January 1970 : Page 2 of 2 : Proslogion

Vaccines are Recommended Based on Health Concerns, Not Monetary Concerns

While reading through anti-vaccination literature, I often come across the argument that vaccines are a multi-billion dollar business, and that the standard vaccination schedule is built mostly out of a desire to line the pockets of the pharmaceutical companies rather than out of concern for people’s health ¹.

As is the case with most of what the anti-vaccination movement claims, this idea cannot stand up to scrutiny. If the standard vaccination schedule is meant to line the pockets of the pharmaceutical companies, it is doing a lousy job! After all, there are many, many vaccines that are available today and licensed for use but are not on the standard vaccination schedule.

For example, we do not routinely vaccinate against smallpox anymore. Why? Because the vaccine has completely destroyed smallpox (see “The Unique History of Smallpox”). As a result, the only smallpox viruses left are in laboratory samples. This means that the chance of catching smallpox (barring some terrorist act or horrible laboratory accident) is zero. As a result, there is no need to be vaccinated against smallpox, so it is no longer on the standard vaccination schedule. If the goal were to simply enrich the pharmaceutical companies, why aren’t we still vaccinating against smallpox? The vaccine has already been used on millions and millions of Americans. Why not still use it today? Because medically, there is no reason to use it anymore.

We also have vaccines against diseases that still exist today but are not found in the United States. There are vaccines against yellow fever, typhoid, tuberculosis, and Japanese encephalitis ², for example. These vaccines have all been shown to be safe and effective, and they are used in many parts of the world. Why aren’t they a part of the standard vaccination schedule? Because as long as you stay in the United States, you have almost no chance of being exposed to these diseases. Thus, there is simply no medical reason for you to get vaccinated. Now, if you end up traveling to parts of the world where these diseases are a problem, you definitely should be vaccinated against them, because you are likely to be exposed to them. Otherwise, however, there is simply no reason for you to be vaccinated. As a result, these vaccines are also not a part of the standard vaccination schedule.

Now once again, if the goal were to simply make money for the pharmaceutical companies, why not throw the yellow fever, typhoid, tuberculosis, and Japanese encephalitis vaccines into the standard vaccination schedule for everyone? After all, they are all licensed, which means that they have been demonstrated to be safe and effective. Indeed, they are used routinely on people for whom the risk of these diseases is significant. Why not just use them for everyone in the United States as well? The answer is simple – the standard vaccination schedule is determined based on the health of the people of the United States. If there is little or no risk for contracting a disease in the United States, there is no reason to spend the time and money vaccinating everyone against the disease. In addition, there are risks associated with any activity, including vaccination. A vaccine is recommended for everyone on the standard vaccination schedule when the risk of not vaccinating exceeds the risk of vaccinating (see “Vaccines are very Safe”). For the yellow fever, typhoid, Japanese encephalitis, and meningococcal vaccines, the risks of vaccination exceed the benefits of vaccination, except for certain high-risk groups. As a result, vaccination is only recommended for those high-risk groups. This is the kind of sound, medical thinking that goes into modern medicine, and it is the same kind of thinking that is sorely lacking in most anti-vaccination literature.

References

1. See, for example, (Mercola’s website) Return to text

2. Center for Disease Control (CDC) “Vaccine Recommendations for Infants and Children” (Available online) Return to text

Dr. Wile is not a medical doctor. He is a nuclear chemist. As a result, he does not dispense medical advice. He simply educates the public about scientific issues. Please consult a board-certified medical doctor before making any medical decisions for yourself or your family.

Vaccines DO NOT Cause Autism

One of the most popular claims in the anti-vaccination literature is that vaccines (often the MMR vaccine) are linked to autism ¹. This claim has gotten even more popular since Dan Burton’s Congressional committee has held hearings on this subject. However, Congressional hearings are hardly scientific forums, given the fact that such environmental experts as Meryl Streep testify before Congress on the effects of pesticides ², and biochemistry luminaries like Ben Affleck ³ testify before Congress on current advances in genetics. Congressional hearings are forums for disgruntled citizens to make impassioned pleas and for craven politicians to “perform” for their constituents. If you want to know the truth about medicine, you must look at the medical literature, and the medical literature is quite clear – there is no link between vaccines and autism.

Let’s start with the idea that the MMR is somehow linked to autism. Taylor and others ⁴ looked at autism cases in the United Kingdom from 1979 to 1999. Since the MMR vaccine was introduced in the UK in 1988, this study encompassed 9 years prior to use of the MMR and 11 years after its use began. They found that the autism rates increased steadily from 1979 to 1999, with no increase in the rate after the MMR was introduced. If the MMR were linked to autism, you would expect a “bump” in the autism rate shortly after the MMR became widely-used. No such “bump” occurred. Also, comparing vaccinated children to unvaccinated children, there was no difference in the average age at which diagnosis occurred. If the MMR were linked to vaccination, you would expect that the vaccinated children’s autism would occur nearer to the vaccination as compared to unvaccinated children. This was not the case.

In a similar study, Dales and others ⁵ looked at the number of autism cases in California from 1980 to 1994. They also looked at the rate of MMR vaccination over the same time period. Here is what they found:

Notice that there is no correlation between the number of autism cases and the vaccination rate. The vaccination rate of those at or under the age of 17 months increased by roughly 50% over the period, while the number of autism cases increased by 600%. Also, if you look at the date range of 1988 to 1994, you will see that the vaccination rate of those at or under the age of 17 months barely changed at all, while the number of autism cases increased by 300%. The data are even more striking for the vaccination rate of those at or under the age of 24 months. That vaccination rate barely changed over the entire time period, but the number of autism cases increased by 600%.

These data are fairly straightforward. There seems to be no association between the MMR and autism. It also illustrates another lie told by many anti-vaccination advocates. They often claim that the number of autism cases have increased as the vaccination rates have increased. These data show that such a claim is simply wrong. Autism rates have skyrocketed as vaccination rates have barely changed.

In a more direct study, Madsen and others ⁶ examined all children (more than half a million) born in Denmark from 1991 through 1998. Of those children, 82 percent had received the MMR vaccine. The other 18% had not. The researchers found that there was no difference between the autism rate of vaccinated children as compared to unvaccinated children. In such a large study, even a slight increase in the risk of autism due to the MMR vaccine would show up. However, no such increase was seen. This is strong evidence that the MMR vaccine is not linked to autism.

The thought that vaccines are somehow linked to autism has also come about due to the fact that a mercury-containing compound (thimerosal), is sometimes used as a vaccine preservative. As a result, when a person gets certain vaccines, he also gets a small dose of mercury. Since high doses of mercury have been linked to neurological problems, there are those who think that the small amount of mercury in some vaccines can cause neurological problems such as autism. However, several studies have been done specifically looking for a link between the thimerosal in vaccines and autism, and none can be found.

For example, Heron and others ⁷ studied almost 13,000 children in the United Kingdom. They tracked the amount of mercury the children were exposed to through vaccination as well as other sources (such as the consumption of fish). They also examined many other factors that lead to developmental disorders. When they adjusted for all of those factors, they found no link between thimerosal exposure and developmental disorders, including autism.

Probably the most convincing study showing that thimerosal is not linked with vaccination comes from Denmark ⁸ , where all thimerosal-containing vaccines were discontinued in 1992. The study looked at all autism cases diagnosed from 1971 to the year 2000. The results indicate that the number of autism cases was fairly steady until 1990, and after that, it rose steadily throughout the study period. If thimerosal were to blame for autism, you would expect the number of autism cases to drop, remain steady, or at least not increase as dramatically after 1992, when the use of thimerosal-containing vaccines was discontinued. That did not happen. Thus, autism is simply not related to thimerosal exposure through vaccination.

Many studies using many methodologies have been done trying to link vaccines or the thimerosal contained in some of them to autism, and the link is simply not supported by the data. Just recently, the Institute of Medicine examined all available studies on autism and vaccination. Five large studies conducted in the U.S., Denmark, the U.K., and Sweden since 2001 showed no link between thimerosal-containing vaccines and autism. In addition, 14 large epidemiological studies showed no link between the MMR and autism. A few studies showed a tenuous link between vaccines and autism, but each study had flaws, and none of them were nearly as large or far-ranging as the studies that showed no link. Thus, the vast majority of the data show that there is simply no link between vaccines and autism. This is why the Institute of Medicine clearly states, “The committee concludes that the body of epidemiological evidence favors rejection of a causal relationship between the MMR vaccine and autism. The committee also concludes that the body of epidemiological evidence favors rejection of a causal relationship between thimerosal-containing vaccines and autism.”⁹ In other words, the data clearly say that vaccines are not related to autism.

In fact, the latest research indicates that autism is a genetic disorder. A French team of scientists ¹⁰ has identified two mutated genes that appear to cause autism. Both genes are located on the X-chromosome, which makes sense, since autism is four times more prevalent in men than women. Since women have two X-chromosomes, they are less likely to be affected by a mutated gene on that chromosome. After all, a woman would have to acquire one mutated gene from her mother and another mutated gene from her father to be affected. This is rather unlikely. On the other hand, a man needs only inherit one mutated gene on the X-chromosome, and he will be affected by the gene.

What do these genes do? They tell the cell to produce proteins called “neuroligins,” which appear on the junctions between nerve cells. These junctions are called “synapses,” and they allow nerve cells to communicate with one another. Neuroligins are crucial for the proper function of a synapse. Thus, if a neuroligin is not made properly because the gene that codes for its production is mutated, it makes sense that the person affected by such a gene would have a neurological disorder.

The sad thing about the anti-vaccination advocates’ lies regarding vaccines and autism is that they have distracted medical researchers from finding the real cause of autism. Let’s hope that no more distractions occur and that medical researchers can do what they should have been doing all along. That’s the hope of Dr. Peter J. Hotez, whose son has autism. He not only knows the challenges of having a child with autism, he also knows the medical research behind the condition. You can read about his book refuting the anti-vaccination movement here.

References

1. See, for example, (Think Twice) Return to Text
2. Health Effects of Pesticide Use On Children: Hearing Before the Subcomm. on Children, Family, Drugs and Alcoholism of the Senate Comm. on Labor & Human Resources, 101st Cong., 1st Sess. 32 (1989)28 Return to Text
3. Promise of the genomic revolution : hearing before a subcommittee of the Committee on Appropriations, United States Senate, One Hundred Seventh Congress, first session, special hearing, July 11, 2001, Washington, DC. Return to Text
4. Taylor B, et al. “Autism and measles, mumps, and rubella vaccine: no epidemiological evidence for a causal association” Lancet 1999;353:2026-9 Return to Text
5. Dales, L, et al., “Time Trends in Autism and in MMR Immunization Coverage in California” JAMA 2001;285:1183-5 Return to Text
6. Kreesten Meldgaard Madsen, et al. “A Population-Based Study of Measles, Mumps, and Rubella Vaccination and Autism” NEJM 2002;347:1477-1482 Return to Text
7. Heron J, et al. “Thimerosal Exposure in Infants and Developmental Disorders: A Prospective Cohort Study in the United Kingdom Does Not Support a Causal Association. ” Pediatrics 2004;114: 577-583 Return to Text
8. Kreesten Meldgaard Madsen, et al. “Thimerosal and the Occurrence of Autism: Negative Ecological Evidence from Danish Population-Based Data. ” Pediatrics 2003;112: 604-6 Return to Text
9. Institute of Medicine Immunization Safety Review: Vaccines and Autism 2004, p. 1 (Available online) Return to Text
10. Jamain S, et al., “Mutations of the X-linked genes encoding neuroligins NLGN3 and NLGN4 are associated with autism” Nat Genet. 2003;34(1):27-9 Return to Text

Vaccines are the Reason That the Childhood Diseases are so Rare Today

In some ways, the effectiveness of vaccines has become a problem. Today, you almost never hear of children dying from diseases such as smallpox, polio, measles, mumps, pertussis, etc. It still happens (See “Individuals Who Have Suffered and Even Died Because They Were Not Vaccinated”), but it is rare. Why is it rare? Because vaccines have virtually eliminated such diseases! As a result, people tend to think that these diseases are “a thing of the past” and thus connect them with an age where sanitation and medical practices were poor. In fact, many anti-vaccination advocates make the specific claim that vaccines are not responsible for the decline in these diseases ¹.

This lie can be refuted in many different ways. If you look at our article entitled “Vaccines are Incredibly Effective at Preventing Disease,” you will find two graphs that clearly show that the declines in polio and measles are directly correlated with the licensure of the vaccines for those diseases. In addition, you will find a discussion of the many detailed, controlled experiments that show that those who are vaccinated are significantly less likely to be infected than those who are not.

Another way to refute the lie is to see what happens when vaccination rates decrease. You can find a discussion of that in our article entitled, “Small Decision, Large Impact: Why Not Vaccinating Your Child Is Dangerous”

Of course, the best way to refute the lie is to simply discuss the histories of the diseases that vaccines have conquered. Below, you will find links to a discussion of the history of smallpox and a discussion of the history of polio. Those histories clearly show how important the vaccine was in the destruction of these terrible diseases.

The Unique History of Smallpox

The Continuing History of Poliomyelitis

REFERENCES

1. See, for example, ( There’s More to Vaccination than the Shot) Return to Text

Dr. Wile and Erica A. Sommerville are not medical doctors. Dr. Wile is a nuclear chemist, and Miss Sommerville is a college student. As a result, they do not dispense medical advice. They simply educate the public about scientific issues. Please consult a board-certified medical doctor before making any medical decisions for yourself or your family.

The Flu Shot Protects Against More Than the Flu!

The scientific studies on the flu vaccine are quite convincing. The influenza vaccine is 70-90% effective in preventing the flu in young, healthy adults.¹ It can even reduce influenza-related death in the elderly by as much as 80%.^2-3 In addition, the flu shot has been demonstrated to significantly reduce the risk of an influenza outbreak in nursing homes. ⁴ Now, a growing body of evidence indicates that regular flu shots can reduce the risk of heart attack and stroke better then even cholesterol-lowering drugs!

In December of 2000, Naghavi and others ⁵ reported the results of a small study they did on coronary heart disease patients seen in a single hospital during the flu season. In their study, patients who did not received the flu shot that season were three times as likely to develop a new heart attack than those who did receive the flu shot. Of course, the study was small, so further research was suggested.

Now that research has been done. In April of 2002, the results of a placebo-controlled study ⁶ of 301 heart attack and angioplasty/stent patients was released. In this study, patients were given either the flu vaccine or a placebo. A follow-up interview was performed in six months. Those who received the placebo were slightly more than twice as likely to have a heart attack within those six months than those who received the flu vaccine. Thus, the flu vaccine protects not only against the flu, but also against heart attacks! In fact, the results indicate that the incredibly inexpensive flu shot could end up saving more lives than expensive cholesterol-lowering drugs.

Not only does the flu shot protect against heart attacks, it also seems to protect against stroke. Lavelle and others report on a study ⁷ of 270 patients that found the risk of stroke is roughly twice as great for those who do not get the flu shot as compared to those who do. Once again, this is a small study and needs to be supported by further research. Nevertheless, the data are encouraging.

This research also adds to a growing body of research which shows that some vaccines protect against more than just the disease for which they were designed. Not only does the flu shot reduce the risk of heart attacks and possibly strokes, the DPT vaccine protects against SIDS, and following the standard vaccination schedule reduces the risk of general infection. This, of course, is not surprising, as the data clearly show that the higher the vaccination rate in a population, the more healthy the population.

References

1. Palache AM, “Influenza vaccines: a reappraisal of their use.”, Drugs 54:841-56, 1997. Return to Text
2. Arden NH, Patriarca PA, Kendal AP, “Experiences in the use and efficacy of inactivated influenza vaccine in nursing homes. “, In: Kendal AP, Patriarca PA, eds. Options for the control of influenza., New York, NY: Alan R. Liss, Inc., 155-68, 1986. Return to Text
3. Patriarca PA, et al., “Efficacy of influenza vaccine in nursing homes: reduction in illness and complications during an influenza A (H3N2) epidemic.”, JAMA 253:1136-9, 1985 Return to Text
4. Patriarca PA, et al., “Risk factors for outbreaks of influenza in nursing homes: a case-control study. ” Am J Epidemiol 24:114-9, 1986 Return to Text
5. Naghavi M, et al., “Association of influenza vaccination and reduced risk of recurrent myocardial infarction.” Circulation 102:3039-3045, 2000 Return to Text
6. Gurfinkel EP, et al. “Influenza vaccine pilot study in acute coronary syndromes and planned percutaneous coronary interventions: The FLU Vaccination Acute Coronary Syndrome (FLUVACS) Study.” Circulation 105:2143-2147, 2002 Return to Text
7. Lavallee P, et al., “Association between influenza vaccination and reduced risk of brain infarction.” Stroke 33:513-518, 2002 Return to Text

Dr. Wile is not a medical doctor. He is a nuclear chemist. As a result, Dr. Wile not dispense medical advice. He simply educates the public about scientific issues. Please consult a board-certified medical doctor before making any medical decisions for yourself or your family.

The REAL Side Effects of Vaccines

Vaccines certainly have potential side effects. Virtually everything does. Every year, approximately 350 people die taking baths ¹. Nevertheless, we all still take baths. That’s because the benefits of taking a bath far outweigh the risks. It’s the same with vaccines. Vaccines do have risks, but the benefits of getting vaccinated far outweigh the risks. Thus, unless someone has specific health conditions that prohibit vaccination (these are called “contraindications”), they are much safer being vaccinated than not being vaccinated.

Anti-vaccination advocates try to claim that all sorts of nasty side effects are associated with vaccination. For example, most anti-vaccination websites will claim that certain vaccines can cause Sudden Infant Death Syndrome (SIDS), even though many controlled studies indicate that the incidence of SIDS amongst vaccinated children is lower than the incidence of SIDS amongst unvaccinated children ^2-4. In the same way, anti-vaccination advocates claim that vaccines are linked to autism, even though controlled studies show that there is no such link ^5-8. The list could go on and on.

If you are interested in learning the REAL side effects of vaccination and their frequency, you can simply go to the Center for Disease Control’s website. The CDC monitors (and often initiates) the latest studies on vaccination and compiles a detailed list of each vaccine and its side effects. If you want to make an informed choice regarding vaccination, please look at scientific sites like this one. You might also want to look at our article entitled “A Small List of the Lies Told by the Anti-Vaccination Movement” to see that many of the side effects that anti-vacciantion advocates claim are simply not real.

References

1. Budnick, L.D., and Ross, D.A., “Bathtub-related drownings in the United States, 1979-1981.” American Journal of Public Health, 75: 630-633, 1985. Return to Text
2. Essery SD, et. al. “The protective effect of immunisation against diphtheria, pertussis and tetanus (DPT) in relation to sudden infant death syndrome.” FEMS Immunol Med Microbiol 1999;25:1-2, 183-92 Return to Text
3. Hoffman HS, et al. “Diphtheria-tetanus-pertussis immunization and sudden infant death: results of the National Institute of Child Health and Human Development Cooperative Epidemiological Study of Sudden Infant Death Syndrome Risk Factors.” Pediatrics 1987;79:598-611. Return to Text
4. Walker, A.M., et al. “Diphtheria-tetanus-pertussis immunization and sudden infant death syndrome” Am. J. Public Health 1987;77:945-951 Return to Text
5. Taylor B, et al. “Autism and measles, mumps, and rubella vaccine: no epidemiological evidence for a causal association.” Lancet 1999;353:2026-9. Return to Text
6. Kreesten Meldgaard Madsen, et al. “A Population-Based Study of Measles, Mumps, and Rubella Vaccination and Autism” NEJM 2002;347:1477-1482 Return to Text
7. Peltola, H., et al. “No evidence for measles, mumps, and rubella vaccine-associated inflammatory bowel disease or autism in a 14-year prospective study.” Lancet 1998;351:1327. Return to Text
8. Immunization Safety Review Committee, Stratton, Kathleen, et. al., (Ed) “Measles-Mumps-Rubella Vaccine and Autism” Immunization Safety Review Institute of Medicine, National Academy Press, Washington, D.C., 2001 ( Available online) Return to Text

Vaccines are Safe

In order to try to get you to refuse vaccination, the anti-vaccination propagandists will often try to convince you that vaccines are unsafe. They will tell you that vaccines cause debilitating disease and sickness. However, such claims ignore the medical literature, which says something quite different. Before I tell you how we know that vaccines are safe, let me spend a moment discussing what “safe” means in terms of medical science.

Would you consider taking a bath to be safe? Did you know that roughly 350 people die every year because of taking baths ¹? If so many people die every year taking baths, why do we continue this “dangerous” practice? We continue it because it is significantly more dangerous to not take baths than to take baths. If you decide to stop taking baths due to the alarming statistic quoted above, you are opening yourself up to all kinds of diseases. Thus, even though it is possible for you to die taking a bath, the benefits of taking that bath far outweigh the risks. As a result, we continue to take baths, despite the fact that some people die from it every year.

That’s exactly the kind of reasoning used to determine what is medically safe. Virtually every medicine and activity comes with risks. Even vitamins can cause liver damage, bleeding problems, heart injury, and bone problems, especially when taken in high doses.² Thus, no matter what you do, you take risks. The question when evaluating any medical procedure is simply this: Do you risk more by refusing the medical procedure than by accepting the procedure? In the case of vaccinations, the medical research is quite clear. You are significantly more at risk if you refuse the standard vaccinations than if you get them.

How can I state this so definitively? All you have to do is look at the data that has been collected on this point, and it is quite clear. First, we know that over the past several years, the vaccination rate has increased in the United States. During this same time period, children in the United States have become significantly more healthy. Consider the following data ³:

Now do these graphs prove that vaccines are safe? Of course not. There are many factors that contribute to health and mortality, and there is no way from this study to conclude whether the increase in vaccination rates actually caused the increase in children’s health and the decrease in mortality rates. However, this graph presents a huge problem to anyone who wants to claim that vaccines are dangerous. If vaccines are so dangerous, why are children becoming healthier while the vaccination rate is increasing?

Of course, the only way to make a strong scientific conclusion when it comes to medicine is to do controlled studies. Many such studies have been done, and the conclusions are that vaccinated children are healthier than non-vaccinated children. For example, one study looked at 496 vaccinated and unvaccinated children, comparing the health of the vaccinated children to that of the unvaccinated children. It found that children who received immunizations against diphtheria, pertussis, tetanus, Hib, and polio within the first 3 months of life had fewer infections than those who did not. Surprisingly enough, even the rates of infections unrelated to the vaccines were lower in the vaccinated group than in the unvaccinated group.⁴ Several other studies ^5-7 reach similar conclusions. These studies clearly show us that the risk of not vaccinating is higher than that of vaccinating, because unvaccinated children are sicker than vaccinated children. You can choose to ignore such studies, but you do so at your family’s risk!

The other way we can see how risky it is to not vaccinate people is to observe what happens when vaccination rates go down. For example, in 1975, Japan imposed a moratorium on the use of the pertussis vaccine, due in part to hysterical anti-vaccination propagandists. As a result, the vaccination rate dropped significantly. In the three years before the moratorium, there were 400 cases of pertussis and 10 associated deaths. In the three years following the moratorium, there were 13,000 cases (33.5 TIMES as many cases) of pertussis and 113 associated deaths (11.3 TIMES as many deaths). Of those that didn’t die, more than 200 experienced convulsions and about 15 have permanent brain damage. Due to these alarming statistics, the government started promoting vaccination again, and vaccination rates increased dramatically. As a result, pertussis rates went back to their pre-moratorium levels.⁸ That’s the risk associated with not vaccinating – innocent children die or suffer permanent injury.

This kind of tragedy occurs in the United States as well. Between 1990 and 1991, there was a measles outbreak in Philadelphia. The outbreak was traced back to a church whose members refused immunization on religious grounds. In the outbreak, 1,600 children were infected. Of those, nine died. Of the nine innocent children who died, seven were from that church. The other two who died were babies who lived nearby and had not yet gotten their MMR vaccination ⁹. Had the church not been anti-vaccination, these nine precious ones would still be alive today. If you would like to learn more about the ravages induced on innocent children by the anti-vaccination movement, please see our discussion entitled, Small Decision, Large Impact: Why Not Vaccinating Your Child Is Dangerous or Individuals Who Have Suffered or Died Because They Were Not Vaccinated.

Before I end this discussion, I must spend a moment discussing the contents of vaccines. Anti- vaccination propagandists will often list the contents of vaccines in order to try to scare you. Many of the contents of vaccines sound scary, and some (like mercury) are even known to cause biological harm in certain situations. As a result, the anti-vaccination propagandists will tell you that vaccines contain poisons. Of course, if this were true, the studies I listed above (references 4-7) would have reached radically different conclusions. If vaccines were toxic, then vaccinated children would not be healthier than unvaccinated children! Nevertheless, the studies demonstrate that they are.

How can a vaccine containing things like mercury be safe? The answer is quite simple, and anyone with a modicum of training in chemistry should know this. Whether or not a substance is toxic to the body depends on its concentration. Substances like mercury are toxic only if they reach a high enough concentration. It is important to note that even things we think of as “healthy” are also toxic at high enough concentration. For example, if you take too many vitamins, you risk damaging your health (see reference 2). Thus, the concentration of a substance is instrumental in determining whether or not it is a poison.

At the concentrations found in vaccines, mercury (and other supposed “toxins”) are not toxic. How do we know that these substances are not toxic at the levels found in vaccines? Because study after study has demonstrated this. First of all, in order to get licensed vaccines must undergo a long-term, rigorous approval process that includes animal studies and controlled studies on volunteers. These controlled studies are specifically designed to look for maladies that might arise from any of the additives in the vaccines. Secondly, follow up studies are constantly being done to monitor vaccine safety. Finally, the Vaccine Adverse Effect Reporting System (VAERS) investigates all reported cases of what appear to be reactions to a vaccination. As a result, we have a wealth of data regarding the effects of vaccines, and the data continually point to the fact that it is much more risky to refuse the standard vaccinations than to accept them.

References

1. Budnick, L.D., and Ross, D.A., “Bathtub-related drownings in the United States, 1979-1981.” American Journal of Public Health, 75: 630-633, 1985. Return to Text
2. Illnesses and Injuries Associated With the Use of Selected Dietary Supplements, U. S. Food and Drug Administration Center for Food Safety and Applied Nutrition, 1993 (Available online) Return to Text
3. America’s Children: Key National Indicators of Well-Being, Federal Interagency Forum on Child and Family Statistics, 2002 (Available online) “General Health” is given as the percentage of children (Age 0-18) in very good or excellent health. “Infant Mortality” is the number of deaths of children under 1 year of age per 7,500. “Child Mortality” is the number of deaths of children age 1-4 per 150,00. “Preadolescent Mortality” is the number of deaths of children age 5-14 per 300,000. Return to Text
4. Otto S, et al. “General non-specific morbidity is reduced after vaccination within the third month of life-the Greifswald study.” J Infect. 41:172-175, 2000. Return to Text
5. Black SB, et al. “Apparent decreased risk of invasive bacterial disease after heterologous childhood immunization.” Am J Dis Child. 145:746-749, 1991. 6. Davidson M, , et al. “DTP immunization and susceptibility to infectious diseases. Is there a relationship?” Am J Dis Child., 145:750-754, 1991. Return to Text
7. Essery SD, et al. “The protective effect of immunisation against diphtheria, pertussis and tetanus (DPT) in relation to sudden infant death syndrome” FEMS Immunol Med Microbiol, 25:1-2, 183-92, 1999. Return to Text
8. Gangarosa, AM, et al. “Impact of Anti-Vaccine Movements on Pertussis Control: The Untold Story” Lancet 1998; 351(9099) 356-361. Return to Text
9. Anita Manning, “To vaccinate or not to vaccinate: Parents worry about safety-which worries health officials,” USA Today, July 17, 2000. Return to Text

Dr. Murch Retracts Claim

One of the most popular claims in the anti-vaccination literature is that vaccines (usually the MMR vaccine) are linked to autism ¹. One reason that this claim remains popular is that there is one study ² that anti-vaccine advocates use to “support” their claim. This study examined 12 patients and suggested that there might be a connection between the MMR vaccine and a bowel obstruction from which they suffered. The authors of the study then speculated this bowel obstruction could cause a loss in nutritional absorption in the small intestine, which could lead to developmental disorders such as autism. Of course, any study that even hints of such a connection should be taken seriously, but the tiny sample of patients certainly cast doubt on the conclusions. Thus, larger studies were implemented to determine if, indeed, there was a link between the MMR vaccine and bowel disorders or autism. As discussed elsewhere on this site subsequent large-scale studies showed absolutely no link.

In the medical community, those studies put the case to rest. However, anti-vaccination advocates will not discuss the results of these large-scale studies and instead continue to hype the claims of the original small study that was published in 1998. Well, Dr. Simon Murch, one of the authors of that study has finally had enough. In a letter to the editor published in the Lancet, Dr. Murch stated:³

“There is now unequivocal evidence that MMR is not a risk factor for autism – this statement is not spin or medical conspiracy, but reflects an unprecedented volume of medical study on a worldwide basis.”

Why did Murch come forward to denounce his own study? There seem to be two reasons. First, he recognizes that because of the effectiveness of anti-vaccine propaganda, the vaccination rates in the UK (where he resides) have reached a low of 84%. This means that measles is being reestablished in the UK and that deadly epidemics are possible this winter. Perhaps he feels somewhat responsible for this, despite the fact that he is not to blame. Only those who misuse his research are to blame. His study hinted at a possible problem. It is good scientific procedure to publish the study so as to encourage further research. However, now that the subsequent research overwhelmingly shows that his initial conclusion was wrong, it is also good science to admit that and move on.

There seems to be a second reason. Dr. Murch is a medical doctor and, as such, cares for his patients. He is astonished at how the parents of his patients completely ignore medical science when it comes to their own children. In his words:

“We’ve seen well over 300 children with autism, and even in cases where there is clearly a genetic cause of autism or when there were problems manifesting in the first year, parents are still fixated on MMR,” he said. “It’s a natural human reaction. They want something to blame for such a tragic event.”⁴

It is time for the anti-vaccination advocates to come clean. When one of the authors of the only study to which they can point clearly says that the study was wrong, it is time to stop referencing the study. Of course, given the track record of the anti-vaccination movement, I doubt that this will happen!

References

1. See, for example, (Think Twice) Return to Text
2. Wakefield AJ, et al., “Ileal lymphoid nodular hyperplasia, non-specific colitis, and regressive developmental disorder in children.” Lancet, 351:637-41, 1998. Return to Text
3. Murch, S., “Separating Inflammation from Speculation in Autism” Lancet 362:1498, 2003 Return to Text
4. Ibid Return to Text