Rapid Responses to:
|
|
Rapid Responses: Rapid Responses published:
-
![[Read Rapid Response]](/icons/misc/sectionDOWN.gif)
A Well Documented cause of SID
- Daniel H Duffy (7 April 2001)
-
Counfounding
- John P Heptonstall (8 April 2001)
-
Re: A Well Documented cause of SID
- Julie Leask (9 April 2001)
-
Re: Immunisation/SIDS Case-Control Study
- Aly Cook (17 April 2001)
-
Re: Re: Immunisation/SIDS Case-Control Study
- Carlos Loeda (12 May 2001)
-
Re: Re: Immunisation/SIDS Case Control Study and A Well Documented cause of SIDS
- Bronwyn Hancock (15 May 2001)
-
Vaccinations
- John Fryer (18 May 2001)
-
SIDS and the link with vaccination
- Heidi White (28 May 2001)
|
|
|||
|
Daniel H Duffy, family doctor Geneva, Ohio, USA
Send response to journal:
|
V. Scheibner, PhD showed conclusive proof of the link between DPT and SID in Australia. Upon publication of the news, a (approximate) fifty per cent reduction in the participation in the voluntary immunization was accompanied by an accompanying (approx)fifty per cent drop in SIDs. When the Japanese stopped vaccinating during the first two years of life they immediately attained the best infant survival rate in the world. Anyone doubting that an injection of foreign protein into a newborn will not kill a measurable percentage of them is in a state of denial and out of touch with common sense. | |||
|
|
|||
|
John P Heptonstall, Director of The Morley Acupuncture Clinic and Complementary Therapy Centre West Yorkshire
Send response to journal:
|
Editor I note the conclusion of Fleming et al is that “the accelerated immunisation programme in the UK is not associated with sudden unexpected death in infancy, whether the death is explained or not explained” and further “the standard primary course of immunisation may also have a non- specific protective effect on the risk of death in infancy” or that “failure to begin the course may be a marker of family organisation where SIDS may be more frequent”. The study is an excellent advert for mass immunisation, but I think the team are ignoring the obvious, as gained from an alternative perspective: - One must acknowledge that they have tried vary hard to reduce, through confounders, the probability of mistakes in statistical analysis of known facts; yet some confounders must have been missed, and there is no guarantee that the calculations applied for the known potential confounders is accurate. Their application of ‘highly significant risk factors in the infants’ sleeping environment for the last or reference sleep” made the difference between SIDS children and Controls insignificant, they remark that “the difference in immunisation uptake was not significant but was still in the direction of immunisation being protective”, hardly conclusive evidence for their conclusion. Looking at their chart of confounders there is a clear difference in all areas between the SIDS children and ‘matched’ controls; these are indicative of strong variations in selected control children compared to SIDS children studied – not really the ‘close matched grouping’ of first sight. In every group there are glaring, thus potentially confounding, differences – which may be the effects that the team have accounted for in their confounding corrections, but did they do enough (Fine PE, Chen RT 1992) and isn’t it of fundamental significance that such differences between SIDS and the Controls used do exist despite ‘matching’– especially when in most cases one would expect the difference to be in favour of an earlier death for a SIDS child than a control with or without (an innocuous) vaccination? It appears that, for the SIDS children, by percentage, compared to Controls: - 1. Twice as many are generally older than controls (>120days) at
death.
In every case the data shows SIDS children have been vaccinated less than the controls. Let us not forget that more SIDS children died “despite less vaccine uptake” than controls - from which the assumption is made that vaccines must protect children, rather than that in general SIDS children already had greater potential for early death whatever they did. I suspect that vaccination may help some ‘SIDS children’ (ie. Those with the extraordinary predisposition to die earlier seen in the confounder chart) to die earlier, and that this will be born out once recognisable physiological and biochemical markers for cause of death by vaccination are established. This hypothesis seems to be born out by parental experience of time of death occurring in very close proximity to immunisation in children - some within 2 or 3 hours of been given a vaccine and still suffering ADRs to the vaccine. Other SIDS cases will have a number of recognised predispositions, as shown above, prior to death – should they have been immunised at all? Then there are children with no apparent predisposition to die, whose parents report having a healthy child until immunisation took place; if vaccination kills these children, how? We must also bear in mind that previous research has shown 1. An unimmunised (with DTP) SIDS child had a higher chance of dying
after seeing a doctor prior to death. (Barraff LJ et al 1983)
Yet the team did not confound for vaccine Brand, or vaccine Type, or how many vaccines had been used on any child pre death. Adjuvants were not confounded for, especially important with the news of thimerosal toxicity in many vaccinated children; was this additional confounder considered at post-mortems prior to SIDS diagnosis? The SIDS children who suffered 'low weight gain despite normal birth weight' do not appear to have been accounted for. More SIDS children saw medical personnel prior to death, and this has been linked as a potential cause of SIDS in unimmunised children – a further reason why SIDS cases may appear without vaccination as compared to controls with or without vaccination. Rather than looking confoundedly at SIDS data surely the best method of detection of cause has to be improved post-mortem procedures; looking for vaccine virus particles, relevant DNA testing etc. should be a prerequisite when a child dies within a few weeks of immunisation – is it really impossible to identify such a cause? Or is the will to prove that the system that autopsied is the same one that killed the child, in some cases, not there? Regards John H References 1. Fine PE, Chen RT, Am J Epidemiol 1994 jan 15; 139(2): 229-30 2. Baraff LJ et al, Pediatrt Infect Dis 1983 Jan-Feb; 2(1): 7-11 3. Roberts SC, Arch Dis Child 1987 Jul; 62(7): 754-9 4. Pollock TM et al, Lancet 1984 Jul 21; 2(8395): 146-9 5. Waight PA et al, Arch Dis Child 1983 Nov; 58(11): 921-3 6. Walker AM et al, Am J Pub Health 1987 Aug; 77(8): 945-51 7. Blair et al, Arch Dis Child 2000; 82: 462-469 June |
|||
|
|
|||
|
Julie Leask, DrPH Candidate Department of Public Health, University of Sydney
Send response to journal:
|
Fleming et. al. make an important contribution to our knowledge about vaccine safety. 1 Their study confirms existing research that vaccination may even be protective against SIDS.2 It is clear however, that some will never be convinced. 3 The reduction in Australia's SIDS incidence attributed by Duffy to a fall in vaccination rates is completely false. After published research confirmed that changes to sleeping position might reduce the risk of SIDS, rates more than halved in Australia. 4
Duffy has fallen prey to the unsupported theories of Viera Scheibner, a retired micropalaeontologist. Scheibner tours the world infecting the uncritical with her beliefs that vaccines cause anything from leukaemia to deaths from 'brain eating bugs'.5 Her hypothesis about SIDS and DTP is based on a small observational study of infant breathing patterns done when testing a breathing monitor developed by her late husband.6 Scheibner systematically misrepresents the Japanese situation. SIDS continued to occur in Japan but since the diagnosis is restricted to children under 12 months and the minimum age for vaccination increased to two years, it merely disappeared as an entity from the vaccine compensation system. 7 Duffy also alleges that Australia's vaccination rates fell by 50 per cent after Viera Scheibner began her campaigning. In fact, between 1989 and 1995 official rates for pertussis and diphtheria/tetanus vaccination fell by 12.7 and 20 per cent respectively.8 Changes to immunisation rates happen for a number of reasons.9 Although Scheibners' theories might hold sway for some, to attribute any major drop in immunisation rates to her bizarre ideas is an insult to the intelligence of Australian parents. References 1. Fleming PJ, Blair PS, Platt MW, Tripp J, Smith IJ, Golding J, et al. The UK accelerated immunisation programme and sudden unexpected death in infancy: case-control study. BMJ 2001;322:822-5. 2. Mitchell EA, Stewart AW, Clements M. Immunisation and the sudden infant death syndrome. New Zealand Cot Death Study Group. Arch Dis Child 1995;73:498-501. 3. Duffy DH. A well documented cause of SID (letter). eBMJ 7 April, 2001. 4. Mitchell EA. SIDS: facts and controversies. Med J Australia 2000;173:173-4. 5. Scheibner V. Brain eating bugs: the vaccines link. Nexus Magazine 1996;3(6). 6. Scheibner V. Vaccination: 100 years of orthodox research shows that vaccines represent a medical assault on the immune system. Blackheath, NSW: Viera Scheibner, 1993. 7. Cherry JD, Brunell PA, Golden GS, Karzon DT. Report of the Task Force on Pertussis and Pertussis Immunization-1988. Pediatrics 1988;81(suppl.):939-84. 8. Australian Bureau of Statistics. Children's immunisation, Australia, April 1995. Cat. No. 4352.0. Canberra: ABS, 1996. 9. Bazeley P, Kemp L. Childhood immunisation. The role of parents and service providers: A review of the literature. Canberra: Australian Government Publishing Service, 1994. |
|||
|
|
|||
|
Aly Cook, Mother Home
Send response to journal:
|
Just one question. Did any of the SIDS deaths investigated as part of the study have Autopsy testing of Endotoxins and or Circulating Immune Complexes, which identify toxic reaction to vaccination? Just one comment ? I bet not !.....If any of the babies tested positive to the above, that would of kind of stuffed your figures up, I guess Oh ... One more Question Why run studies, trying to swing them this way or that, when you have simple autopsy tests that can show whether a baby died of a vaccine related event or not ? Tests that should really be carried out on ALL babies to identify which ones are SIDS and which ones are toxic reations to vaccine ! Just one more question... Have any of you, got the guts to answer those questions ? |
|||
|
|
|||
|
Carlos Loeda, staff pediatritian Hospital de Alicante
Send response to journal:
|
Dear Sir: The real problem is not to understand where the real problem is. If we vaccinate against Pertussis seems that we have to counterweight eventual SID risk against a healthy child. But whooping cough sufferers are not healthy children, they are at a heavy risk about their health, their future and indeed their life, with an infectious disease against we have no useful therapy. So, the real problem is not to compare risk of SID in vaccinated against unvaccinated, but to compare risk of SID in vaccinated against risk of infant apneas and brain hypoxemia, pneumonitis, bronchiectasias, secondary infections, protracted hospitalisations, etc. in the yearly Pertussis epidemia to be awaited in the case of assuming a no Pertussis vaccine policy. The case number would increase in a geometrical way at the same time as new generations are born and the "herd effect" of massive vaccination disappears, and things should probably be worst than ever because young children (including babies) day care center assistance is now more generalized than in the good old days of non DTP vaccination. Please think twice. Carlos Loeda |
|||
|
|
|||
|
Bronwyn Hancock, Co-ordinator Vaccination Information Service
Send response to journal:
|
This study is an unnecessarily very messy way of "trying" to assess the vaccination risk, as has been pointed out by others, given the many confounding variable risk factors that will increase susceptibility to being killed by vaccines. In some cases the presence of these factors may further discourage parents from vaccinating, sometimes even on the advice of their doctor. It is not clear how all these factors could have been successfully ironed out. There was also a non-blind selection and rejection of controls, using criteria that have not fully been disclosed. A genuine attempt to study any issue statistically is to simply design the study such that there is a control group in which the only thing that differs from the index group is the factor being studied. But then if one does not want to see something, it is not a good idea to put one's unfoggy glasses on, is it? It is sad to see Leask lowering the tone of the debate from mature scientific analysis of the data down to "argumentum ad hominem"1, which contributes nothing to any intelligent analysis. It is pleasing that Loeda has not done the same thing, but both appear not to have done a thorough study of relevant medical research. Those who do concern themselves with researching the truth in this respect know that vaccines contain not just highly lethal poisons including formaldehyde and mercury, but also material from animal tissue, and consequently all the contaminants that come with that. These are in most cases being directly injected into the body, past the extremely important outer levels of defence. These contaminants include the cancer- causing SV40 virus, which may still be in those vaccines cultured on monkey kidney tissue, such as the polio vaccine2. It therefore comes as no surprise to "intelligent Australian parents" (referred to by Leask) that, as Dr Scheibner reveals with references, peer-reviewed medical research has shown a link of vaccination to not only cot death, but also leukaemia and occasional deaths from 'brain eating bugs'. Indeed both Italy and the U.K.. have recently discontinued the use of vaccines (Hib and polio respectively) due to concerns over mad cow disease. It is worth noting that cot death is not a natural phenomenon that has always been with us to any significant extent. It was so infrequent in the pre-vaccination era that it was not even mentioned in the statistics, but it started to climb in the 1950s interestingly and not surprisingly at the same time as the spread of mass vaccination. Post mortems on cot death babies indicate asphyxia, which can be due to the level of poisons injected being just that little bit too high for these individuals’ immature immune systems to mount a defence of the strength and sustained period of time required to deal with them. Foetal asphyxiation is indeed one of the many documented harmful effects of formaldehyde. The link that Dr Scheibner found between vaccination and cot death was based on clearly a big enough sample size to reveal the observed pattern of clustering of low-volume breathing on critical days following the event. It was further supported by data revealed in medical research, including an interesting pattern in the famous Tennessee deaths. This pattern was a strikingly clear relationship between the age of the babies and how long they held out after the vaccinations. The younger babies more often succumbed within hours or a few days from the vaccines while the older babies only lost the battle after a few weeks3. Duffy pointed to the most important single measure of all - the overall infant mortality rate, which was curiously ignored by Leask in her supposed counter argument (and, it seems, was overlooked by Loeda as well). Instead Leask argued an irrelevant point relating to an article by Cherry et al, to which Duffy made no reference, about the Japanese vaccine compensation system. However, since she has raised it, if the Japanese government was giving compensation payments as a result of cot deaths being linked to vaccination, then clearly the evidence available to the Japanese was regarded as strong enough to force the government to do what no government likes to do, that is, part with money. Dr Scheibner does not create any "bizarre ideas" of her own. She simply reveals word-for-word, with full references, what is already unambiguously published in peer-reviewed medical research in journals such as the BMJ. If Leask finds such research results bizarre then she must work in a field that involves very limited study of published medical research. Or does she have a secret source of higher truth, which, if she revealed it, could be saving many lives? Loeda makes a point which would be quite valid if his assumption that vaccination actually prevents pertussis was correct. Indeed a study of the medical research (even my mainstream medical dictionary, Mosby's) reveals that the effect of vaccination is to sensitise the recipient. This means that the recipient is indeed made more susceptible to the infection - both contracting it and complications from it, instead of the other way around. One example where this is starkly illustrated statistically is in the reported incidence of pertussis in the U.S. in the last 30 years. It was declining until 1978, at which point the DPT vaccine was made compulsory for school entry in most states, and the incidence has been rising ever since that time. Yet a review of death rates throughout the century shows that these diseases were heading towards disappearance before the vaccines were introduced. Other than a sales incentive for the pharmaceutical industry there was no reason for interference, which has only been counterproductive. It is good that a vaccine has not been introduced for scarlet fever, otherwise it would likely not be basically unknown today (and no, its virtual disappearance occurred before antibiotics, too). Please view my web site http://www.vaccination.inoz.com for more on the well documented ineffectiveness, rather counterproductiveness of vaccines. Indeed it is well documented that vaccines themselves can cause "infant apneas and brain hypoxemia, pneumonitis, bronchiectasias, secondary infections and protracted hospitalisations". Even just a look at the documented effects of the vaccine ingredients themselves is enough to demonstrate that. I am also surprised that as a paediatrician, and part of such an old profession, Loeda still knows of nothing that can be done to prevent someone dying from a disease they have contracted. One must ask then, what are doctors for? Indeed Nature itself has already provided the answer for us in plain view, by demonstrating the dramatic reduction in death rates as living conditions, and therefore the health of the host, have dramatically improved over the past century. Our own inbuilt immune system is our therapy, and its work has been made much easier by our bodies these days receiving such things as sufficient nourishment, clean water and fresh air. Other resources it needs are sufficient rest and sleep, exercise and the development of a sufficiently positive mental outlook. In contrast its work is hampered by poisons, including the many in vaccines. Provided it is not interfered with, the immune system automatically does the job for us, though it will benefit from us correcting any marked inadequacies in the above basic resources that it requires, such as Vitamin C. I am glad that Loeda at least recognises that antibiotics are not useful, but when he can educate his patients in the constructive area of how to look after their children's bodies properly, PARTICULARLY by avoiding any injections of poisons, to ensure that their immune systems can easily do the job they are designed to do, they will gain some benefit from visiting him. References 1. Leask, J. Re: A well documented cause of SID (letter). eBMJ 9 April, 2001. 2. The Journal of Infectious Diseases September 1999;180:884-887 3. Griffin, M.R. et al. Risk of sudden infant death syndrome after immunization with the diphtheria-tetanus-pertussis vaccine. New Engl J Med 1988;319(10):618-623 |
|||
|
|
|||
|
John Fryer, Scientist Retired
Send response to journal:
|
The work of the CESDI SUDI group provides straightforward proof that for the vast majority of people, vaccines are good and protective as is generally recognised. There are however problems with the tiny numbers who have adverse effects and so as the numbers of children who contract illness, for example tetanus tend to zero or thereabouts, then this needs to looked at. We know how many children die from unknown events and this is lumped together as SIDS and amounts to one child a day in the UK. Out of this it is conceivable that some vaccine deaths are hidden possibly only a minority of the cases. There are concerns that need to be addressed: 1) The unusually young age at which a potential shock to the system occurs - a baby of 2 months is unable to communicate if and what goes wrong with a vaccination. The reason for bringing forward the date of vaccination to 2 months - namely movement of the family seems to be a poor reason for justifying such an action. Should not vaccination be left for 6 months for some so a comparison can be made for some children at random? The problems of leaving DTP vaccination for 4 months longer would not be great in a country with general good health and low incidence of these illnesses. 2) The use of an organomercury compound in a vaccine is something even respectable vaccine companies do not wish and this substance has been already removed from some vaccines. The study does not show which vaccines were used. The case of Karen Wetterhahn shows the danger of organomercury and recent death from a 'safe' hair dye shows some people react badly to chemicals when most are unaffected. 3) The site and type of vaccination can be important - thigh or arms, subcutaneous, muscular. Can this be studied? 4) Contraindications - there are many reasons to postpone a vaccination and it alarms me that a vaccine may be given when common sense would imply erring towards caution eg one SID death in the family and the next child may not only have the vaccine but earlier than 8 weeks and possibly with fatal results - only to be told there were no adverse reactions! 5) The inability to sue the vaccine company. This is surely ludicrous. We have all seen recently that deep vein thrombosis was 'non existent', only to find that when it was accepted publicly that 3 cases a week went for hospital treatment in one area alone and the global risk of problems was 10%. Freedom to take action would show the true extent and not the hidden extent of any problems. 6) Anaphylactic shock from repeat vaccines is something known about since the first vaccinations carried out by Edward Jenner. Could it be a second vaccination would be as protective? We may find that it is better to leave vaccinations to a later age where good immunisation will occur with fewer 'jabs'? A December 2000 article did show that DPT was twice as likely to cause premature death when a vaccine for TB was administered previously. This made the DTP the second vaccine and therefore a candidate for anaphylactic responses. 7) There is also the possibility of anaphalactoid shock from the first vaccination. 8) There must be ways of finding if an adverse reaction occurs chemically as the lady who replied earlier forcibly reminds us. Levels of some chemical are known to rise 100 fold and so this is a possible way to check for harm. Finally although problems do occur - we do need protection from infectious and sometimes deadly illnesses. Vaccination is a good price to pay for peace of mind, but it is so important to have safe vaccines, safely administered and to recognise when harm has unfortunately occurred to the one or two who pay the price for a society where infectious illness amounts to only 2% of the poor health of our nation. John Fryer Analytical Chemist |
|||
|
|
|||
|
Heidi White, Hospital Pharmacist Lyell McEwin Health Service, Elizabeth Vale, SA
Send response to journal:
|
To the Editor, Fleming et al have used a case-control study method to investigate the temporal association between infant vaccinations and SIDS.1 Promoters of mass vaccination will use this study to support the notion that infant vaccination may actually be a "protective" factor against SIDS. It should be noted, however, that the "case-control study" is known to be a relatively weak study method that can not be relied upon to either prove or disprove an association between vaccination and SIDS. Firstly, significant bias can result from the selection or elimination of cases or controls. Secondly, it is difficult to measure risk for a particular characteristic that is present in the majority of the population.2 An example of this can be found in a case-control study from California (USA), which found no association between babies sleeping prone and SIDS.3 And yet many other studies have found an significant association between sleeping position and SIDS. It has been suggested that the reason why the Californian study did not show an association was because at the time of the study (pre 1992), the majority of babies in California (64%) were sleeping prone.2 In the study by Fleming et al the vast majority of babies over 3 months were vaccinated (93% of controls vs 79% of cases).1 Therefore since this study characteristic was present in the large majority of the population, it may have had an effect on the final results. So depending on the study methods used, it is possible for some statistics to not present the true picture. Another flaw with this study is that apart from infant sleeping position, other important confounding factors were not accounted for. Maternal smoking is strongly linked with SIDS but was not accounted for in the final result.4 Breast-feeding is also considered to be a variable that may reduce the risk of SIDS.5 Again, this factor was not considered. In a family with a lower socioeconomic status, failure to vaccinate a child would also be associated with an increased incidence of maternal smoking and bottle-feeding. These important, yet unaccounted for, stress factors may explain why an association between vaccines and SIDS was not found. A case-control study of this nature does not prove or disprove that vaccination is a cause of SIDS. But a large prospective cohort study, taking into account other important variables, would provide us with much firmer evidence from which we can draw a definitive conclusion. Heidi White, Hospital Pharmacist. Competing Interests: Nil References: 1. Fleming PJ, Blair PS, Ward Platt M, Tripp J, Smith IJ, Golding J, the CESDI SUDI research group. The UK accelerated immunisation programme and sudden unexpected death in infancy: case control study. BMJ 2001;322:822. 2. Willinger M. Sleep position and sudden infant death syndrome. JAMA 1995 March 8th; 273(10): 818-9. 3. Klonoff-Cohen HS, Edelstein SL.. A case-control study of routine and death scene sleep position and sudden infant death syndrome in Southern California. JAMA 1995 March 8th; 273(10): 790-794. 4. Wisborg K, Kesmodel U, Henriksen TB, Olsen SF, Secher NJ. A prospective study of smoking during pregnancy and SIDS. Arch Dis Child 2000 Sept;83:203-206. 5. Ford RP, Taylor BJ, Mitchell EA, Enright SA, Stewart AW, Becroft DM, Scragg R, Hassall IB, Barry DM, Allen EM, Roberts AP. Breastfeeding and the risk of sudden infant death syndrome. Int J Epidemiol 1993 Oct;22(5):885-890. |
|||