Rapid Responses to:

EDUCATION AND DEBATE: Robert M Wolfe and Lisa K Sharp Anti-vaccinationists past and present BMJ 2002; 325: 430-432 [Full text]

Rapid Responses: Submit a response to this article

Rapid Responses published:

Mercury and vaccine safety

Eric G Colman   (24 August 2002)

Hidden tyranny

Lisa C Blakemore-Brown   (24 August 2002)

They were right

john s lucas   (24 August 2002)

History of vaccination and anti-vaccination programmes in India

Parthasarathy K. S.   (26 August 2002)

Establishment Vaccine Propaganda

Daniel H Duffy   (26 August 2002)

Evolution shows the immorality of anti-vaccination movements

Riccardo Baschetti   (26 August 2002)

Ill-informed on the history of vaccinations

Patrick J. McGuinness   (27 August 2002)

Sheer Arrogance !

Carol A Teasdale   (27 August 2002)

awareness notice

ray e spier   (28 August 2002)

Re: Anti-vaccinationists past and present

Raymond Gallup   (28 August 2002)

Re: History of vaccination and anti-vaccination programmes in India

Patrick J McGuinness   (28 August 2002)

Help it's ELPS

Trevor D Thompson   (28 August 2002)

The story of the anti-vaccinationists has serious shortcomings

Norman Beale   (29 August 2002)

How about real evidence, not just spiritual

Cynthia Zahoruk   (29 August 2002)

History repeats itself

Michael D Innis   (30 August 2002)

Just scratching the surface

Miriam Wolfe   (2 September 2002)

History in the making.....

John P Heptonstall   (8 September 2002)

Doctors cause more deaths than non-vaccinating parents

Hilary A Butler   (8 September 2002)

The cow that died aborting a man

Dr Rishi kant ojha, Dr Rambha Pathak, Resident, Community Medicine,Indira Gandhi Medical College,Shimla   (9 September 2002)

Re: Doctors cause more deaths than non-vaccinating parents

Riccardo Baschetti   (12 September 2002)

Long Term Vaccination Studies?

Charles W. Sullivan, D.O.   (13 September 2002)

Long Term Vaccination Studies?

Charles W. Sullivan, D.O.   (15 September 2002)

Baschetti’s conundrum

Peter Morrell   (15 September 2002)

Neither pro nor anti vaccination, stay with the facts

Paul Lepine   (16 September 2002)

Re: Baschetti’s conundrum

Riccardo Baschetti   (16 September 2002)

From the Coal Face

John R GILBERT, Malahide, Co Dublin, IRELAND   (19 September 2002)

Re: Baschetti’s conundrum

Margaret S. Scheuer   (9 January 2003)

money is not the only thing that makes the world go round

Anthony R Cox   (10 January 2003)

Mercury and vaccine safety 24 August 2002
Eric G Colman, Physician Send response to journal: Re: Mercury and vaccine safety	Drs. Wolfe and Sharp, Assistant Professors from Northwestern’s Department of Family Medicine, attempt to discredit today’s anti-vaccine sentiment by suggesting that 21st-century opposition to mandatory vaccination is as fatuous and unscientific as that voiced in the 19th and 20th centuries (1). For example, the authors cite the 1878 belief that, “the mind that cultivates small-pox by vaccination is now engaged in the suppression of small-pox by saturating the small-pox with carbolic acid, which is a virulent poison. This poison being absorbed by the absorbents enters the blood, and the natural secretions are tainted by it." This is supposedly analogous to 2001 belief that, “vaccines contain not only live viruses but also very significant amounts of highly toxic substances such as mercury, aluminum and formaldehyde. Could this be the reason for the upsurge in autism, ADHD, asthma,.....?” Apparently Drs. Wolfe and Sharp are unaware of the fact that mercury (in the form of thimerosal), a know neurotoxin, accumulated in vaccines to potentially damaging levels before regulatory authorities identified the problem in the late 1990s (2). Because vaccine manufacturers had no evidence, even from animal studies, that the amount of mercury present in the routine U.S. childhood vaccine schedule was safe, they had little recourse but to reduce or eliminate the level of mercury in their vaccines. This remedial action was too little too late, however. When the Institute of Medicine’s Committee for Immunization Safety concluded in 2001 that it was “biologically plausible” that the mercury present in childhood vaccines could have caused neurodevelopmental disorders, including autistic spectrum disorders, confidence in vaccine safety was justifiably shaken (3). I little hubris can be a dangerous thing. Competing interests: none References 1. Wolfe RM and Sharp LK. Anti-vaccinationists past and present. BMJ 2002;325:430-432. 2. Ball LK, Ball R, Pratt RD. An assessment of thimerosal use in childhood vaccines. Pediatrics. 2001;107:1147-1154. 3. Institute of Medicine. Immunization Safety Review: Thimerosal- containing vaccines and neurodevelopmental disorders. 2001: www.nap.edu/books/0309076366 accessed October 1, 2001.
Hidden tyranny 24 August 2002
Lisa C Blakemore-Brown, Psychologist UK Send response to journal: Re: Hidden tyranny	Wolfe and Sharp ask: how should the mainstream medical authorities approach the anti- vaccination movement? A passive reaction could be construed as endangering the health of society, whereas a heavy handed approach can threaten the values of individual liberty and freedom of expression that we cherish. This creative tension will not leave us and cannot be cured by force alone. Achieving a balance in all things must be our constant aim, and this is fundamentally what these authors are saying at this point. This balance emerges from `each` side having the opportunity to voice their opinions, to present their findings without threat from a dogmatic system, with more power. This shouldn't really need to be said at this stage of our advancement in Western societies. That it does, reflects a strange climactic world change which seems more medieval than 3rd Millennium. This change has washed over various professional and political shores - medicine is only one - but the BMJ has brilliantly provided a forum for discussion of interwoven issues in Rapid Responses. Everywhere I look I see evidence of dogma stamping on fundamental liberties and rights, even altering the face of the Law. Am I the only one to consider the arrest, reporting and treatment of individuals suspected of murdering the beautiful children in Cambridge as a witch-hunt? If it is, and these people are innocent, their lives are destroyed and other children may be murdered by the real killer walking free. Dogmatic individuals and systems casually shift to punitive and even cruel measures as they whip up hysteria and internalise an immoveable belief in their own dogma. This will happen, of course, if such individuals are allowed to gain strength, without any challenge. Most people who are not dogmatic will avoid the challenge, especially if they are threatened with loss of job/loss of face and status/loss of their children etc. The tyrannical mind knows this and hijacks what he sees as `weakness` and inadequacy. As he `wins` these battles over decent people and balanced sustems, the tyrant basks in the glory of gaining total control, his success in silencing critics spurring him on to greater things. As he sees them. These are the infamous men of history who should always be challenged. If they are not, their dogma and influence spreads to suggestible, sycophantic or fearful people and this contrived tangled tapestry helps and protects the tyrant from the focus of blame. If Governments fail to stem the tide, or maybe join in, freedom of expression and natural justice spins out of our world, barbarism returning. We point to countries we call `third world` and reel at the atrocities meted out to innocent people on the orders of shocking tyrannical rulers, but the cruel and arbitrary use of authority can lurk behind the mask of so called respectable professionals and Governments, and has the same power to totally destroy the individual, and in turn all of civilised society. If the Western world considers itself advanced and in a position to control and change the tyranny of fanatics in some parts of the world - lets at least be good role models. Perhaps the time has come to learn lessons about weaving balance and respect into our world, from other cultures. For instance, the ancient East and the peaceful American Indian tribes.
They were right 24 August 2002
john s lucas, parent hereford hr2odm Send response to journal: Re: They were right	Reading smallpox vaccine critics such as Wallace (1), Tebb (2) & Dr Hadwen (3), it's hard not to conclude that they were right, smallpox vaccines didn't protect at all, that smallpox dangers have been hyped by vaccinators (4), and the vaccines were the real danger as the cause of smallpox epidemics, and the spread of numerous diseases such as syphilis & leprosy (5). Which is hardly surprising as arm-to-arm vaccination was in use for over 100 years. Later in the Phillipines (6) it was again proven to be ineffective and deadly. The experience in Leicester would explain why they took to the streets to get rid of vaccination (7) (8). I know "Anti-vaccinationist" is meant to signify someone suffering from a strange medical complaint or follower of some cult but it's worth recalling the words of a noted vaccine critic: "The minority is sometimes right; the majority always wrong."----George Bernard Shaw. 1. Wallace http://www.whale.to/vaccine/wallace/1.html 2. Tebb http://www.whale.to/vaccine/tebb.html 3. Dr Hadwen http://www.whale.to/vaccines/hadwen1.html 4. Smallpox dangers http://www.whale.to/v/smallpox2.html 5. http://www.whale.to/vaccine/small.html 6. Phillipines http://www.whale.to/vaccines/smallpox7.html 7. Leicester http://www.whale.to/m/smallpox/leicester.html 8. Sanitation vs vaccination http://www.whale.to/vaccine/sanitation.html
History of vaccination and anti-vaccination programmes in India 26 August 2002
Parthasarathy K. S., Scientific Officer, Atomic Energy Regulatory Board Mumbai 400 094 Send response to journal: Re: History of vaccination and anti-vaccination programmes in India	Drs Robert Wolfe and Lisa Sharp inspired me to look at the history of vaccination and anti-vaccination programmes in India. The Travancore State Manual published in 1940 stated thus: …"With a view to protect her subjects from the outbreak of smallpox which was frequent in those days, Her Highness sanctioned the establishment of a Smallpox Vaccination Section in 988 (AD 1813)".…. Her Highness was Rani Gouri Laxmi Bai, the then reigning queen of the princely State of Travancore. According to Professor Amathya Sen, Kerala's (Travancore is in Kerala) exceptional record of progress goes back in history and includes, among other things,the policy of enlightenment and diffusion of education clearly articulated by this queen. Travancore was then the extreme southwest State of India. As people showed signs of fear against vaccination, the queen set herself an example by getting all the members of the Royal Household vaccinated first, to reassure her subjects. The only other similar example is that of US President Thomas Jefferson, who got 18 members of his family vaccinated to reassure his people. In 1864, the Smallpox Vaccination Section in Travancore was converted into a Division in the Medical Department.A Royal Proclamation, issued in 1879, made vaccination compulsory for all "Government servants, pupils in schools, vakils, persons seeking help from hospitals, inmates of jails and persons dependent on State Charities". Based on newspaper reports, William Tebb, well-known anti- vaccinationist, concluded that in many parts of India, there were revolts against compulsory vaccination. Commissioners (the highest authority of the government in any district) reported that nearly in every village, there were families who persistently refused vaccination and hid their offsprings to escape the vaccinators.The Madras Mail of July 2nd 1890 stated that vaccination was very unpopular with many classes. The Allahabad Pioneer (September 23, 1891) noted that parents washed out the vaccine virus immediately after vaccination… "the natives are in the habit of rubbing chalk, chunam or flour with a view , if possible, of preventing the vesicles rising on their children's arms". This may be true; during the early fifties, I have heard grandparents offering similar advice to their young ones. Occasionally, they asked them to run away, when the vaccinators visited the village According to Tebb, the editor of The Allahabad Pioneer Mail (6th October 1891) observed that if anti-vaccinationists could be counted in their thousands in England, it was small wonder that they could be counted in their millions in India. Strangely, Tebb who meticulously quoted all the anti-vaccination titbits from India, did not refer to the enthusastic and encouraging response to vaccination by a native queen. Wolfe and Sharp in their excellent article did not consider the fact that anti-vaccinationists presently play a decisive and dominant role in communicating their views. Many of them may not be medically qualified. But they are generally good communicators. They can now propagate their views through the internet. Researchers from the University of Sydney searched the net for information on "vaccination" and "immunisation". Reporting in the Archives of Diseases in Childhood (2002; 87:22-25) they concluded that forty four percent of the sites displayed by seven search engines including google, lycos, yahoo and altavista were anti-vaccination sites. All the top ten sites from each of the most popular search engines were contributed by anti-vaccinationists. Over half of the adults with internet access use it at one time or other to search for health information. Is it not worrying that search engines are more likely to guide people to sites which oppose the vaccination of children? Many of these sites are attractive; they are packed with information, but they are set up by people with no medical qualifications. Professor Simon Chapman, the leading author of the Sydney study,observed that some of sites used names that implied authority like "institute" or "centre". Seventy five percent had referred to medical literature. The sites generally provided unreliable information. He noted that the web has made information accessible to millions around the world, but it was very difficult to institute a system of quality control in this medium. I have no competing interest to declare.
Establishment Vaccine Propaganda 26 August 2002
Daniel H Duffy, Clinic Director Geneva, Ohio 44041 Send response to journal: Re: Establishment Vaccine Propaganda	I have been a small town family doctor for over thirty years. Prior to that, for about quarter century, I traveled the world over while always avoiding any type of vaccination. Unlike the author, I read the real history of vaccination as well as the establishment propaganda version. I began to do that after being vaccinated upon entry into military service and suffering terribly from that series of several shots that recruits received all at once. My subsequent investigation revealed that the meningitis suffered mainly on military installations back in the '40s and 50s was suffered only by freshly vaccinated recruits and never by the mess sargeant, the drill sargeant, the Captain or the little girls in the service club with whom we played kissy face - only the freshly vaccinated recruits "caught" the meningitis - that aroused in me a great curiosity - it made of me, an observer and an investigator - I've been watching the vaccination scene ever since [1947]. Your article stated: "The activities of today's propagandists against immunisations are directly descended from, indeed little changed from, those of the anti- vaccinationists of the late nineteenth century" History demonstrates that, in fact, the propaganda stems from your side of the debate rather than from that of the antivaccinationists. Has Robert never investigated the history of vaccines? All of the major "epidemic" diseases were just about on their way out long before any serious vaccinations took place and even then the percentages of those vaccinated were miniscule. Allow me to let you in on just a few of the hundreds of historical facts that the parrot of the establishment viewpoint will never run across: 1. During the early polio epidemics, just before the first vaccine was used, doctors were ordered not to report polio cases until thirty days after symptom onset. Guess what that did to the numbers? 2. At about the same time, Benjamin Sandler MD demonstrated conclusively that diets high in the sugar foods commonly consumed in the post war boom actually predisposed to polio especially during the summer months. Authorities in his small town shut down the sale of junk foods and the polio rate immediately dropped to zero in his town. 3. Sandler published his no sugar, essentially high protein, low carbohydrate diet in every major newspaper in the country - did anyone ever factor that effect into the equation along with the alleged effect of the vaccines? 4. Sandler then demonstrated that only by dumping the blood sugar of lab animals via the use of insulin could he prompt them to demonstrate polio- like symptoms. A small book was published on his studies. 5. Did you know that there are about 2000 names for polio in the medical language? 6. Did you know that the favorite name for polio is now aseptic meningitis? Did you know that the name was changed back in the good old days as another ruse to make it look like vaccines were reducing polio? 7. Did you know that VIOXX causes polio? That is if you want to call it by its old name. The PDR lists it as aseptic meningitis. My guess is that the one or two school kids recently diagnosed with meningitis here in Ohio were never checked for drug effects. For the reader's information, all of the old "epidemics" were caused by malthusian-predicted societal outgrowths of food supplies with its subsequent malnutrition. The rats and fleas and bugs are still with us but the "epidemics" are all gone. Robert has been hoodwinked by the germ theory of disease [upon which a criminal industry depends] he joins the ranks of other historical victims of authoritarian propaganda based upon belief systems such as Ptolemy's flat-earth-centered universe. The germ theory of disease is such an incredibly stupid notion! It's like saying that flies cause manure piles and firemen cause fires. Doesn't anyone ever wonder why the doctors never "catch" all this stuff? In over thirty years of clinical practice I have never seen an infectious hepatitis "caught" by another member of a household and believe me when I say I really looked high and low for one of those. If I found one I would look for a source of the poisoning, not for a germ or a virus. The authors are victims of the germ theory propaganda that has about 85% of the world's "educated" population under its control. Dr Daniel H Duffy Sr Geneva, Ohio
Evolution shows the immorality of anti-vaccination movements 26 August 2002
Riccardo Baschetti, retired medical inspector CP 671, 60001-970 Fortaleza (CE), Brazil Send response to journal: Re: Evolution shows the immorality of anti-vaccination movements	Wolfe and Sharp [1] seem to suggest that public health authorities should not choose "a heavy handed approach" to cope with anti-vaccination groups, because it "can threaten the values of individual liberty and freedom of expression that we cherish" [1]. Evolutionary arguments, however, suggest that the respect for those values is intrinsically immoral if it causes detrimental consequences for the community [2, 3]. The biological ethic that has wisely guided humankind for millions of years was far more concerned with the well-being of the community than with individual interests, because evolution rewarded the moral - ie socially beneficial - decisions of a group by favouring its survival, and punished the immoral - ie socially harmful - decisions by hastening its extinction [2]. If human beings were still living in social groups consisting of a few tens of members, as humankind did for the 99% of its evolution [4], the individuals of those small communities would hardly be so crazy and immoral as to oppose immunisations, because an epidemic of a fatal contagious disease, besides killing themselves and their relatives, will menace the survival of the entire community. By contrast, even in the case that immunisations produce adverse effects on some social members, that small community will survive. Evolutionary arguments, therefore, clearly show that what counts, in any social decisions, is the good of the community, not the good of the individual [2]. The immorality of anti-vaccination movements is not easily recognisable socially in the present immense communities, because, unlike in the small primitive ones, epidemic diseases harm and kill only a minority in today's societies, which consist of millions of individuals [2]. Such minority, however, often exceeds the population of thousands of little ancestral communities. Since evolution has taught human beings that what could potentially jeopardise the well-being and the survival of the community is to be regarded as immoral and condemnable [2], public health authorities should use a heavy handed approach to face anti-vaccination propagandists, whose individualistic claims cannot but harm the community. As has righty been pointed out, "We can't afford to be half hearted about vaccination programmes" [5]. Humankind, as an eminently social species that survived for millions of years thanks to its biological ethic aimed at preserving the good of the community, should firmly reject any philosophical positions that, invented in the last 0.1% of human evolution, favour the interests of the individual at the expense of the community. 1. Wolfe RM, Sharp LK. Anti-vaccinationists past and present. BMJ 2002;325:430-2. (24 August) 2. Baschetti R. Ethical analysis in public health. Lancet 2002;360:416. 3. Baschetti R. People who condemn eugenics may be in minority now. BMJ 1999;319:1196. 4. Wilson DS. Human groups as unit of selection. Science 1997;276:1816-7. 5. King S. Vaccination policies: individual rights v community health. BMJ 1999;319:1448-9.
Ill-informed on the history of vaccinations 27 August 2002
Patrick J. McGuinness, Musician Send response to journal: Re: Ill-informed on the history of vaccinations	That this article is published as 'education' serves to show how woefully ill-informed doctors are on the history of vaccinations, smallpox in particular. What has struck me since I started my own small investigation in the topic was how the 'anti-vaccinists' put forth their arguments through detailed statistics, and a willingness to debate all available evidence, the establishment line relies on faith, and highly selective information. In the UK we had our worst ever smallpox outbreaks in the 1870's.... after vaccination had been compulsory for over fifteen years. Other countries at the time invariably shared the experience - vaccinations dramatically worsening the problem of smallpox (1). I find it rather bizarre given this utterly basic information how one can seek to ridicule anti-vaccinists of the day, and even stranger that the industry contrives to overlook it now. Why should the public trust doctors on the subject, when they can receive far more complete information elsewhere? The truth is the pro-vaccine camp is being comprehensively out-argued on the internet, and this is held as deeply threatening. That the authors of the article can even consider suppressing free speech so that the 'wrong' kind of information does not leak out beggars belief... it is quite Orwellian. Shame. 1. http://www.thinktwice.com/smallpox.htm
Sheer Arrogance ! 27 August 2002
Carol A Teasdale Send response to journal: Re: Sheer Arrogance !	"At least 50% of injections were unsafe in 14 of 19 countries (representing five developing world regions) for which data were available. Eighteen studies reported a convincing link between unsafe injections and the transmission of hepatitis B and C, HIV, Ebola and Lassa virus infections and malaria." (1) How can such a thing ever be warranted? If a child dies in God's hands of a common childhood illness, at least the parents can make their peace with Him. Where are the do-gooders who started this vaccination madness in the Third World now and what plans do they have to pick up their pieces. Whose hands will they hold and what comforts are they going to give when it dawns on the Third World what we have really done to their children? We have imposed these vaccines on unstable Third World countries in the full knowledge that war or a breakdown of infrastructure will leave generations without natural immunity. We have given them diseases man has no treatments for, how can this ever be forgiven? Where are our own children going to be as these diseases come thundering back up on us through their inevitable social interactions with the Third World? With each new vaccination program we are brought closer to the inevitable mistake. This means that on balance the safest route is to bring a halt to this crusade against nature once and for all, and to stop any more vaccines being developed. There is no disease presently ravaging our children en-mass that is worth taking any more arrogant risks for. Now is the time for cures for the individual, not vaccination for the masses. It's OK for people to step forward and say enough is enough, that children aren't money making machines for commercially driven pharmaceutical companies. These people are not uneducated or 'immoral anti -vaccinationists ', as one respondent to this article has suggested. They are people with a strong opposing point of view driven purely on innate instinct, not by a loyalty to money, their work, or teaching methods. We must stop moving toward a society that is creating a dependency on vaccines to satisfy the ravenous appetites of profit driven companies and the stock market. Over millions of years humankind has developed a complex immunity response to disease, one which we don't fully understand yet in the context of the time we have been on the earth. We have an ongoing interrelationship with other societies, species and the environment, and the fact that we got as far as we did without mass vaccination should speak volumes for the true value it holds for us in the face of nature. 1. (Unsafe injections in the developing world and transmission of bloodborne pathogens: a review. Simonsen L, Kane A, Lloyd J, Zaffran M, Kane M. World Health Organization, Geneva, Switzerland.) http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=10593026&dopt=Abstract
awareness notice 28 August 2002
ray e spier, professor of science and engineering ethics university of surrey, GU2 7XH Send response to journal: Re: awareness notice	You may be interested in an article I published in the journal Vaccine recently. The reference and title are below: SPIER,R.E. (2002) Perception of risk of vaccine adverse events: a historical perspective. Vaccine, vol 20 pp S78-S84 NB the S in the page reference refers to a Supplement
Re: Anti-vaccinationists past and present 28 August 2002
Raymond Gallup, Founder, Autism Autoimmunity Project 45 Iroquois Avenue Lake Hiawatha, NJ 07034 Send response to journal: Re: Re: Anti-vaccinationists past and present	Dear Sir: Regarding the article, Anti-vaccinationists past and present, only one side is presented. Those that say we are anti-vaccinationists are really the anti-science people and we who are branded the anti- vaccinationists are the pro-science people. Case in point, none of the vaccines on the market place have ever gone through independent, long-term safety studies. Why? Right now we are paying the price because proper scientific safety studies haven't been done on vaccines....that price is the exploding autism epidemic that we see in the US, UK and elsewhere. Andrew Wakefield and Vijendra Singh have done scientific studies on the link of the MMR vaccine to gut-brain - immune system problems in autistic children. Instead of looking into carrying on more extensive research to help our children, the critics attack these courageous researchers and parents by denying the science....many times without reading the science. The reason for this is that there is a lot of money to be made with these vaccines and people would rather look after their own interests than to do the science. In other words....the name of the game is how much money you can make, the public can be damned and the heck with doing the clinical science. Ray Gallup, Founder Autism Autoimmunity Project
Re: History of vaccination and anti-vaccination programmes in India 28 August 2002
Patrick J McGuinness, Musician Send response to journal: Re: Re: History of vaccination and anti-vaccination programmes in India	But whether that vaccination campaign actually worked is of course a trivial question, a mere curiosity; If I may quote Dr. Charles Nichols of Boston (1) “In India, according to an official return presented to the British House of Commons by Viscount Morley, there have been, during 30 years, 1877 to 1906, 3,344,325 deaths from smallpox of persons presumably vaccinated, for vaccination is universally enforced in India....In each and every community where vaccination ceases and strict sanitation is substituted, smallpox disappears. There are no exceptions to this.” No wonder they tried to hide. (1) http://proliberty.com/observer/20000607.htm
Help it's ELPS 28 August 2002
Trevor D Thompson, Clinical Lecturer University of Bristol BS6 6JL Send response to journal: Re: Help it's ELPS	My habit is to read the BMJ for an hour early on Saturday morning - in bed. I was baffled therefore by this article on vaccination based on the premise that 21th century argumentation paralleled that of the 19th century. My problem - the fact that the arguments themselves (that upon which this debate could truly be judged) were not included in the article - but rather on bmj.com! As a paper journal article I found it empty and a little condescending - as were the witches on the front cover. Let's have an open debate on the issues and lets not put the important bits on the website.
The story of the anti-vaccinationists has serious shortcomings 29 August 2002
Norman Beale, General Practitioner Northlands Surgery, North Street, Calne, Wiltshire, SN11 0HH Send response to journal: Re: The story of the anti-vaccinationists has serious shortcomings	Sir, The front-cover predominance given to the paper by Wolfe and Sharp (1) puts it in a spotlight. More’s the pity, then, that it was not expunged of a series of factual errors and that it presents a truncated history. Much of what we read, here, about Edward Jenner is wrong. Jenner’s paper to the Royal Society in 1796, proposing that inoculation with cowpox serum protected against smallpox, was rejected (2). The President, Joseph Banks, suggested to the author that he needed more evidence for his thesis (2). Jenner’s subsequent experimental series was performed in the Spring of 1798 and he then published his observations privately, at his own expense (3). Jenner did coin the word ‘vaccine’ it is true but only as an adjective as in the phrase ‘vaccine inoculation’ (4). He could well have used the term ‘bovine inoculation’ to same descriptive effect. It was his friend and supporter Richard Dunning of Plymouth who first introduced the noun ‘vaccination’ (2). Nor is it strictly true that Jenner ‘popularised’ his new technique for fighting smallpox – it was rapidly taken up by several of his contemporaries such as William Woodville and George Pearson – probably for profit motive (2). But Wolfe and Sharp’s perspective of this aspect of medical history is as sloppy as their relation of the facts around Jenner. Just as sexual intercourse did not begin in 1963, opposition to inoculation (initially ‘variolation’ using live smallpox serum) did not begin in 1800. Reaction in western Europe and in the American colonies can be traced back to the importation of the practice from the Levant by Lady Mary Wortley Montagu in 1721 (5). To imply that the story of the ‘anti-vaccinationists’ began around 1800 is to ignore the beginnings of the history, to lose up to a third of the pedigree. At the very least it insults the memory of the courageous C18 pioneers such as Daniel Sutton, Thomas Dimsdale, Jan Ingen Housz and Cotton Mather who were all personally confronted by vigorous opposition and professional ostracism. 1. Wolfe R, Sharp L. Anti-vaccinationists past and present. BMJ 2002; 325:430 – 2. 2. Fisher R. Edward Jenner 1749 – 1823. Andre Deutsch, London 1991. 3. Jenner E. An Inquiry into the Causes and Effects of the Variolae Vaccinae . . . Sampson Low, London 1798. 4. Jenner E. The origin of the Vaccine Inoculation. Shury, London 1801. 5. Grundy I. Lady Mary Wortley Montagu. Oxford University Press, Oxford, 1999. Norman Beale MD, FRCGP. There are no competing interests.
How about real evidence, not just spiritual 29 August 2002
Cynthia Zahoruk, Parent Send response to journal: Re: How about real evidence, not just spiritual	This article infuriates me and insults me as a human being and a parent. I have a child who was injured by a vaccination. This is a real problem gentlemen! Many anti-vaccinationist's are not lead by spiritual beliefs, they are lead by what exists in their very real life. When the medical establishment and big business realize that vaccines are not safe for all people, or perhaps when their own children are injured before their eyes, then they may change their arrogant minds. "sacrifice the few for the common good" is a more fitting title for this article
History repeats itself 30 August 2002
Michael D Innis, Director Medisets International Send response to journal: Re: History repeats itself	Editor, More than a quarter of a century ago I submitted a paper entitled “Oncogenesis and Poliomyelitis Vaccine” to the Editor of the BMJ. It was rejected. Today there are numerous reports of individuals with one or other form of malignancy attributable to Simian virus 40 contaminated Poliomyelitis vaccine administered in childhood [1].My paper was eventually published in Nature[2] having been rejected by another well known Medical Journal. And of course it, and I, were roundly criticized by the Establishment. Andrew Wakefield and V.J. Singh will know the feeling. Now the public are suspicious about other vaccines and history is repeating itself. My paper on “Coagulopathy mistaken for Shaken Baby Syndrome” was rejected – it recorded the case of a child given six vaccines on the same day and who was ill with fever, irritability and diarrhoea the next day and was dead three weeks later. Death was certified to be due to the Shaken Baby Syndrome on the evidence of Pathologists, Paediatricians and Radiologists when all the haematological and biochemical evidence clearly indicated death was due to a coagulopathy following hepatic insufficiency and malnutrition. Paediatricians, instructed by the RCPCH, believe “Frank bleeding from the nose or mouth is significant of physical intervention…” – Radiologists mistake callus formation on a scorbutic rib for “fracture induced by Non- accidental Injury” and Pathologists count diligently the number of siderophages in alveoli of the lung and confidently proclaim “death due to imposed suffocation”. Coagulopathies appear to be of no significance when a perpetrator is being sought – or should one say Hunted. LONG LIVE RAPID RESPONSES Michael Innis References: 1.Malignant Mesothelioma Therapeutic Options and Role of SV40: An Update The University of Chicago Gleacher Centre Chicago Illinois April 20-21 2001 2.Innis MD. (1968) Oncogenesis and Poliomyelitis vaccine Nature 219:972 – 3
Just scratching the surface 2 September 2002
Miriam Wolfe, parent Send response to journal: Re: Just scratching the surface	Wolfe and Sharp molly-coddle the egos of the anti-vaccinationists. The anti-vaccinationists are a menace to society for if they had their way they would gladly put the greater population at risk of illness, disability and death from preventable diseases by eliminating mandated immunizations. Wolfe and Sharp do not even begin to slam the anti- vaccinationists inspite of the latter's claims of persecution.
History in the making..... 8 September 2002
John P Heptonstall, Director of The Morley Acupuncture Clinic and Complementary Therapy Centre Leeds LS27 8EG Send response to journal: Re: History in the making.....	Sir What the authors fail to represent are the figures showing the apparent absolute futility of smallpox vaccinations during the 1800s and early 1900s. Their spin on history should now be compared with that of Ethel Douglas Hume in her book "Pasteur Exposed" of 1926....... Jenner developed a vaccine that was eventually outlawed - although it confered some immunity to the recipient it was found to create a serious spread of the disease amongst comunities, and of a more virulent type. Despite this, and strong public opposition, a deal was later done between physicians and government and the lucrative vaccine was allowed again; in 1840 free vaccination was provided, in 1853 compulsory vaccination for children was introduced and in 1867 the Guardians were ordered to prosecute evaders such that few children escaped vaccination. It was believed by some observers at that time that smallpox would disappear without any vaccination policy by 1870. The INefficacy of the vaccine is showed by the following figures:- For England and Wales, in 1857-59 there were 14,244 deaths 1863-65 there were 20,059 deaths 1870-72 there were 44,840 deaths Between the 1st and 2nd epidemics a population that had only increased by 7% experienced a 40.8% increase in smallpox deaths. Between the 2nd and 3rd epidemics the 9% increased population saw a 123% increase in deaths. The captive military audience fared as badly; Ethel Douglas Hume compared the heavily vaccinated British Army and Navy with the then unvaccinated Leicester community which had learned a harsh lesson during the 1871-72 epidemic where many deaths occurred despite previous 95% vacccination uptake. Thereafter it had decided to rely on improved sanitation and isolation and refused vaccination. Between 1873 and 1894 the smallpox rate per million was for the Army 37, Navy 36.8 and for Leicester (ages 15-45) 14.4. Between 1878 and 1896 Leicester only had 10 deaths per million, from 1878-89 only one death per million, and in the 26 years prior to 1931 there were only 2 smallpox deaths in leicester. A similar fate was seen with diphtheria vaccine, in the first 15 years of use the number of deaths in England and Wales rose by 20% over the previous 15 years. Compare this to Sweden where diphtheria virtually disappeared, it had no vaccination policy for the disease! For those familiar with Gulf War Syndrome; heavily vaccinated troops fighting for their country at the Gallipoli Expedition saw a similar fate; 25,270 were killed, 75,191 wounded, 12,451 went missing and 96,684 became sick. Perhaps the 'anti-vaccination lobby' have a point? Improved sanitation and isolation with improved treatments are very valuable. Regards John H.
Doctors cause more deaths than non-vaccinating parents 8 September 2002
Hilary A Butler, free-lance journalist Home. Send response to journal: Re: Doctors cause more deaths than non-vaccinating parents	Dear Sir, Riccardo Baschetti say that smaller communities of the past: "***would hardly be so crazy and immoral as to oppose immunisations, because an epidemic of a fatal contagious disease, besides killing themselves and their relatives, will menace the survival of the entire community***" I am sure that even Stone age people would understand the current logic, that if VACCINES PREVENT ILLNESS AND DEATH, then there would be no purpose in killing the unvaccinated, as they would be no threat to the vaccinated. Riccardo further argues that "***evolution has taught human beings that what could potentially jeopardise the well-being and the survival of the community is to be regarded as immoral and condemnable.***" Therefore presumable, parents should be made to vacinate their children. Assuming then, that parents who don't vaccinated, are to be regarded as immoral and condemnable because they pose a threat to the entire vaccinated community, we have to ask WHY this is considered fact. This is highly unlikely. History shows that this earth was well populated prior to vaccines despite epidemics. Not every family on earth experienced deaths from immunable disease either. My family tree, which goes back to 1570, shows that the most dramatic, greatest number of deaths were from puerperal fever (and we all know who caused those), deaths in wars, one private duel, and one ancestor kicked to death by a horse in the street in London. The rest who survived the "hands" of the doctors, mainly lived to at least 70 years old. While Riccardo Baschetti has no documented proof that annhiliation of the human race will result from non-vaccinated children, I can understand his reasoning that PROVEABLE preventable death could be considered immoral and condemnable. To illustrate that, Riccardo Baschetti need look no further that what happens in every country where modern medicine is to the fore. I know the statistics of my country best, but I am sure that Brazil's will tell a similar story. Government statistics show that the actions, devices and pharmaceutical medicines controlled by members of his "do no harm" health profession, in New Zealand, commonly called preventable medical error, kill 1,600 people each year. These figures do not include nosocomial infections. 16,000 highly preventable deaths in the last DECADE, .... not to mention injuries which currently number 9,000 per year....(90,000 per decade) Each year, preventable medical error in New Zealand, involves a total of 28,359 people - 26% of all hospital discharges. And the "cost non-benefit" analysis on medical injury and deaths, from a 1998 cabinet paper on file, totalled the cost to the economy at $1.7 billion per year. An annual feat that non-vaccinating parents in this country (or any other, for that matter) will never, ever, be able to match. So I suggest that Riccardo Baschetti looks to at his stated " ***biological ethic aimed at preserving the good of the community***" by cleaning up the published, verifiable, condemnable immorality of the thousands of preventable deaths and injuries caused by his own profession, which (in this country)cause far more deaths and disability than immunable diseases ever have in the past, before fingering non-vaccinating parents as some unique criminal species needing to be dealt with. Sincerely, Hilary Butler.
The cow that died aborting a man 9 September 2002
Dr Rishi kant ojha, Registrar,Pediatrics St Stephen's Hospital,Tis Hazari,Delhi, Dr Rambha Pathak, Resident, Community Medicine,Indira Gandhi Medical College,Shimla Send response to journal: Re: The cow that died aborting a man	The cover picture on BMJ 24th August 2002 on antivaccinationists depicts eight witches who presumably adversely affect the uptake rate of immunization. Modern day representatives of this clan presumably include the American Academy of Pediatrics which withdrew recommendations of use of rotavirus vaccine,(which adverse publicity must have resulted in decreased uptake of the vaccine), on the basis of a slight excess risk of intususseption of 1 per 5000 vaccinated children [1] as also Dr A.J. Wakefield [2] who found an association of MMR with autism and colitis,leading to an adverse publicity and reduced uptake of MMR. The raging debate on vaccination is much more than continuation of "a medieval mindset". Save the Children fund recently criticised the GAVI and WHO style of promotion of expensive vaccine regimes in the world's poorest countries that cannot afford and perhaps do not need them.Then there is the issue of undesirable effects of some vaccines. Witch- hunting of the likes of Dr Wakefield would be to sacrifice objectivity in science. We do not need the BMJ to go witch-hunting.I understand that the medieval practice was to throw the suspected witches bound hand and foot,into the sea;if they surfaced, it was proof that they must be witches and were burnt at the stakes! The journal would do well to publish an equally vociferous issue on misadventures of vaccination through the ages to set the scores right. References 1. Margaret B Rennels .The Rotavirus story: A clinical Investigator's view. Pediatrics 2000; 106:123-125 2. Wakefield A J. Association of MMR and bowel problem and autism- mild lymphoid nodular hyperplasia, non-specific colitis and pervasive developmental disorder. Lancet 1998; 351:637-41. 3. Fiona Fleck. Children's charity criticises global immunisation initiative. BMJ 2002; 324: 129
Re: Doctors cause more deaths than non-vaccinating parents 12 September 2002
Riccardo Baschetti, CP 671, 60001-970 Fortaleza (CE), Brazil retired medical inspector Send response to journal: Re: Re: Doctors cause more deaths than non-vaccinating parents	Contrary to Hilary Butler's claims [1] commenting on my electronic letter [2], "even Stone age people would understand" that anti- vaccinationists represent a serious and immoral threat to public health, because they egoistically favour their own individual interests at the expense of the community, thereby violating the sound biological ethic that allowed humankind to survive for millions of years [3]. As Susan King [4] correctly pointed out, "If, because of a vaccine programme, the incidence of the disease has become low then the risk of disease for an individual is low but the risk of adverse effects from the vaccine is unchanged. Therefore for the individual, protection from disease by 'herd immunity' may become the safest option because it avoids the risk from the vaccine. On the other hand, from the public health perspective, avoidance of vaccination is clearly not in the best interest of public because herd immunity diminishes as coverage falls" [4]. That the community can only be harmed by the immoral and egoistic individualism of anti-vaccinationists is clearly shown by the following example: "In the early 1970s uptake of diphtheria, pertussis, and tetanus vaccine in the UK was 81% and the incidence of pertussis was low. After a report in 1974 ascribing neurological reactions to the pertussis vaccine the public lost confidence in the vaccine and uptake fell to 31%: pertussis epidemics followed" [4]. Similarly, as reported by Wolfe and Sharp [5], "In Stockholm, the majority of the population began to refuse vaccination, so that by 1872 vaccination rates in Stockholm had fallen to just over 40%, whereas they approached 90% in the rest of Sweden....A major epidemic in 1874 shocked the city and led to widespread vaccination and an end to further epidemics" [5]. In a grotesque and clumsy attempt to defend anti-vaccinationists, Hilary Butler [1] mentions the "immorality of the thousands of preventable deaths and injuries caused" by doctors. Medical errors, however, being unintentional, have patently nothing to do with immorality, because the latter axiomatically implies conscious intentionality. By contrast, anti- vaccinationists are indisputably immoral, because they, to protect their own egoistic interests, jeopardise consciously the good of the entire community. 1. Butler HA. Doctors cause more deaths than non-vaccinating parents. <http://bmj.com/cgi/eletters/325/7361/430#25310>. 2. Baschetti R. Evolution shows the immorality of anti-vaccination movements. <http://bmj.com/cgi/eletters/325/7361/430#24963>. 3. Baschetti R. Ethical analysis in public health. Lancet 2002;360:416. 4. King S. Vaccination policies: individual rights v community health. BMJ 1999;319:1448-9. 5. Wolfe RM, Sharp LK. Anti-vaccinationists past and present. BMJ 2002;325:430-2.
Long Term Vaccination Studies? 13 September 2002
Charles W. Sullivan, D.O. Waterville, ME 04901 USA Send response to journal: Re: Long Term Vaccination Studies?	Have any long-term studies been done on the safety of the DPT vaccine (long-term = greater than 3 years!)? Charles
Long Term Vaccination Studies? 15 September 2002
Charles W. Sullivan, D.O. Waterville, ME 04901 USA Send response to journal: Re: Long Term Vaccination Studies?	Have any long-term studies been done on the safety of the DPT vaccine (long-term = greater than 3 years!)? Charles
Baschetti’s conundrum 15 September 2002
Peter Morrell, freelance researcher, history of medicine, UK Send response to journal: Re: Baschetti’s conundrum	Sir, Skating desperately over the thin ice of a complex issue like vaccination armed only with the blunderbuss of emphatic and insulting words [1, 2], powered by strong views - the perilous path Baschetti has chosen - might lead to a spectacular crash through the ice. What he has thusfar dismally failed to explain is why anti- vaccinationists should be designated as ‘selfish’ and ‘immoral’ [his words], which suggests, contrariwise, that those who do vaccinate are ‘altruistic’ and ‘virtuous’ [my words]. What is the basis for such a polarisation? This discussion would therefore benefit immeasurably if Baschetti would care to clarify his use of these terms and propositions; and while he is about it, he might just as well also explain who he thinks is responsible for his/her sickness, an individual or the State? Clearly, if the answer to this question is ‘both,’ then the basis for his strong polarity on this issue is demolished in one stroke. More light can also be shed upon this matter by considering the sorry tale of Huxley’s Garden, about which more in due course. First, we await Baschetti’s clarifications. Sources [1] http://bmj.com/cgi/eletters/325/7361/430#24963 [2] http://bmj.com/cgi/eletters/325/7361/430#25423
Neither pro nor anti vaccination, stay with the facts 16 September 2002
Paul Lepine, private practice Quebec, G1V1W5 Send response to journal: Re: Neither pro nor anti vaccination, stay with the facts	Life, and especially human life, is complex and cannot be fully understood in a black or white way. Can we agree on the well observed facts below? 1- infectious or epidemic diseases diminishes where public hygiene and socio-economical conditions are better 2- infectious or epidemic diseases spreads where public hygiene and socio-economical conditions are deteriorating (think of Lebanon and Yoguslavia) 3- diminished vaccination coverage has been followed by outbreaks (like pertussis in England in the 80's) 4- recent introduction of vaccine (think haemophilus) has been followed by decline of the disease So both public hygiene and vaccination appears to be effective. Is it so difficult to imagine? We don't need neither pro nor anti vaccination dogmas. But we definitively and desperatly need long term study about all the possible adverse effects of vaccination (like we needed WHI study about HRT).
Re: Baschetti’s conundrum 16 September 2002
Riccardo Baschetti, CP 671, 60001-970 Fortaleza (CE), Brazil retired medical inspector Send response to journal: Re: Re: Baschetti’s conundrum	Judging by the curious letter of Peter Morrell [1], it would seem that The Lancet, instead if being a well-known medical journal, is an obscure magazine unavailable at the medical libraries of the UK. Alternatively, it would seem that Morrell considers the references listed at the end of medical papers to be merely decorative typographical compositions. In both of my electronic letters mentioned by Morrell, to substantiate my arguments, I repeatedly referred to my recent letter published in The Lancet [2]. This letter, in turn, thanks to its references, can easily conduct a serious reader to three other papers of mine (two published in The Lancet, one in the BMJ) [3-5], all of which can enable anyone to clearly realise the immorality of those who favour their own individual interests at the expense of the community, including, by implication, those who refuse vaccinations, thereby jeopardising public health. Considering that the second of my electronic letters mentioned by Morrell has led an Australian medical student to send me a kind personal e -mail expressing his "love" for my work, I believe that the arguments expounded in those electronic letters, contrary to Morrell's claims, have been clearly understood by most readers, who, therefore, should not need "clarifications". Bearing in mind that, proverbially, "there are none so deaf as those that will not hear", I surmise that Morrell's letter, far from reflecting a genuine inability to understand my arguments, represents a desperate, pathetic defence of anti-vaccinationists. However, should Morrell and some readers be really in need of clarifications, I invite them to read my papers referenced above [2-5]. As to Morrell's surprising question about whether an individual or the State "is responsible for his/her sickness", it should be unquestionably evident that the individual is responsible for non- contagious diseases, whereas the State is responsible for the contagious ones, because these, if unrestrained, can compromise both the health and the welfare of the entire community. 1. Morrell P. Baschetti's conundrum. <http://bmj.com/cgi/eletters/325/7361/430#25537>. 2. Baschetti R. Ethical analysis in public health. Lancet 2002;360:416. 3. Baschetti R. Science, philosophy, religion, and use of embryonic stem cells. Lancet 2002;359:2037. 4. Baschetti R. Use of stem cells in creation of embryos. Lancet 2001;358:2078. 5. Baschetti R. People who condemn eugenics may be in minority now. BMJ 1999;319:1196.
From the Coal Face 19 September 2002
John R GILBERT, Family doctor (partner) Seabury Medical Centre, Malahide, Co Dublin, IRELAND Send response to journal: Re: From the Coal Face	As a doctor qualified for over 25 years and a general practitioner since 1986, I have administered many vaccines and had many discussions with patients and parents. I have also had to decide whether to have my own children vaccinated. Thus it is a matter of continuing practical interest and one about which I have read extensively and with interest. If I were in any real doubt about the overall value of vaccination programmes, I would not administer them. However, to stand back for a moment, ask the big questions. Where did smallpox go? It is hard to believe that it disappeared on its own. Polio, with a bit of luck, may soon follow it into the history books. Further, having seen no measles for years, the MMR vaccination rates here in Ireland, where I now practice, have fallen so low that in 2000 there was an outbreak of about 1500 cases which included 3 deaths and a few children left seriously brain damaged. More outbreaks are expected. There will be more deaths, I expect. I don't really want to get into blaming anybody for these deaths, but whose actions will have been influential in their causation? I am more than happy to permit freedom of choice for patients if the decision is made after informed discussion but if herd inmmunity falls away then many are put at risk. It should also be said that vaccines have side effects, sometimes severe. The early pertussis vaccine was dirty, though less dangerous than the disease, and it was probably a mistake to allow high levels of thiomersal to persist in vaccines. I have also been witness at first hand of the poor management of vaccines by the military, resulting in gross over-treatment. However, I refer the reader back to the "big questions". Finally, I have a personal gut reaction against those who, in arguing the case against vaccination, assume that I am a witless dupe of the propaganda of a grand conspiracy. I too am capable of independent thought and forming my own conclusions.
Re: Baschetti’s conundrum 9 January 2003
Margaret S. Scheuer, C.A.N.D.I.D. Lakeside, CA 92040 Send response to journal: Re: Re: Baschetti’s conundrum	Well, anti-vaccionists may be immoral, but we sure aren't making any money at it. Venality is well-disguised in this issue, a perfect set-up. Perception is all that matters. Margaret Scheuer Competing interests:   None declared
money is not the only thing that makes the world go round 10 January 2003
Anthony R Cox, pharmacist City Hospital, Birmingham, B18 7BR Send response to journal: Re: money is not the only thing that makes the world go round	Margaret S. Scheuer's comment is an oversimplification too far. Firstly, money is not the only bias that people may suffer from. An anti-vaccinationist may have a bias agaisnt the pharmaceutical industry or the medical profession. A more extreme example is Alan Yurko, a convicted child murderer who shook a baby to death. He and his colleagues are trying to prove DTP vaccine was responsible for the death of the child to secure his release. Obscenely, he has been hailed as a hero by some. Money is not absent from the anti-vaccinationist circuit either. Some anti-vaccinationists may need funding for their research which they may obtain from anti-vaccinationist lobby groups or lectures. Others may be involved in court cases against vaccine manufacturers, and it may be in their interest to stoke up the dangers of vaccines in the media. One certainty is that the lawyers will make money, sometimes using public funds that could be better used. Competing interests:   None declared