malaria parasites is significantly lower in children who have had measles or influenza before the age of 9 than in the a symptomatic control group." [54]

An article taken from the Lancet, 1985, [55] may be of decisive importance: "Persons who have never had any visible indication of measles, i.e., never developed the skin rash of measles, suffer more frequently from non measles associated diseases." "The data show a highly significant correlation between lack of measles exanthema and auto-immune diseases, seborrhoeic (washing detergent related) skin diseases, degenerative diseases of the bones and certain tumours... We think that the rash is caused by a cell mitigated immune reaction, which destroys the cells infected with the measles virus. If this is correct, the missing exanthema may indicate that intracellular virus components have escaped neutralization during the acute infection. This may later lead to the aforementioned diseases... The presence of specific antibodies at the time of infection interferes with the normal immune response against the measles virus, in particular with the development of the specific cell mitigated immunity (and/or cyto-toxic reactions). The intracellular measles virus can then survive the acute infection and cause diseases manifesting in the adult age."
If the infection with measles happens at a time when there are already antibodies against the measles virus present, i.e., within the first few months after birth, or after administration of measles immune serum because of contact with measles, or after antibody production following vaccination, the immune system cannot react fully to the infection, leaving the virus the chance to become persistent.

If vaccinated children contract measles from the wild strain, the possibility exists that the infection will be overlooked in them, since they do not exhibit the typical signs of measles anymore. It is impossible to say how common these latent measles infections are; finding the connection between latent measles and a disease at adult age is impossible. If this suspicion proves to be true, the merit of the measles vaccination has to be re-evaluated entirely.

Level of Protection

A last word to the level of protection: parents who have their children immunized assume that they will not contract the diseases covered by the vaccine. Unfortunately this is not true to the degree that most parents assume.

Some examples:
A population in the Gaza strip, which was vaccinated to a density of 90%, suffered 2 outbreaks of poliomyelitis, 1974 and 1976. In these epidemics 34% and 50%, respectively, of all sick children had received 3-4 doses of the vaccine. The incidence of diseases was 18 per 100,000 [35].
Hungary had a vaccination program which reached a 93% vaccination density in the target population. A measles epidemic occurred in 1981. In contrast to earlier epidemics, the majority of the sick were vaccinated persons, i.e., about 60%.

During another epidemic between September 1988 and December 1989, there were 17938 cases of measles recorded (attack rate of 169 per 100,000), with the majority of cases reported in the vaccinated population (attack rates for the populations vaccinated in 1971 and 1972 were 1332 and 1632 per 100,000, respectively). The status of immunization was known of 12890 (76%) cases of measles. Of these, 8006 (62%) had been vaccinated. [29]

A measles epidemic broke out in an entirely vaccinated population of about 4200 students of three schools in the USA [38]. Further cases from the U.S. have been reported [46, 47, 48, 49, 50, 51]
Despite a vaccination density of 96%, Fife, Scotland, was afflicted by a measles epidemic in 1991/92. This was followed shortly thereafter by outbreaks of measles in other parts of the country, notwithstanding the high MMR vaccination density [45].

In Nashville, Tennessee (USA), occurred a large-scale mumps outbreak in the vaccinated population [43]. It has been shown that the immunization against mumps provides in many cases only a 75% protection [39, 40, 43]. Mumps is nowadays regarded to be a mild disease [41, 42].

In conclusion, we may say the following:

1. Vaccinations modulate the immune system. What exactly happens lies beyond the capabilities of today's scientific analysis.

2. In particular, long-term consequences of vaccinations are unknown because their existence is difficult to prove statistically

3. So-called minimal lesions [63] and their consequences are not included in statistical studies of vaccination-induced side effects.

4. Vaccinations do not give complete protection from the disease.

The decisive question one has to ask is whether the expected short-term benefit of vaccinations outweighs the potential long-term damage.

We all tend to concern ourselves only with the problems at hand. Illnesses and diseases, which threaten us, now are more important in our eyes than possible complaints in the future. The fear of post-measles encephalitis is bigger than the fear of the rheumatic pain of the 30 or 40-year-old adult. If, however, there is indeed a connection between vaccinations and autoimmune diseases or tumour growth, it is questionable whether the cost-benefit analysis of today is still applicable.

Considering that homeopathic treatment and prophylaxis can reduce the number of sequels in childhood diseases significantly, the practice of vaccination becomes even more doubtful.
Knowledge of the nature of chronic diseases as described by Hahnemann are prone to make the homeopathic physician very sceptical towards introducing pathogenes into the human body. (S. Hahnemann, Chronic Diseases, theoretical part)

Confirming Hahnemann's insights, the collective experiences of seasoned homeopathic physicians show that vaccinations pose an obstacle to cure, and that diseases frequently take their course after a vaccination. Furthermore, childhood diseases are usually managed easily, and unvaccinated children undergo a less complicated development as their vaccinated counterparts.

1. HOWSON CP, Adverse effects of Pertussis and Rubella Vaccines. Washington, DC; National Academy Press 1991
2. BARNES EK, Joint Reactions in children vaccinated against Rubella. Sudy II: Comparison of three vaccines. Am J Epidemiol 19972;95; 59-66.
3. COOPER LZ, Transient Arthritis after Rubella Vaccination, Am J Dis Child, 1969,118; 218-25
4. HORSTMANN DM, Post-Partum Vaccination of Rubella-susceptible Women, Lancet 1970;2; 1003-6
5. LERMANN SJ, Immunologic response, virus excretion and joint reactions with rubella vaccine, Ann Intern Med 1971;74;67-73
6. SPRUANCE SL, Joint complications associated with derivates of HPV-77 rubella virus vaccine, Am J Dis Child 1971:122: 105-11
7. SWARTZ TA, Clinical manifestations, according to age, among females given HPV-77 duck rubella vaccine. Am J Epidemiol 1971; 94; 246-51
8. THOMPSON GR, Acute arthritis complicating rubella vaccination, Arthritis Rheum 1971;14;19-26
9. WALLACE RB, Joint symptoms following an area wide rubella immunization campaign: report of a survey. Am J Public Health 1972;62; 658-61
10. WEIBEL RE, Influence of age on clinical response to HPV 77 duck rubella vaccine. JAMA 1972,222; 805-7
11. FORSEY T, Mumps vaccines-current status, J Med Microbiol, 41,1994,1-2
12. STRATTON KR, Adverse events associated with chilhood vaccines other than pertussis and rubella, JAMA, May 25, 271, No20, 1602-1605
13. FORSEY T, Mumps vaccines and meningitis, Lancet, 340, oct 17, 1992, 980
14. GRAY JA, Mumps meningitis following measles, mumps and rubella immunisation, Lancet, July 8, 1989, 98
15. MORRIS K, Gauillain Barre Syndrom after measles, mumps and rubella vaccine, Lancet, 343, Jan 1.1994,60
16. MILLER E, Risk of aseptic meningitis after measles, mumps and rubella vaccine in UK children, Lancet 341, April 17,1993,979-994
17. BUSINCO L, Measles, mumps, rubella immunization in egg-allergic children, Annals of Allergy, 72, Jan, 1994, 1-3
18. HOWSON CP, Chronic Arthritis after rubella vaccination, Clin Inf Dis, 15, 1992, 307-12
19. WYATT HV, Vaccine associated poliomyelitis, Lancet, 343, March 5, 1994, 609-10
20. SUTTER RW, Adverse Reaction to tetanus toxoid, JAMA, 271, May 25, 1994, 1629
21.ZASTROW KD, Tetanus-Erkrankungen, Impfungen und Impfschäden in der Bundesrepublik Deutschland 1971 bis 1990, Dtsch med Wschr., 118, 1993, 1617-1620
22. PELTOLA H, Frequenzy of true adverse reactions to measles, mumps, rubella vaccine, Lancet, april 26, 1986, 939-942
23. KALDEN JR; GERTH HJ, Polymyalgia rheumatica und Grippe Impfung, DMW 1992, 117, 1259
24. FORSEY T, Mumps vaccines -current Status, J Med Microbiol, 41, 1994, 1-2
25. GILSDORF JR, Vaccines: Moving into the molecular era, J Pediatr, Sept. 1994, 125, 339-44
26. EHRENGUT W; Komplikationen "nach" Mumpsschutzimpfungen in der Bundesrepublik Deutschland, Monatsschr. Kinderheilk, 1989, 137, 398-402
27. FRIEDMANN A, Oral Tolerance: A biologically relevant pathway to generate peripheral tolerance against external and self antigens, Chem Immunol, 1994, 58, 259-290.
28. RIVERA E, A new method for rapidly removing contaminating micro-organism from porcine parvovirus or pseudorabies virus master-seed suspensions, Vaccine 1993, 11(3), 363-5
29. AGOCS MM, The 1988-1989 measles epidemic in Hungary: assessment of vaccine failure, Int J Epidemiol 1992 oct, 21 (5), 1007-13
30. BROWN F, Review of accidents caused by incomplete inactivation of viruses, Dev Biol Stand, 1993, 81 (1), 103-7
31. BUCHWALD G, Impfen- Das Geschäft mit der Angst, 1994, EMU-Verlag.
32. CLARE D, Families win support for vaccine compensation claim, BMJ, Vol. 309, 24. Sept. 1994, 759.
33. BERR C, Risk factors in mulitple sklerosis: A population based case-controll study in Hautes-Pyrenees, France. Acta Neurol Scand (Denmark), Jul 1989, 80 (1), 46-50.
34. WHITE PM, Prevalence of antibody to poliovirus in England and Wales, Br Med J, Nov 1 1986, 293 (6555), 1153-5
35. LASCH EE, Combined live inactivated poliovirus vaccine to control poliomyelitis in a developing country five years after, Dev Biol Stand, 1986, 65, 137-43.
36. SUTTER RW, Paralytic poliomyelitis in Oman: association between regi onal differences in atack rate and variations in antibody responses to oral poliovirus vaccine. Int J Epidemiol, oct 1993, 22(5), 936-44.
37. WYATT HV, Unnecessary injections and paralytic poliomyelitis in India, Trans R Soc Trop Med Hyg, Sept-oct 1992, 86(5), 546-9.
38. MATSON DO, Investigation of a measles outbreak in a fully vaccinated school population including serum studies before and after revaccination. Pediatr Infect Dis J, Apr 1993, 12(4), 292-9.
39. GUIMBAO BJ, Parotitis in postvaccination period, Med Clin, 1993 Apr 10, 100(14),559.
40. SUAREZ J, Prevalence of anti-mumps IgG antibodies in a pediatric population, Enferm Infecc Microbiol Clin, Mar 1992, 10(3), 130-4.
41. FALK WA, The epidemiology of mumps in southern Alberta 1980-82, Am J Epidemiol, oct 1989, 130(4), 736-49
42. ARDAY DR, Mumps in the US army 1980-86, Am J Public Health, apr 1989, 79(4), 471-4.
43. WHARTON M, A large outbreak of Mumps in the postvaccine era, J Infect Dis, dec 1988, 158(6), 1253-60.
44. AGOCS MM, The 1988-1989 measles epidemic in Hungary: assesment of vaccine failure, Int J Epidemiol 1992 oct, 21(5), 1007-13.
45. CARTER H, Maesles outbreak in Fife; which MMR Policy, Public Health, 1993 Jan, 107 (1), 25-30
46. MARKS JS, Measles vaccine efficacy in children previously vaccinated at 12 month of age. Pediatrics 1978, 62, 955-60.
47. MARKS JS, Measles outbreak in a vaccinated schoolpopulation. AJPH 1987, 4, 434-38.
48. HERSH BS, A maesles outbreak at a college with prematriculation immunization requirement. Am J Public Health 1991, 81, 360-64.
49. DAIVIS RM, A persistent outbreak of measels despite appropriate prevention an control measures. Am J Epidemiol 1987, 126, 438-49.
50. HUTCHINS SS, A school-based measles outbreak, Am J Epidemiol 1990, 132, 157-68.
51. GUSTAFSON TL, Measles outbreak in a fully immunised secondary-school population. New England Journal of Medicine 1987, 316(13), 771-774.
52. BENDINER E, From Rabies to AIDS: 100 Years at Pasteur, Hosp Pract, Nov 30, 1987, 119-142.
53. CHAKRAVARTI VS, LINGAM S; Measles induced remission of psoriasis, Annals of Tropical Paediatrics, 1986, 6, 293-294
54. ROOTH IB, Suppression of plasmodium falciparum infections during measles or influenza, Am J Trop Med Hyg, Nov 1992, 47(5), 675-81.
55. R(NNE T, Maesles virus infection without rash in childhood is related to desease in adult life. Lancet, Jan 1985, 1-5.
56. BEALE AJ, Hazards of vaccine production, FEMS microbiol let 1992, 100, 469-474.
57. CLARKE JH, Praktische Materia Medica, 1994, S.1455
58. BRANDIS H, Medizinische Mikrobiologie 1994, S.268.
59. BARNETT LA, Molecular mimicry: a mechanismn for autoimmune injury, FASEB J, Feb 1, 1992, 840-4
60. ROITT IM, Immunologie 1991, S234ff
61. CLAASEN, Innere Medizin 1994, S.464
62. KELLER/WISKOTT, Kinderheilkunde 1991, S.380
63. COULTER H., Dreifachimpfung, ein Schuß ins Dunkle (DPT—a shot into the dark)
64. KIMMAN TG, Risks connected with the use of conventional and genetically engineered vaccines, Veterinary Quarterly , Aug 1992, Vol 14(3), 110-118

Views: 1137


You need to be a member of Homeopathy World Community to add comments!

Join Homeopathy World Community

Comment by Gina Tyler DHOM on February 20, 2010 at 1:55pm
reposted from Mike Adams
What the CDC and its Big Pharma cohorts want people to mistakenly believe is that vaccines always offer protection against infectious disease. (100% protection). But this is blatantly false. In fact, because vaccines introduce a weakened virus into the body, they may hamper the normal immune response, creating systemic weakness that makes people more vulnerable to future infectious disease. In essence, weakened viruses create weakened immune responses, "training" the immune system to be more passive against future threats. That's why people who received vaccines in the past are far more likely to die of infectious disease in the future.

The Big Lie
Vaccine safety and effectiveness is "the Big Lie" of modern medicine in much the same that the WTC 7 building is "the Big Lie" of the war on terror. People who believe vaccines always work usually also believe the WTC 7 building was brought down by ordinary office fires.

Yep: A hardened, military-grade structure made of concrete and steel somehow managed to collapse in perfect vertical demolition style due to a few ordinary office fires. This explanation is so laughably false that I question the practical intelligence of anyone who believes it... and yet lots of people believe it! These are the same people who believe that a hundred different vaccines are all good for you and that the drug companies are only looking out for your welfare.

Watch this video about WTC building 7:

Some people will believe anything
I've noticed a fascinating correlation between those who buy the official line on 9/11 and those who buy the official line on vaccines: These are the non-thinking people who are easily duped by anything the officials tell them. They could be told that the WTC 7 building was brought down by out-of-control office workers shooting rubber band guns in the hallway and they'd believe it!

For office fires to have brought down WTC 7 in such a perfectly organized, vertical collapse, do you realize that these fires would have had to somehow melt or destroy all the support columns of the entire building at almost exactly the same time?

That's the only way a building falls down vertically in such a controlled fashion: You have to blow out the support columns in a very carefully controlled split-second sequence. The odds of a fire accomplishing this are as close to zero as you can imagine... especially given that ordinary office fires don't even burn at the temperatures necessary to cause steel support beams to fail due to heat.

Watch this mini-documentary to learn more:

What the real Skeptics are asking right now
So what does WTC building 7 have to do with vaccines? They both serve as a simple test of intelligent skepticism.

The real Skeptics are the people who are skeptical of the official explanation of 9/11 and the cause of the collapse of WTC building 7. Real Skeptics are likewise skeptical of the vaccine-pushing agenda of the CDC and the drug companies. The real Skeptics think for themselves and ask intelligent questions like, "Why have no other steel buildings ever collapse from ordinary office fires in the history of the entire world?"

Or questions like, "If human beings survived for hundreds of thousands of years without vaccines, developing highly effective internal defenses against infectious disease, then why are vaccines all of a sudden being pushed so hard given that the human gene pool has hardly changed over the last 10,000 years?"

Or here's an even better question: "If avoiding vaccines is so dangerous, then why are nearly all the children of anti-vaccine parents so amazingly healthy and intelligent?" They're the smartest kids in the room. Meanwhile, all the really low-IQ kids tend to belong to parents who dutifully approve every vaccine shot they're told to subject their children to. (And they use antibacterial hand soaps at home, too, because they're suckers for any chemical that's marketed as "protecting kids from disease.")

The non-skeptics are people who believe whatever they're told by authority figures no matter how ridiculous the explanation. Here, you need these vaccines shots because without them you might die! Irradiate your body with mammography in order to prevent cancer! Don't take vitamins or nutrients because they might hurt you! Instead, swallow these chemical medications -- they're GOOD for you!

These are just some of the ridiculous commands of the authorities who depend on suckers to buy into their falsehoods. There are a lot of suckers in the medical community, of course: In fact, you don't even get through conventional medical school unless you suspend the entire process of thinking for yourself. With very few exceptions, the very act of becoming a licensed, practicing doctor requires a near-complete surrender of all independent thought combined with outright obedience to the Cult of Pharmacology (and its conspirators like the FDA, CDC and WHO). State medical boards yank medical licenses away from any doctor who deviates from "the faith" of pharmaceuticals, chemotherapy, radiation and surgery. Merely recommending vitamin D to a cancer patient can get a doctor barred from practicing medicine. (Absolutely true.)

Vaccines make you easier to control
This same obedience to authority cults is what drives suckers into the arms of vaccine pushers. They're told to be obedient to vaccines, so they follow orders without a single skeptical question coming to mind. Once they actually receive more vaccine injections, this process becomes further self-reinforcing because vaccine chemicals harm the nervous system, effectively suppressing cognitive function and making it more difficult for people to think for themselves. (This can usually be reversed, by the way, with nutritional detox therapies based on herbs and superfoods. So even if you were vaccinated in the past like I was, you can still "clean up" your system and restore healthy brain function.)

Once you combine the toxicity of vaccine adjuvants, chlorine in the water, BPA in plastics, non-stick cookware chemicals, antibacterial soaps and the chemicals in foods and medicines, you have a brain-numbing toxic stew that is now being spoon-fed to mainstream America. With their brains chemically suppressed by this onslaught of chemicals, most people find it impossible to think for themselves, so they go along with whatever they're told, oblivious to the truth that they are being fed daily poisons through the water system, the food supply, prescription medications and the mainstream media.

Vaccines are just one more form of ammunition in the war to poison the People -- a war that's being waged by the corporations that rule our world. This war, like all wars, is extremely profitable to those who manufacture the bullets (or, in this case, the vaccines). The more people they can make sick -- or scare into thinking they might become sick -- the more money they can reap from the non-thinking public who will do whatever they're told.

Vaccines are good for you. The WTC 7 collapse was caused by fire. War is peace. Medical slavery is freedom...

Vaccines and bioterrorism
All of a sudden people who are asking intelligent questions about vaccines are under attack from a "national security" angle. Those who aren't vaccinated may die in a bioterrorism attack, we're now being told by the mainstream media. (I don't want to promote those stories by linking to them, but they're out there.)

Do you see this hilarious pattern? More fear is now being applied to scare people into getting vaccines by implying they might die from terrorism if they don't get them! Now, those who refuse vaccinations are practically being called traitors to the American Empire. Will refusing vaccines soon get you arrested under the Patriot Act?

But the vaccine pushers are in for a rude surprise: Vaccines ARE a form of bioterrorism! War has already been declared on the American people by the drug companies, and the weapons are the vaccines, the pharmaceuticals, the mammogram machines, the chemotherapy and other such weapons used by modern medicine. That's why this cartoon makes so much metaphorical sense: Vaccines are weapons!

The casualty count of this medical bioterrorism being waged against the People won't be known for years... perhaps decades. That's because vaccines don't kill very many people right away. Instead, they eat away at your brain function and immune function. They compromise your ability to stay healthy in the future, thereby increasing your risk of death from future infectious disease. Remember: Viruses mutate all the time, but vaccines don't. The vaccine shot you get today for strain ABC won't save you next week when the circulating virus mutates to BCD. Only your immune system can save you from that, and your immune system has been "dumbed down" by the vaccines!

The final body count from mandatory vaccination programs may eventually be in the tens of millions, but we'll probably never know for sure because people who die from the side effects of vaccines are never recorded as official "vaccine deaths." The coroners instead blame the more immediate elements such as "liver failure". We'll never know for sure how many of these deaths were actually initiated by vaccines which imbalanced the victim's immune function or caused long-term impairment to essential organ function.

It is very likely, for example, that most of the people who died from H1N1 swine flu were recipients of previous vaccines. The role that those previous vaccines may have played in their recent deaths from H1N1 is not being acknowledged by any health authority -- they simply pretend there is no correlation between previous vaccinations and current immune system vulnerability.

All it would take to see the pattern is a trip to the swine flu morgue: I'm willing to bet that the majority of those who died from swine flu were recipients of previous vaccines.
Comment by Gina Tyler DHOM on February 18, 2010 at 2:10pm
POLIO facts and vaccination
Widespread Transmission of Paralytic Polio Amongst Fully Vaccinated Children in Oman
Filed under: Articles
Sunday, March 15 2009 - by vaccinesme
Key topics: Polio • Vaccine Failure


1991: Sutter R W; Patriarca P A; Brogan S; Malankar P G; Pallansch M A; Kew O M; Bass A G; Cochi S L; Alexander J P; Hall D B. Outbreak of paralytic poliomyelitis in Oman: evidence for widespread transmission among fully vaccinated children. Lancet 1991;338(8769):715-20.

From January, 1988, to March, 1989, a widespread outbreak (118 cases) of poliomyelitis type 1 occurred in Oman. Incidence of paralytic disease was highest in children younger than 2 years (87/100,000) despite an immunisation programme that recently had raised coverage with 3 doses of oral poliovirus vaccine (OPV) among 12-month-old children from 67% to 87%.

We did a case-control study (70 case-patients, 692 age-matched controls) to estimate the clinical efficacy of OPV, assessed the immunogenicity of OPV and extent of poliovirus spread by serology, retrospectively evaluated the cold chain and vaccine potency, and sought the origin of the outbreak strain by genomic sequencing. 3 doses of OPV reduced the risk of paralysis by 91%; vaccine failures could not be explained by failures in the cold chain nor on suboptimum vaccine potency. Cases and controls had virtually identical type 1 neutralising antibody profiles, suggesting that poliovirus type 1 circulation was widespread. Genomic sequencing indicated that the outbreak strain had been recently imported from South Asia and was distinguishable from isolates indigenous to the Middle East. Accumulation of enough children to sustain the outbreak seems to have been due to previous success of the immunisation programme in reducing spread of endemic strains, suboptimum efficacy of OPV, and delay in completing the primary immunisation series until 7 months of age. Additionally, the estimated attack rate of infection among children aged 9-23 months exceeded 25% in some regions, suggesting that a substantial proportion of fully vaccinated children had been involved in the chain of transmission.
Comment by Gina Tyler DHOM on February 18, 2010 at 1:48pm
There isn't any evidence vaccination reduced the death rate for any disease--you can see this most clearly with one of the latest vaccines--measles deaths had declined by 99.4% before vaccination! And it is a marvel of medical propaganda that anyone believes smallpox vaccine was anything other than a killer when you look at the stats, which makes one highly sceptical about any claims for the later vaccines. Vaccination just jumped on the bottom of the plummeting death rate curves, and claimed all the credit
Comment by Gina Tyler DHOM on February 18, 2010 at 1:47pm
Try this link to the graphs;
Vaccines DID NOT REDUCE diseases
Comment by Gina Tyler DHOM on February 18, 2010 at 1:18pm
here is that chart
shows vaccines did not reduce diseases
Comment by Hans Weitbrecht on February 18, 2010 at 12:20pm
Dear Members

thanks for all the contributions.
David, the evidence of the statistical graphs if looked at in detail reveals, that after the introduction of each new vaccine there has been an increase the actual disease for a while. This increase has been up to tenfold.

I think, that there are as many reasons against than in favor of vaccination -- there are as many reports of diseases been conquered as there are of vaccine damage. So, neither side will win in an argumentative way.

But read my article carefully, -- it raises a lot of questions.

If asked by my patients what my take is on vaccination, my answer is as follows:

I will consider vaccinations only after getting verifiable answers to the following questions:

What is the source of the vaccine? (exact data!)
How was it matured?
How was it protected against cross contamination?

Till date the medical profession and the pharmaceutical companies supplying those vaccines did not answer my questions. so therefore the old rule applies:


Actually here is an interesting one: One of my patients was put under pressure to have her child vaccinated against polio, as it is done each year in the boarding school the child attended. Not only did she refuse to have the child vaccinated, but asked the principal what measures are in place in the school to prevent children contracting the polio from freshly vaccinated children. (polio vaccine contains active viruses). there was no response from the principal, so she went onto the health board to find an answer, -- they declined as well. she kept the child out of school for 14 days.
The irony of the story is that this very health board compensated a father with 2.5 million euro a year before. this person contracted polio freshly polio vaccinated child, he was able to show, that he contracted the virus from the child by feces (using the same toilet). Sadly he lost the use of his leg from hip down.
Comment by Alexander Begg on February 18, 2010 at 8:35am
I think vaccinations will be known as the greatest medical disaster of the century.
To think a small baby human being, which has evolved for millions of years, is upon arrival, injected with several chemicals. It really gives the message to the organism that "your not good enough".

From my own experience I've found that in almost every case with children there is evidence of vaccine damage. That is to say everything was alright before the vaccination then the spots, eczema, disabilities, fevers and nasal congestion. The body is trying its best to get rid of the toxins!

Alot of the evidence for the justification of Vaccines has come from graphs showing the decline in certain diseases and it is said this decline is because of vaccine.
The fact is when you look at the times before vaccines the decline was already there and tremendous - this was due to our overall change in hygiene standards.

This is a hot subject. Its frightening to hear doctors who have resigned because healthy people have died almost immediately after an injection. Despite the debate I feel it is important to let patients know one will support them whether they choose to vaccinate or not.

The best one can do is to provide sound evidence contrary to the conventional view on vaccination to patients so they can come to an informed decision.
It is very accommodating to hear you will be supported whatever choice you make.
Comment by Gina Tyler DHOM on February 16, 2010 at 4:49pm
contrary to what they’d like you to believe, vaccine makers are not philanthropists just looking to do benevolent philanthropy for the world with their products.
They are businesses, first and foremost, whose primary goal is to earn profits for their stockholders.

It has become clear to me that there is a major shift occurring. It is becoming increasingly difficult to find new blockbuster drugs so the new emphasis will be on introducing more and more mandated vaccines which provide nearly unending annuities to continue to increase their revenues

You will see more and more vaccines introduced as time goes on.

The Big Picture(

Please remember that collectively the drug cartels make over half a TRILLION dollars every year by selling their product. That amount of money yields enormous power and leverage and they are focused on earning even more.

And how do they do that?

By finding a product they can manufacture in massive quantities and sell to infinite numbers of people at whatever price they want to charge. For a long time, psychotropic drugs and therapeutic medicines were the yellow brick road to that Wall Street goal.

Just a few years ago drug giants like Merck, Eli Lilly, GlaxoSmithKline, and Astra Zeneca were dancing in the land of Oz with blockbusters like Vioxx, Zyprexa, Paxil, and Seroquel. But when the Emerald cities they’d built with these drugs became blighted with a cyclone of lawsuits, their profits quickly began to melt.

Add in pending expirations of patents on key products, and accusations by the European Commission that they purposely delay generic medicines by offering payments to rival manufacturers, and these companies knew they had to change the road they were on, even before the recession hit.

It’s All about the Money

The line up of Big Pharma companies that have been announcing job cutbacks and realignment of their product lines over the past two or three years is impressive:

Novartis announced in December 2007 that it planned to cut 2,500 jobs worldwide by 2010 in an attempt to save $1.6 billion. Citing expiring patents, generic competition, and increased industry costs, Novartis said that poor US pharmaceutical sales had forced this reorganization.

Noting that it had experienced “strong growth” in its vaccines and diagnostics division, Novartis said it planned to expand its presence in emerging markets in Africa, Central Asia and Southeast Asia.

Merck announced job cuts in its US sales force a month ago, saying that the cutbacks were part of its merger with Schering-Plough. In all, the newly married company plans to reduce its global workforce by 15 percent, for a savings of nearly $3.5 billion.

But even before Merck and Schering-Plough became a couple, Merck had already begun making job cutbacks, as part of its 2005 restructuring plan.

A major focus of that plan, Merck told its stockholders in 2005, would be to enter, and become a leader in, emerging markets, which “provide enormous opportunity” for Merck’s medicines and vaccines.

Saying that the company planned to rely less on US markets and more on global initiatives, Merck told Nasdaq in December 2009 that 40 percent of its job cuts would be in the US, as the company moved its market focus to worldwide ventures.

But Merck and GSK aren’t the only ones totake this route: Johnson & Johnson announced in November 2009 that it was cutting 8,000 jobs.

Pfizer said it was cutting 20,000 jobs, or 20 percent of its workforce, as part of its merger with Wyeth; Eli Lilly said it was making a 13 percent reduction totaling 5,000 jobs; Astra Zeneca it was cutting 7,000 jobs, or about 10 percent of its workforce.

But simultaneously with job cut announcements, they all have alluded to, or plainly said, emerging markets are where their new focus lies.

Of course, it’s all about the money and the bottom line – which isn’t a bad thing, since these companies are for-profit entities. But what is this thing, “emerging markets,” anyway, and how do drug companies’ desires to follow emerging markets affect the rest of the world?

Emerging Market ‘Inoculations’

The Wall Street Journal probably said it best when it called this new pharma marketing strategy emerging market inoculations. Referring to Novartis’ purchase of an 85 percent stake in a Chinese vaccine maker, and a similar investment by Sanofi Aventis, the WSJ used this term to describe the drug companies’ plans to expand production and sales in vaccines.

Emerging markets are areas of the world that are beginning to show promise as a profitable venture for many products, including vaccines. And emerging markets – primarily in developing countries in Southeast and Central Asia, and Africa – have been on vaccine makers’ radar for quite some time.

One reason that vaccine makers are interested in these parts of the world is that that’s where most of the world’s deaths from major infectious diseases occur.

World health leaders have long believed that most, if not all, of these diseases could be prevented by vaccines.

The only problem has been that, until recently, making vaccines for undeveloped countries with no money to pay for them, was not exactly a profitable goal for vaccine makers.

In 2001, an article in Tropical Medicine & International Health chastised the pharmaceutical industry for thinking too much about the bottom line, and not investing more in neglected diseases. Accusing them of being more interested on return in investment than in global health needs, the article’s author urged drug companies to re-evaluate their priorities.

It also urged national and international reorientation of public health policies:

“New and creative strategies involving both the public and the private sector are needed to ensure that affordable medicines for today's neglected diseases are developed,” the article said.

The article made several suggestions as to how these new policies could come about, from a legal and regulatory standpoint, as well as from research-and-development and distribution of needed drugs for mainly third-world countries.

And Then Something Changed

Fast-forward to February 10, 2010. Suddenly, third-world countries are exactly where the previously maligned drug companies want to be. In a market study released this month, these companies said that vaccines are the new bottom line.

“The developed world has been the initial focus of vaccine makers due to the better healthcare and higher price levels,” the report said. “However, facing increasingly saturated markets in the West, companies are looking to expand into new geographies, such as Asia's emerging markets.”

You have to purchase it to see the complete study on emerging markets. But GSK has its May 2009 emerging market plan posted, free, on the Internet. Listing the top 10 countries that are “big and growing fast,” GSK said these countries represent 85 percent of emerging market potential.

Emerging markets will soon outgrow developed markets by hundreds of billions of dollars, the GSK report says. One way to make that happen will be to “build and capture” the vaccine market, the report explains.

And the way to do that, it goes on to say, is through growing government attention to the public health agenda, capitalizing on birth cohorts for pediatric vaccines, and by concentrating on new vaccine products.

Say ‘Hello’ to Advance Market Commitments

So what happened between 2001, when world health leaders were criticizing drug makers for not making exactly this kind of investment, and the past couple years, when vaccine makers suddenly started beating a path to third-world countries?

I can assure you it wasn’t because the 2001 chastisement shamed them in to it. Rather, I can just about bet next week’s paycheck that it had more to do with the promise of a new bottom line – sales of vaccines through something called Advance Market Commitments – than anything else.

Between 2001 and 2005, several vaccine researchers and market developers responded to the 2001 chastisement by writing numerous articles about why drug companies were getting out of the vaccine business. Declining markets, increased costs, and regulatory issues were the top three reasons.

Fix those problems, and everybody would be happy to concentrate on vaccines for developing countries, the responses all said.

Concerned that developed countries would have little or no resources for addressing serious infectious diseases if vaccine makers continued their pull-out, the World Health Organization and the G8 – the top developed countries in the world – responded with a plan for inducing vaccine companies to stay in the business.

That plan was called Advance Market Commitments. Under AMCs, developed countries make legal, binding agreements to purchase vaccines that are needed in low-income countries. The purchase guarantees a bottom line for the manufacturers. In return, the manufacturers promise to sell those vaccines at reduced prices in the countries where they are most needed.

Dozens of New Vaccines in the Pipeline

Do an Internet search on Advance Market Commitments and you will find a whole new vaccine world you most likely didn’t know existed. Start by going to the WHO website, and by reading its August 2007 draft global policy on AMCs. The document focuses on financing and funding health research and development of drugs, vaccines and diagnostics for neglected diseases.

The WHO acknowledges in this document that private, public and not-for-profit donations and investments have helped fight neglected diseases – infections that are prevalent in mostly low-income, third-world countries. But those investments are not enough, the WHO says. And that is why AMCs are necessary, the WHO says.

It sounds like a good plan: Establish a market that heretofore was considered not profitable and, therefore, not worthy of investing in. Promise incentives to lure vaccine makers in to the research and development of new vaccines. And then, stimulate market competition through increased sales and reduction of costs in vaccine programs.

To show how well it could work, a pilot Advance Market Commitment was launched in February 2007 for pnuemococcal vaccines. In June 2009, the WHO and the GAVI announced that that plan had finally come to fruition. Now, thanks to AMCs, a $70 pneumococcal vaccine can be distributed in desperately poor countries for just $3.50.

Sounds like a win-win situation – at least for vaccine makers and the countries where the vaccine’s going.

Serious Concerns about this Program

The reason I’m wary of this plan is that legally binding, advance market commitments to purchase vaccines that are mostly needed in third world countries could backfire on developed countries that don’t need – or want – certain vaccines.

Think about it: The top neglected diseases that world health leaders want to address with AMCs besides pneumonia are HIV-AIDS, malaria, human papilloma virus (HPV), rotavirus, and tuberculosis.

And what do you see?

Standing out big and clear are HPV and rotavirus – two diseases that are relatively rare in the US and other developed countries. (There are over 100 HPVs; the new vaccines address four HPVs that cause 70 percent of cervical cancer and genital warts. In developed countries, death from cervical cancer is very rare, while in third world countries, it is a leading cause of death in women.)

Yet, these are diseases with new vaccines that, for some reason or other in the past few years, have been recommended by the US Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices for babies (rotavirus) and adolescents (HPV).

While the ACIP only recommends vaccines, states are free to do what they choose, and we all know where that leads: to mandates of vaccines that more and more people are beginning to question the need for.

And that’s why I am leery of vaccine makers who announce they’re on their way to third world countries in an effort to boost their bottom line. I don’t fault any profit-driven business for wanting to do things that will make share holders happy.

But I do question where these ventures are headed.

Many scientific journal reports have already revealed that a malaria vaccine is on the verge of being marketable. It only leaves me wondering if that will be the next one on the ACIP’s list.

So stay tuned.

Dozens of other vaccines are in the pipeline, from one for strep throat to another for simple ear infections. I promise this won’t be the last you hear of AMCs and mandated vaccines in the US – what better way is there to “guarantee” a vaccine market than through mandates to help pay for it?
Comment by Tanya Nolte on February 2, 2010 at 6:49am
Mmm...another example - a lady I met recently discussed how one of her 3 dogs got Kennel Cough which then passed on to the 2nd of her dogs. She panicked and went to the vet who gave ABs and something else. When the 3rd dog became sick she was a little less nervous about it because she had done some reading and found that it wasn't generally fatal so didn't get any treatment for this 3rd dog. The interesting part is that the 3rd dog was only mildly sick for 2 wks and then recovered easily while the other 2 dogs were STILL sick 3 wks after the 3rd dog was better! So there you go ;) She wished she had met me sooner to avoid the vet in the first instance.
Comment by Gina Tyler DHOM on February 1, 2010 at 9:38pm
Hi Tanya,Its so obvious,From the pets and children that get vaccines and not get vaccines the lucky bunch who NEVER GET VACCINATIONS ARE THE MOST HEALTHY of the bunch!
Those that get vaccines are ALWAYS SICK,Just today I spoke to ANOTHER MOTHER with a Chronic sick child with ear infections,I always ask first:"Was this child vaccinated?" The answer is always "YES".Same with Pets You dont see cancers in pets that do not have vaccines.
When will people WAKE UP!!!!!

HWC Partners



© 2019   Created by Debby Bruck.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service

Related Posts Plugin for WordPress, Blogger...