Intended for healthcare professionals

Rapid response to:


The UK accelerated immunisation programme and sudden unexpected death in infancy: case-control study

BMJ 2001; 322 doi: (Published 07 April 2001) Cite this as: BMJ 2001;322:822

Rapid Response:

Re: Re: Immunisation/SIDS Case Control Study and A Well Documented cause of SIDS

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 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.


1. Leask, J. Re: A well documented cause of SID (letter). eBMJ 9 April,

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

Competing interests: No competing interests

15 May 2001
Bronwyn Hancock
Vaccination Information Service