The Pharma Vaccine Franchise is a Product of Marketing, Not Science

The Pharma Vaccine Franchise is a Product of Marketing, Not Science

The availability of re****ts in the Vaccine Adverse Event Re****ting
System (VAERS), combined with the drug makers' aversion to careful
study of this data, as well as commonly experienced side effects of
vaccine, are im****tant reasons for the decline in the confidence of
the public in mass vaccination programs.  That public health
authorities have been largely absent from the scientific debate about
the merits of vaccination, while engaging in co-marketing alongside
the pharmaceuticals (whose former executives often make up the ranks
of management at those bureacracies), has not inspired the public to
take a different view.  Here are some facts about vaccine
effectiveness and safety that you may not know.

Researchers have found that 3.5%, at most, of the decline in
infectious disease mortality during the period 1900 to 1975, was
concomitant with use of vaccine.(1,2)  Aside from the fact that use of
vaccine *after* those declines does not represent a proven association
to treatment, the remainder of the decline must be largely attributed
to factors *other* than vaccine since it cannot be that such factors
already in play during a longstanding downward trendline in severe
morbidity suddenly ceased just because vaccine came into use.  For
obvious reasons, the absence of evidence that vaccine was responsible
for a substantial decline in infectious disease mortality means that
vaccine can hardly take credit for reductions in severe morbidity that
lead to death.  What little evidence there may be for vaccine efficacy
(much less safety) outside the laboratory where the value of antibody
titres is largely theoretical (antibody titres are not equivalent to
immunity), remains highly suspect.  That antibody levels induced by
vaccine are demonstrably lower than those following natural infection
has also been scientifically do***ented.(3)

Estimates of the duration of vaccine-induced immunity (when it occurs)
are based on little more than field surveys, not controlled studies
that adjust for factors unique to a particular demographic, such as
nutritional status, age, or prior disease history.  Any risk-adjusted
outcomes related to mass vaccination (especially in terms of adverse
health effects attributable to vaccine) remain largely unknown.
According to MerckSource, "many cases of mumps are subclinical,"
whereas numerous studies have do***ented vaccine induced symtpoms,
including fever, rash, hearing loss, chills, headache, and other flu-
like effects. (5,6,7)  This is perfect cover for the drug makers, who
haven't been required to demonstrate a risk-benefit analysis of MMR
through a careful study of vaccine despite millions of willing
subjects.

Remember that when industry Pharma hoods talk about the necessity for
"herd immunity," they are broadcasting a promotion for vaccine, not
science.  When you see them doing this in the newsroups using nothing
more than tally stroking or community surveys, ask them why they don't
cite real evidence do***enting their claims.  It's because it doesn't
exist.

1. J.B. & McKinlay S.M. McKinlay.   The Questionable Effect of Medical
Intervention in the Decline of Mortality in the United States in the
Twentieth Century.   Milbank Memorial Fund Q. 1977; 55:405-28.

2. Public Health at the Crossroads: Achievements and Prospects, by
Robert Beaglehole and Ruth Bonita, pg 43.

3. Weibel RE, Sokes J Jr, Buy**** EB, Whitman JE Jr, Hilleman MR. Live,
attenuated mumps-virusvaccine: 3. Clinical and serologic aspects in a
field situation. N Engl J Med  1967;276:245-51

4. Weibel RE, Buyak EB, McLean AA, Roehm RR, Hilleman MR. Follow-up
surveillance for antibody in human subjects following live attenuated
measles, mumps, and rubella virus vaccines. ProcSoc Exp Biol Med
1979;162:328-32.

5. Sakaguchi, M., et al. "IgE antibody to gelatin in children with
immediate-type reactions to measles and mumps vaccines." J Allergy
Clin Immunol 1995; 96:563-65.

6. Stewart, B.J.A., et al. "Re****ts of sensorineural deafness after
measles, mumps, and rubella immunisation." Archives of Diseases of
Childhood 1993; 69:153-54.

7. McEwen, J. "Early-onset reaction after measles vaccination: further
Australian re****ts." Medical Journal of Australia 1983; 2:503-505.

Also see http://www.vran.org/vaccines/doctors/blaylock-covup.htm.

Note: The paragraph cited in "Public Health at the Crossroads" is a
discussion of benefits derived from various medical interventions over
a period of time.  The authors are explicit that 3.5% (at most) of the
decline in mortality may have been a result of medical measures
introduced for the control of infectious diseases during the 20th
century.   In other words, at least 96.5% of those declines were *not*
ascribable to medical interventions, and certainly not to vaccine
(which were largely non-existent during that time frame.)  Their
statement that various health measures were of =93major im****tance=94 to
public health is clearly a reference to overall morbidity and to
medical measures in total, not to a particular program or
intervention,  whereas vaccine could not have been relevant in
reducing mortality as noted, thus the statement cannot be used to void
the earlier observation.   Resident Pharma-hoods, however, *will*
attempt to rewrite the published reference and data to say what their
sponsors require of them, but it won=92t =91t change the fact that vaccine
was too late to stem the majority of infectious disease mortality
during the last 100 years.