This is the data the drug industry do not want you to see. Here 2 centuries of UK, USA and Australian official death statistics show conclusively and scientifically modern medicine is not responsible for and played little part in substantially improved life expectancy and survival from disease in western economies.
A detailed Contents listing of this article with each category of disease and related graphs appears after the Introduction.
The main advances in combating disease over 200 years have been better food and clean drinking water. Improved sanitation, less overcrowded and better living conditions also contribute. This is also borne out in published peer reviewed research:
Measles mortality graphs are enlightening [more below] and contradict the claims of Government health officials that vaccines have saved millions of lives. It is an unscientific claim which the data show is untrue. Here you will also learn why vaccinations like mumps and rubella for children are medically unethical and can expose medical professionals to liability for criminal proceedings and civil damages for administering them.
[Click Graph to Enlarge – Opens In New Window]
The success of the City of Leicester, England was remarkable in reducing smallpox mortality substantially compared to the rest of England and other countries by abandoning vaccination between 1882 and 1908 [see more below].
This contrasts how the drug industry has turned each child in the world into a human pin-cushion profit centre.
You might think the following graph is some support for the success of diphtheria vaccination [see blue line]:-
[Click Graph to Enlarge – Opens In New Window]
England & Wales Diphtheria Mortality 1901 to 1999
Notice how overall infant mortality was unaffected [green and purple lines]. And two official sources of data have been used to ensure there is no doubt. Records show most children went unvaccinated until well afterthe major fall. At least half the children under 10 years of age had not been vaccinated prior to 1946. The fall could not be attributable to vaccine “herd immunity” [for diphtheria this is claimed to require 80-85% vaccine coverage: Herd immunity-concepts of control UK Health Protection Agency].
To account for the fall in diphtheria mortality [blue graph line] one must look elsewhere for the cause.
The vaccination campaign was launched at the end of 1940 but got underway in 1941. By the end of 1941 “36 percent of school age children had been immunised but only about 19 percent of the younger children“: British Journal of Nursing October 1948 p121. It was only after the large fall, that in 1946-47 there was a “catch-up” diphtheria vaccination campaign. 969,000 children under 5 years of age were vaccinated and 272,000 children aged 5-15. The total of 1,241,000 was nearly one third greater than the total number of children born in the 7 years 1938-1945, [which was 956,724 births]: Recent trends in the incidence of multiple births and associated mortality Archives of Disease in Childhood, 1987, 62, 941-950.
So what could account for this seemingly dramatic fall? The introduction of free school milk [eg. vitamin A etc], subsidised meals and free medical inspections for all children in state education need to be considered as the most likely and most serious contenders in the light of our knowledge about the effect of improved nutrition on health.
So what this also of course means is that health officials promote vaccination against diphtheria when the vaccination appears most unlikely as a cause of the decline in diphtheria. This also means that medical knowledge about basic diseases is seriously flawed and has not advanced in this respect since at least 1940. This is an issue of who knows best? This information suggests doctors and health officials do not seem to know at all.
If you are angry and feel you have been lied to, you are justified. But there is worse.
Do vaccines cause autistic conditions? If you read nothing else we strongly recommend you read this: PDF Download – Text of May 5th 2008 email from US HRSA to Sharyl Attkisson of CBS News]. In it the US Health Resources Services Administration [HRSA] state to CBS News reporter Sharyl Attkisson in response to her question about how many cases had been compensated by the US government in which a vaccine-injured child developed autistic symptoms:
We have compensated cases in which children exhibited an encephalopathy, or general brain disease. Encephalopathy may be accompanied by a medical progression of an array of symptoms including autistic behavior, autism, or seizures.”
Despite all the lies and deceit by health official worldwide, the question “do vaccines cause autism” was answered after the Hannah Poling story broke in the USA in February 2008 [see CHS article here]. Hannah developed an autistic condition after 9 vaccines administered the same day. Under the media spotlight numerous US health officials and agencies conceded on broadcast US nationwide TV news from CBS and CNN. Full details with links to the original sources can be found in this CHS article: Vaccination Causes Autism – Say US Government & Merck’s Director of Vaccines. [Blue Text added 10 April 2011]
The financial markets have known for 20 years and more the pharmaceutical industry’s blockbuster patented drugs business model would eventualy fail. We now see the Bill Gates’ type business model emerging – almost everyone has Windows software on their PC – almost everyone will be vax’ed. Gates quickly became a multi-billionaire. With vastly more people to vaccinate than computers requiring software the lure of money is many times greater. All this whilst we watch as childhood prevalence of asthma, allergies, autism, diabetes and more have increased exponentially as the vaccines have been introduced.
Can “vaccinatable” diseases “return” despite vaccination? Yes. If you are too poorly nourished your body is likely to lack essential nutrients needed to maintain its immune system sufficiently to withstand disease. This will happen regardless of how many vaccinations you have had. This was experienced in Eastern Europe following the collapse of the old Soviet Bloc and the economic chaos which ensued, leaving many in great poverty.
For the same reason vaccines do not “work” and “save” lives in impoverished African and other third world economies. The majority of third world child deaths still occur despite vaccination. These children need proper food, clean water to drink and wash in and sanitation. We give them vaccines instead.
These third world children die because we have vaccines. In the 21st Century, despite all the claims made about modern science, we have no effective treatments for common basic childhood diseases.
It has been estimated vaccines prevent 25% of the deaths of these children, so 75% still die. If there were effective treatments we could save their lives.
We have no effective treatments because there is no incentive for the drug industry and every incentive for them not to develop them. The World Health Organisation and our health departments worldwide, in thrall to and under the influence of the drug industry, do nothing about it.
Something could be done. This needs political commitment from western developed nations and the courage to stand up against vested commercial interests to develop effective treatments to save lives – children’s lives.
And when you read the vaccine movement blogs claiming those concerned with vaccine safety are acting out irrational unfounded unscientific fears, remember the highly specific factual referenced reasoned justified information provided on just this one site, among many others. Also ask yourself, how often do government agencies and officials lie publicly about pretty much anything. And notice how bloggers attack, disparage, bully abuse and harass those who express concerns about vaccines, leaving government officials and drug industry spokespeople able to hide silently behind the barrages of abuse and misinformation. Some of these anonymous individuals are commenting full time daily across numerous blogs and news sites across the internet but deny they are paid. Some appear to be awake 24 hours a day. Odd that. One we counted had made 200 comments in 10 days to April 22 2014. That was on just a selection of sample sites and did not include all that anonymous commenter’s activity.
[ED Note 15 Oct 2009: As information like that here has become available health officials are changing from scaremongering parents into vaccinating with claims their child could die. Now they claim vaccinating reduces the numbers of cases of disease [ie. instead of deaths] and produce graphs of dramatic falls in reportedcases (instead of deaths) when measles vaccine was introduced.
This is again misleading. A dramatic fall in the numbers of reported measles cases would be expected. Doctors substantially overdiagnose measles cases especially when they believe it is a possible diagnosis.Doctors were told the vaccine prevented children getting measles when introduced in the late 1960’s so after that time a substantial reduction in diagnoses would be expected.
Examples of recent overdiagnoses of measles when there are measles “scares” are proportionately up to 74 times (or 7400% overdiagnosed). Figures and sources follow the next paragraph.
What health officials are also doing is relying on very old and unreliable data which ignores that measles has become progressively milder so the risks of long term injury have diminished – (and death is the most extreme form of long term injury – shown here by official data to have diminished rapidly and substantially over the past 100 years without the risks posed to children’s health by vaccines).
Measles Over Diagnosed – Up to 7400%
A. Laboratory confirmed cases of measles, mumps, and rubella, England and Wales: October to December 2004
Notified: 474, Tested: 589†, Confirmed cases: 8
RATE OF OVERDIAGNOSIS:- 589/8 = proportionately 7400% or 74 times overdiagnosed
SOURCE: CDR Weekly, Volume 15 Number 12 Published: 24 March 2005
[Note from Source: “†Some oral fluid specimens were submitted early from suspected cases and may not have been subsequently notified, thus the proportion tested is artificially high for this quarter.”]
B. Total confirmed cases of measles and oral fluid IgM antibody tests in cases notified to ONS*: weeks 40-52/2005
Notified: 408, Tested: 343, Confirmed cases: 22
RATE OF OVERDIAGNOSIS:- 343/22 = proportionately 1560 % or 15.6 times overdiagnosed
SOURCE: CDR Weekly, Volume 16 Number 12 Published on: 23 March 2006
To start you with something simple, Scurvy, Typhoid and Scarlet Fever are good examples to use as comparisons with “vaccinatable” diseases.
[Click Graph to Enlarge – Opens In New Window]
Medicine and especially drugs and vaccines played no part in the fall in Scurvy death rates and the same can be seen for other diseases. Scurvy is a condition caused by a lack of vitamin C. Poor nutrition, particularly a lack of fresh fruit and vegetables, can result in Scurvy. Mortality rates fell dramatically as living conditions improved.
By 2007 the chance of anyone in England and Wales dying of measles if no one were vaccinated was less than 1 in 55 million. The chance of being struck by lightning is 30 to 60 times higher: Tornado & Storm Research Organisation
[Click Graph to Enlarge – Opens In New Window]
Note that what seem large fluctuations after MMR vaccination was introduced in 1988 are not so large and are a feature of plotting the graph on a logarithmic scale. This can be seen in the following graph, plotted on an analog scale.
The seeming fall in reported ordinary [ie. non fatal] measles cases in the above Halsey graph after 1968 is misleading. Doctors are poor in accuracy of diagnosis and follow fashions. Official UK records for 2006 show that when doctors are looking for a disease, they overdiagnose suspected measles cases varying by 10 times to 74 times higher than is confirmed by laboratory testing: [74 times overdiagnosed SOURCE: CDR Weekly, Volume 15 Number 12 Published: 24 March 2005], [10 timesoverdiagnosed, CDR Weekly, PHLS 12:26], [ 15.6 times overdiagnosed, SOURCE: CDR Weekly, Volume 16 Number 12 Published on: 23 March 2006]
Correspondingly, when vaccination was introduced, they will tend to follow the fashion of not diagnosing measles, where they believe it controlled by vaccination. This following of fashions has been seen in other areas, including Coroner diagnoses of causes of death.
It is not exaggeration but accurate to state that mumps vaccination takes the medical profession firmly into the territory of the criminal law and unethical medical treatment of children.
[Click Graph to Enlarge – Opens In New Window]
Providing treatment to a patient that is not clinically needed and misleading patients as to the clinical need for a treatment so as to vitiate their consent can mean the administration of the treatment is a criminal offence: Appleton v Garrett (1995) 34 BMLR 23.
According to The British Medical Association (‘BMA’) and The Royal Pharmaceutical Society of Great Britain (RPSGB) mumps vaccination is clinically inappropriate:-
“Since mumps and its complications are very rarely serious there is little indication for the routine use of mumps vaccine”: British National Formulary (‘BNF’) 1985 and 1986
Freedom of Information documents show the UK’s Joint Committee on Vaccination and Immunisation and Ministry of Defence agreed as early as 1974 that:-
“there was no need to introduce routine vaccination against mumps” because “complications from the disease were rare” JCVI minutes 11 Dec 1974.
Doctors and nurses who fail to tell parents mumps vaccine in MMR is clinically unnecessary, of the exact risks of adverse reactions and then give the vaccine appear to be behaving unethically, potentially in contravention of the criminal law and liable to civil proceedings for damages. They are also unable to explain the exact risks because data on adverse reactions are not being collected properly or at all, and there is evidence showing adverse reaction data are suppressed.
A consequence is that giving MMR vaccine to children cannot be justified on clinical or ethical grounds. And as there is insufficient clinical benefit to children to introduce mass mumps vaccination, it cannot be justified as a general public health measure.
And one consequence of this unnecessary measure is that we are now putting young male adults at risk of orchitis and sterility because they did not catch natural mumps harmlessly when children and because MMR vaccination is not effective in conferring full or lasting immunity across an entire population.
One effect of MMR vaccination has been to push mumps outbreaks into older age groups. Mumps now circulates in colleges and universities: Mumps and the UK epidemic 2005, R K Gupta, J Best, E MacMahon BMJ 2005;330:1132-1135 (14 May).
1 in 4 males who has achieved puberty and has not achieved immunity to mumps runs the risk of orchitis. Orchitis (usually unilateral) has been reported as a complication in 20-30% of clinical mumps cases in postpubertal males. Some testicular atrophy occurs in about 35% of cases of mumps orchitis: Mumps – Emedicine. This means one of the male testicles shrivels up. Affected men can become sterile in one testicle. This affects one in every nine males who catch mumps after puberty compared with none who catch it before puberty. It is only because most men have two testicles and only one is affected that total sterility is rare. Most men would find that little consolation. Having a shrivelled testicle would carry psychological and practical consequences for any intimate physical relationship in adult life. The message seems to be it is better for a child to catch mumps naturally before puberty.
As with mumps, rubella vaccination again takes the medical profession into the territory of the criminal law and unethical treatment of children. A graph for rubella mortality is not included because death from rubella over the last century was so rare the figures are insufficient to plot a graph of any note.
Aside from a rash the adverse effects of rubella for children are minimal. Vaccination against rubella is of no clinical benefit to a child particularly when compared to the risks of adverse vaccine reactions. If a pregnant woman catches rubella infection during the first three months of pregnancy and the child survives, this poses a risk to the unborn child of being born with congenital rubella syndrome (CRS), involving multiple congenital abnormalities.
Prior to the introduction of rubella vaccine, the number of annual cases in the UK was small, around 50 per annum. Additionally, 92% of rubella cases deliver normal healthy children: DANISH MEDICAL BULLETIN MARCH 1987 – WAVES Vol. 11 No. 4 p. 21 .This small risk can also be reduced either by making sure all women have caught rubella as children or by vaccinating those who have not prior to puberty. This minimises the exposure of children to the vaccine and hence to unnecessary risks of adverse vaccine reactions.
In comparison birth defects from any other cause are much higher:
“Birth defects affect about one in every 33 babies born in the United States each year. They are the leading cause of infant deaths, accounting for more than 20% of all infant deaths. Babies born with birth defects have a greater chance of illness and long term disability than babies without birth defects.“: Birth Defects US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention – accessed 11th May 2008
To see how egregious is the exaggeration of risk from rubella in order to scare parents into vaccinating their children, see the following:-
Does paying for healthcare bring you better health and a longer life? No. The following graphs show that in 1996, average life expectancy in the US was 18th of all countries, being 5 years less than Canada and behind the UK. But Americans were paying per person US$1000 or over 1/3rd more than Canadians and nearly 2/3rds more than the British. And if you then take a look at the graphs of mortality, what were Americans getting for their money? Mortality rates were falling anyway, regardless and kept on falling. Life expectancy increased as time went by, but again substantially due to overall improved living conditions.
The following is the same USA graph as just above, but with Influenza and Tuberculosis Deaths included. And you can see that Influenza deaths were not prevented by a vaccine – because for most of the period covered, there was no vaccine available at all and when it became available, it was not freely available until the present day – when guess what – ‘flu mortality had already plummeted – and guess what else – it does not work particularly well either – in fact so badly it may well be best avoided.
[Click Graph to Enlarge – Opens In New Window]
The following is the same graph as above but showing the full curve for influenza and pneumonia mortality.
Here we see Diphtheria mortality falling all by itself. In the UK, the vaccine was introduced in 1940, but most children particularly under 5 did not get it and there was a large catch-up campaign in 1945-6 as previously explained [above]. The under 5 age group are the most at risk from infectious disease.
Diphtheria vaccine was introduced to the UK in 1940. As already noted, it appears beyond doubt that diptheria vaccine was not responsible for the sudden fall in diphtheria mortality from 1941 to 1946 [see graph]. The records show at least half of all children up to the age of 15 went unvaccinated until 1946-7 ie. after the major fall. The graph of total infant mortality provides a benchmark showing the continuing steady decline in the rate of infant mortality before and after the introduction of the vaccine.
It was not until 1946-7 – after the substantial fall in diphtheria mortality had taken place that a major effort was made to vaccinate the children who had been missed. 969,000 children under 5 were “immunised”: British Journal of Nursing October 1948 p121. With an annual birth rate in the region of 200,000 that represented most of the children born during 1941 to 1946. So diphtheria vaccination could not have been responsible for the fall.
But we can identify what was most likely responsible. We can see the impact of the social health and welfare reforms of 1944, 1947 and 1948. Free school milk provided, among other nourishment, vitamin A to help children’s immune systems fight disease. It is vitamin A which the World Health Organisation is keen to provide to third world children now for the same reason.
It can be seen that the benchmark decline in general infant mortality (ie. all causes of infant death) closely follows the decline in diphtheria mortality in the general population. This again demonstrates that the decline in diphtheria mortality was part of a general trend and had little or nothing to do with the introduction of vaccination.
Whooping Cough or Pertussis – again, the mortality rates fell substantially well before any vaccines were introduced. The contribution, if any, to overall health has been negligible. The decline in general infant mortality closely follows the decline in Whooping Cough mortality in the general population. This again demonstrates that the decline in Whooping Cough mortality was part of a general trend and had little or nothing to do with the introduction of vaccination:-
This graph demonstrates that the administration of tetanus vaccine is likely to be pointless and puts children especially at risk of adverse reactions to the vaccines.
There is only one respect in which modern medicine could have had an indirect effect. This came with the social reforms of 1947-48 which saw the introduction of the National Health Service. Coupled with this was the start of the reduction in numbers of farm workers with the start of increased mechanisation and industrial scale farming in Britain after the 1939-1945 World War. The numbers of farm labourers fell by half post war and the increase in mechanisation also reduced the chances of the injuries which were likely to result in tetanus
Fewer agricultural workers coupled with better access to healthcare would result in better treatment of wounds. Tetanus thrives in deep wounds which are not properly cleansed. So by having fewer agricultural workers and better wound care could reduce the incidence of tetanus cases. So if the reduction in tetanus mortality in the 1950s is anything other than part of the continuing decline with better standards of living, those two reasons are the most likely explanations.
In the graphs notice the large numbers of deaths caused by the smallpox vaccine itself. By 1901 in the UK, more people died from the smallpox vaccination than from smallpox itself. When during 1880-1908 the City of Leicester in England stopped vaccination compared to the rest of the UK and elsewhere, its survival rates soared and smallpox death rates plummetted [see table below]. Leicester’s approach also cost far less.
SMALLPOX FATALITY RATES, cases in vaccinated and re-vaccinated populations compared with “unprotected” Leicester – 1860 to 1908.
Fatality-rate per cent. of Cases
British Army (United Kingdom)
British Army (India)
British Army (Colonies)
Grand Totals and case fatality rate per cent, over all
Leicester (since giving up vaccination)
Biggs said “In this comparison, I have given the numbers of revaccinated cases, and deaths, and each fatality-rate separately and together, so that they may be compared either way with Leicester. In pro-vaccinist language, may I ask, if the excessive small-pox fatality of Japan, of the British Army, and of the Royal Navy, are not due to vaccination and revaccination, to what are they due? It would afford an interesting psychical study were we able to know to what heights of eloquent glorification Sir George Buchanan would have soared with a corresponding result—but on the opposite side.“
Small-Pox Epidemics, Cost, and Fatality Rates Compared
Fatality-rate Per Cent
Cost of Epidemic
[Click Graph to Enlarge – Opens In New Window]
[Click Graph to Enlarge – Opens In New Window]
It is certain beyond doubt that diptheria vaccine played no part in the sudden fall in diphtheria mortality from 1941 to 1946 [see graph] . The records show most children went unvaccinated until after the major fall.
Dr. Kurt: Why I Will Never Choose to Vaccinate my Own Son and Any Future Kids my Wife and I Have
by Dr. Kurt Perkins, DC, CCWP
Recently, I asked for feedback with a survey that went out in my email newsletter. If you did it, thank you for your feedback. I want to keep health care about health and your feedback helps me do that.
One question I asked was ‘What should I STOP doing?’ Below is a response that caught my attention and feel it’s one that many of you may have questions regarding so I need to address it. This is going to be lengthy but I want to be CLEAR with my response, and hopefully a little fun doing it.
“You should clarify your position on immunizations. If you just totally throw out immunizations because of their toxicity then that’s being ignorant and incorrect. I agree that some of the ingredients In immunizations are toxic to our body but so are the diseases they are preventing!! Much more so! Our generation and the ones coming after us have never experienced a loved one who is debilitated by polio or a deformed baby from a mother who had Rubella while pregnant. So we have gotten ignorant of what the cost is for not having those vaccines and say that he stuff In the vaccines is toxic. Not addressing the toxicity of the disease it’s preventing. This makes it hard to take things you say seriously because what else are you leaving out or not being completely honest about. If you want people to trust you on your other points, you need to address everything about the immunizations so that your argument has merit. Like if you say you are lobbying or for a more natural form of immunizations without the toxic elements that would be a more reasonable argument.”
After reading it a few times, I’m trying to think who would write this. Remember it’s anonymous but I still like to guess. Usually when I get questions regarding vaccines with the argument they are good because of what happened with polio and many other communicable diseases, it’s usually someone in the Baby Boomer type population. It could also be someone in the medical field. As I mentally scanned my list of clients, email contacts, Facebook friends, and professional organizations, I could only think of one person that fits my assumed social profile.
The only person it could be is my mom. Imagine your mom calling you out like this, questioning your integrity and honesty? Pretty hurtful, right? Therefore I need to make my position on vaccines (not immunizations) crystal clear, just like mom suggested.
This will be lengthy, I don’t want to leave ANYTHING out, but these are the points as to why I will never choose to vaccinate my own son and any future kids my wife and I have. Just to be clear, I’ll go to jail before allowing someone to force a vaccine into my child’s arm.
VACCINATION vs. IMMUNIZATION:
Clarification needs to be created regarding VACCINATION vs. IMMUNIZATION. I’m all for immunization. The problem created by media and pharmaceutical influence is that people equate immunization with vaccination. Vaccination is simply injecting something into your body. This does not create immunity for your body. These are 2 totally separate entities.
Another thing that irks me is my ‘mom’s’ comments about me leaving out stuff and therefore destroying my credibility. I would like to add I make ZERO money off of this blog. I may book some speaking gigs from it but those revenues will come nowhere near the $20 BILLION per year the makers of vaccines cherish. Who do you think has more weight on their shoulders to hide information? Huh, mom? Huh?
With building immunity, it’s a natural process. With that natural process, your body uses many defenses. The first layer of defense is your skin. This blocks out any harmful opportunistic buggers. With a vaccine, this law of nature is totally bypassed by injecting you with a needle full of stuff your skin would never allow past it.
You also have a respiratory system that also aids in defense. You cough, you sneeze, and you blow your nose, in attempt to expel the potential invader. Coughing, sneezing, and snorting are results of your immune system working. Don’t suppress it with fever reducers, anti-histamines, etc. You’re just making it easier for the invader.
You also have your gut-associated lymph system to fight with the stronger stuff. If your system is so deficient to get past these natural defenses, the potential invader, live or dead, enters the blood stream. Once something is in your blood stream, it can be transported any anywhere in your body, not good at all. It’s like open bar at a chiropractic convention.
A vaccine violates all laws of natural immune defenses by taking a potential pathogen along with all the TOXIC ingredients(aluminum, formaldehyde, adjuvants, etc) directly into your blood system. This process would never occur in building natural immunity. That last sentence is kind of an oxy-moron. Immunity is a natural thing. Vaccines are an artificial thing.
The scientific mantra of vaccines is that they are safe and effective based on their research. Their research is flawed and is a double standard from any other drug product studied. The Gold Standard in research design is the double blinded, randomized controlled trial (RCT).
This means that people are split into 2 groups randomly and participants are given either the real thing or the fake thing being tested. Then progress is charted on who gets better, who gets worse, and the like. In theory there should be no bias as to reporting because the researchers don’t know who is in the placebo or the real intervention group.
How many vaccines have ever been studied in this manner? ZERO! The reason? The researchers will say they cannot perform an RCT because it would be unethical to NOT give a child a vaccine because if that child dies of something that could have been prevented, then they don’t want to be responsible. But if someone dies in their trials from taking their anti-depressants, it must be OK.
Hey drug companies, I will volunteer my child to be in the placebo group and compare him to the health and well being of those that have gotten all the recommended vaccines. I’m sure I can gather a few hundred thousand more to be in the placebo group to create a large sample.
Instead of research to see safety and effectiveness, they instead see if the person builds anti-bodies to the antigen (the foreign invader) that is in the vaccine. If antibodies are built, then it’s ‘safe and effective,’ or so they lead us to believe. These studies are rarely, if ever done on kids younger than 4 years old. How can you say it’s safe or effective for a baby if it’s never studied on a baby?
The 2 populations that have limited production of anti-bodies are infants and geriatrics, the 2 most heavily vaccinated populations. If they can’t produce anti-bodies, then the vaccine would be pointless. The whole premise of the vaccine is that you get injected with a foreign invader and you produce anti-bodies against it. If you can’t produce anti-bodies well then what’s the use of injecting something to try and stimulate that reaction?
With kids, they don’t produce any anybodies until after age 6 months. So why give a vaccine to anyone under the age of 6 months if they can’t produce antibodies. Even if the whole vaccine theory really worked, it would be absolutely pointless to inject a baby of 6 months or less with a vaccine . With a child’s immune system being very immature until age 2, the overload of 36 vaccines by the age of 18 months seems about as logical as drinking from a fire hydrant.
This is another aspect to the junk science of vaccines that exposes kids only 18 months old to 36 shots. In their research of efficacy (how long something will work), they have no idea. For this reason, we have multiple shots for multiple antigens. Just take the latest HPV vaccine, the 3 series shot given to 12 year old girls to prevent HPV (an STD) which “MIGHT” but has never been confirmed, contribute to cervical cancer.
The manufacturer is only claiming 5 years of efficacy. The problem with this is 2 fold. 1. The average age of cervical cancer is 50. 2. The shot is administered to 12 year old girls.
So we have a system pushing multiple shots (boosters) with a supposed 5 year efficacy timeline onto pre-teen girls, that was never tested on them, for a disease that has an average age of 50. You give it a 12 year old and by the time she’s 17 the effects are worn off and then you claim you can prevent cervical cancer as they get older. And I’m the quack for speaking out against vaccines.
So what are the efficacy rates of other vaccines? Who knows? They don’t study that, they assume and say we need more. Once the vaccine is FDA approved and on the market, there’s no need to put any more money into it to study the effects. Instead, we have a test tube of 4 million new subjects each and every year where they can just sit back, relax and never worry about a law suit because the government has protected them from any and all liability.
Since no studies go into how long the vaccine would last, then there can be an endless recommendation of potential booster shots. The part that really confuses me are the shots that are 4 part series. If the first 3 didn’t confirm immunity, how do we know that the last shot was ‘the one’ that provides lifetime immunity? Why would the 2nd to last shot be good for only a year but the last one be good for an entire lifetime? That’s pretty arrogant and sketchy logic.
If I were to ask you what polio looks like, you probably have images of wheel chairs, crutches and kids limping around. You would be absolutely correct…less than 0.5-2% of the time. I want to make it clear that I am not downplaying the devastation of that 2%. The point I’m making, hopefully it’s clear enough, is that I am making decisions based on statistics not emotion. As a parent, it’s very hard to separate the two sometimes.
In over 95% of the time, polio presents with the following symptoms: slight fever, malaise, headache, sore throat, and vomiting. These start 3-5 days after exposure and recovery is 24-72 hours with a result of lifetime immunity. Bet you never heard that from your pharma influenced media or doctor?
In fact, if you went to your doctor with those symptoms and you were told you had polio, you would leave his office laughing and write bad reviews on his Google Places page.
The remaining 3% was non-paralytic polio. This presented for 2-10 days as high fever, severe headache, stiff neck, hyperesthesia/paresthesia in extremities and some asymmetrical limb weakness. Take this list of symptoms to your doctor and you will probably get a label of meningitis, not polio.
But Dr. Kurt, the vaccine saved all those people from getting the paralyzing version. If you look at the charts below, you will see that Polio was already massively decreasing prior to any vaccine ever introduced. I would also like to add that the highest incidence came at a time our country was in despair (poor sanitation, hygiene, nutrition) during the depression.
“It is dangerous to let the public behind the scenes. They are easily disillusioned and then they are angry with you, for it was the illusion they loved.”
– W. Somerset Maugham
Medical history books, almost uniformly extol the virtues of vaccination. Upon reading these books, one is left with the impression that during the 1800s and into the 1900s, there were rampant plagues that killed countless scores of people and that, because of vaccines, this is no longer the case. This is certainly what we believed growing up, and most people we talk to have a similar impression. It generally permeates society as an established fact.
It is difficult to underestimate the contribution of immunization to our well-being. It has been estimated that, were it not for childhood vaccinations against diphtheria, pertussis, measles, mumps, smallpox, and rubella, as well as protection afforded by vaccines against tetanus, cholera, yellow fever, polio, influenza, hepatitis B, bacterial pneumonia, and rabies, childhood death rates would probably hover in the range of 20 to 50%. Indeed, in countries where vaccination is not practiced, the death rates among infants and young children remain at that level. 
Paul Offit talks in his recent book Deadly Choices—How the Anti-Vaccine Movement Threatens Us All about how the whooping cough vaccine has reduced deaths from that disease from 7,000 to only 30.
Whooping cough (pertussis) is a devastating infection. Before a vaccine was first used in the United States in the 1940s, about three hundred thousand cases of whooping cough caused seven thousand deaths every year, almost all in young children. Now, because of the pertussis vaccine, fewer than thirty children die every year from the disease. But times are changing. 
This type of information can even be found in medical journals. A lengthy study on whooping cough and the whooping cough vaccine was published in 1988 in the journal Pediatrics. The first paragraph of the paper states the following:
In the United States, pertussis has been successfully controlled by routine mass immunization of infants and children. In the prevaccine era, there were 115,000 to 270,000 cases of pertussis and 5,000 to 10,000 deaths due to the disease each year. During the last 10 years, there have been 1,200 to 4,000 cases and five to ten deaths per year. 
That paragraph set the tone for the rest of the article by indicating that thousands of people died each year from whooping cough, but after the DTP vaccine was introduced, very few died. Anyone who believed this statement would, of course, believe in the benefit of the vaccine.
The problem with these statements is that they are not supported by the evidence. When we look at the actual data, we see that although many people did die from whooping cough in the early part of the 1900s, by the time the vaccine had been introduced the death rate in the United States had declined by more than 90 percent. Using the source that was referenced to make the statement in the Pediatrics paper, we see that the decline in deaths from the peak was approximately 92 percent before the introduction of the DTP vaccine. 
The article in the journal Pediatrics is quite damaging because it would have been read primarily by doctors, leaving many with the impression that vaccines were completely responsible for the decline in deaths. The actual number of deaths by the time of the introduction of the DTP vaccine was approximately 1,200—not the 5,000 to 10,000 often cited. Again, this faulty thinking that vaccines were responsible for the lion’s share of mortality decline is pervasive in all corners of society.
An additional important point to notice is that when looking at the graph you can clearly see that each year the trend was that of a decrease in deaths from whooping cough. At the point the vaccine was introduced there was no apparent effect in the downward trend.
Another data set from England starting at the beginning of the 20th century shows the lack of impact of the vaccines even more dramatically. Here you can see that the death rate had fallen by over 98% before the national use of the DTP vaccine in the 1950s.
England began keeping statistics in 1838, which was 62 years before official U.S. statistics were gathered. Looking at this data, we can see that the death rate from infectious diseases was high during the 1800s and declined from the mid-1800s to the mid-1900s to almost zero. Looking at the whooping coughs death from England, deaths had decreased by more than 99 percent before any vaccine.
In the case of measles, the death rate had declined by almost 100 percent.
Analysis of the data shows this often-repeated mantra that vaccines were key in the decline of infectious disease deaths is a fallacy. Deaths had decreased by massive amounts before vaccinations. In the case of scarlet fever and other infectious diseases, deaths declined to near zero without any widespread vaccination.
Unfortunately, this erroneous belief has led people to trust in vaccination as the sole way to handle infectious diseases when there were clearly other factors that caused mortality to decline. Those factors were improved hygiene, sanitation, nutrition, labor laws, electricity, chlorination, refrigeration, pasteurization, and many other facets that we now generally take for granted as part of modern life. Very little of the improvement in the death rate had anything to do with medicine. A 1977 report estimated that, at best, approximately 3 percent of the mortality decline from infectious disease could be attributed to modern medical care.
In general, medical measures (both chemotherapeutic and prophylactic) appear to have contributed little to the overall decline in mortality in the United States since about 1900—having in many instances been introduced several decades after a marked decline had already set in and having no detectable influence in most instances. More specifically, with reference to those five conditions (influenza, pneumonia, diphtheria, whooping cough, and poliomyelitis) for which the decline in mortality appears substantial after the point of intervention—and on the unlikely assumption that all of this decline is attributable to the intervention . . . it is estimated that at most 3.5 percent of the total decline in mortality since 1900 could be ascribed to medical measures introduced for the diseases considered here. 
The emphasis today on more and more vaccines, is in part built on this ingrained thinking. The fact that deaths from infectious diseases declined so greatly before vaccines and antibiotics, is ignored. This lapse in study has created a situation where we could have learned a better way to manage all infections in a more comprehensive way. Yet, to this day, despite such a phenomenal transformation, we have failed to learn the lessons of this history. The solutions that led to a 99 percent decline in death has been ignored, with the entire emphasis on the final 1 percent, which would have occurred anyway even without a vaccine.
However, in some corners, there is recognition that vaccines were not what caused the major decline in infectious disease mortality. They often erroneously point to antibiotics and improved medical care and grudgingly give some credit to sanitation and other factors. There is little curiosity as to how all these factors worked and how they still apply today. The shift on emphasis is now on the incidence of disease after vaccination with a decreased emphasis on mortality. The thinking goes that, by wiping out the disease with vaccines, there is no risk of death. This appears to be a reasonable approach. How well has it worked?
Let’s take whooping cough as an example. In 1979 Sweden withdrew use of the DTP vaccine on the basis that it was not effective and possibly unsafe. The fear, of course, would be that with lower vaccination rates, the death rate would increase. So what happened in this case?
A 1995 letter from Victoria Romanus at the Swedish Institute of Infectious Disease Control indicated that deaths from whooping cough remained near zero. Sweden’s population was 8,294,000 in 1979 and 8,831,000 by 1995. From 1981 to 1993, eight children were recorded as dying, with the cause of death listed as pertussis. This averaged to be about 0.6 children per year possibly dying from whooping cough. These numbers show that the odds of dying from pertussis in Sweden were about 1 in 13,000,000 even when there was no national vaccination program. 
In another case, DTP vaccination coverage in England dropped from about 78 percent to 30 or 40 percent because of concerns over safety. The assumption was that there would be an increase in deaths due to the decreased coverage. The years from 1976 to 1980 were the ones when vaccination rates were at their lowest. Using official statistics, the number of deaths in those years totaled 35. The deaths from the previous five years (1971 to 1975), while vaccination rates were higher, totaled 55, or about 1.5 times greater than when vaccination rates were lower.  This was directly opposite what is generally believed should have happened.
And have whooping cough rates really been controlled? The sad truth is that whooping cough never really went away and is endemic. Huge numbers of people still cough from Bordetella pertussis, the bacteria involved in whooping cough. Because of waning vaccine- immunity, up to one-third of persistent coughs are whooping cough.
Although pertussis traditionally has been considered a disease of childhood, it was well-documented in adults nearly a century ago and is currently recognized as an important cause of respiratory disease in adolescents and adults, including the elderly. Because of waning immunity, adult and adolescent pertussis can occur even when there is a history of full immunization or natural disease . . . Studies from Canada, Denmark, Germany, France, and the United States indicate that between 12 and 32% of adults and adolescents with a coughing illness for at least 1 week are infected with Bordetella pertussis. 
Let’s focus on another infectious disease—measles. Keep in mind that by 1963, almost no one died from measles. During this year, the whole of New England had only five deaths (Maine: 1, New Hampshire: 0, Vermont: 3, Massachusetts: 0, Rhode Island: 1, Connecticut: 0) that were attributed to measles.  Deaths from asthma were actually 56 times greater than from measles during that year.
But did incidence decline as vaccine proponents emphasize? There are some graphs you can find on the Internet that claim there was little decrease in incidence. The graph I have seen that shows this only has a few data points and a line between two distant points in time. This graph is of poor quality and draws an incorrect conclusion. Looking at more comprehensive incidence data, we can see a drop in incidence in 1963 at the introduction of the measles vaccine.
Measles incidence did apparently dramatically drop after 1963. But can this drop be completely attributed to the success of the measles vaccine? The early measles vaccine that contained “killed” virus was an aluminum-precipitated vaccine produced from formaldehyde-inactivated monkey kidney cell cultures. A study from 1967 revealed that the vaccine could cause pneumonia as well as encephalopathy (inflammation of the brain).
Pneumonia is a consistent and prominent finding. Fever is severe and persistent and the degree of headache, when present, suggests a central nervous system involvement. Indeed one patient in our series who was examined by EEG, evidence of disturbed electrical activity of the brain was found, suggestive of encephalopathy . . . These untoward results of inactivated measles virus immunization was unanticipated. The fact that they have occurred should impose a restriction on the use of inactivated measles virus vaccine. We now recommend that inactivated measles virus vaccine should no longer be administered. 
The killed vaccines were quickly abandoned.  But there were also significant issues with the live vaccines, which were not highly attenuated and produced a “modified measles” rash in about half of those injected—essentially equivalent to a case of measles. Forty-eight percent of people had rash, and 83 percent had fevers up to 106°F post-injection.
So how did measles incidence drop so dramatically after the 1963 vaccine? In part, it had to do with a definition. If you had a high fever and you had a vaccine, of course you didn’t have measles even if you were sicker than you would have been if you contracted measles naturally.
Back in the 1960s, it was expected that a single shot would protect you for life without serious effects, which would later turn out not to be true.
The United State Public Health Service licensed a new, refined, live-measles vaccine. Although several live vaccines have been licensed since 1963—all of them one-shot treatments that give life immunity without serious side-effects—the new one is considered by epidemiologists as “the best so far in minimizing the side-effects.” 
Claims were even made in the 1960s that only a certain number of children needed to be vaccinated in order to wipe out measles.
Measles, the “harmless” childhood disease that can kill, will be nearly eradicated from most areas of the country a year from now, officials of the United States Public Health Service predict . . . Although there are still more than 12 million susceptible children, vaccination of the “right” two million to four million youngsters could wipe out the disease, according to Dr. Robert J. Warren of the Communicable Disease Center in Atlanta. 
More than a decade later, the objective of measles elimination was still not achieved. There were repeat epidemics that happened throughout the United States.
By 1989 the new theory on failure to eradicate was that the earlier vaccines were not as effective as originally believed. Some of the first vaccines mass produced in 1963 contained a killed virus. In 1989 Dr. Feigin of Texas Children’s Hospital stated that he believed the 1963 vaccine was “not widely effective” and that the 1967 vaccine was unsta¬ble and lost its “effectiveness” if not properly refrigerated. It was not until 1980 that a stable live measles vaccine became available. 
In the same year, after three types of measles vaccines had failed to produce eradication or even predictable herd immunity, vaccine scientists changed course from one shot and stated that, in using the new live vaccine, two doses would be required for reliable protection. They also recommended that everyone under the age of 32 be revaccinated because the old vaccines they received were inadequate. The single shot once promised to provide lifelong immunity against measles in the 1960s was never produced.
And was the measles incidence declining before 1963 anyway? Looking at the measles incidence data, the trend line shows that incidence was on the decline.
In fact, if that trend line held, measles incidence would have hit zero by around the year 2000. This is actually the year when the CDC declared measles had been eliminated from the United States.
So were all these vaccines worth the cost, effort, and adverse reactions to tackle what was by 1963 considered a mild childhood illness?
When we hear about vaccines, we are often told a simple story of how they stimulate antibodies. The theory goes that the stimulation of antibodies creates a memory of a disease so the next time you encounter it, your body will quickly defeat the enemy. It’s a nice, simple, and easy-to-remember story.
Believing you understand the immune system because you hear the words “antibodies” and “protection” mentioned together is like thinking you know how a car really works because you see it has wheels. The immune system is a highly complex, still-poorly understood entity, composed of many different cell lines, each producing different chemicals that are released into the blood. These chemicals are used by the body and are affected by age, stress, nutritional status, environment, and a whole host of factors that are barely understood.
“. . . the immune system remains a black box,” says Garry Fathman, MD, a professor of immunology and rheumatology and associate director of the Institute for Immunology, Transplantation and Infection . . . “It’s staggeringly complex, comprising at least 15 different interacting cell types that spew dozens of different molecules into the blood to communicate with one another and to do battle. Within each of those cells sit tens of thousands of genes whose activity can be altered by age, exercise, infection, vaccination status, diet, stress, you name it. . . . That’s an awful lot of moving parts. And we don’t really know what the vast majority of them do, or should be doing . . . 
The immune system is traditionally divided into the humoral immune system that is involved with antibodies and the cellular immune system that does not involve antibodies but entails the activation of various cells such as natural killer cells. What we do know is that, contrary to popular belief, antibodies are not necessary when it comes to full measles recovery.
. . . children with antibody deficiency syndromes have quite unremarkable attacks of measles with the characteristic rash and normal recovery. Furthermore, they are not unduly prone to reinfection. It therefore seems that serum antibody, at any rate in any quantity, is not required for the production of the measles rash; nor for the normal recovery from the disease; nor to prevent reinfection. 
Children with a deficit in antibody production, called agamma-globulinemia, recover from measles just as well as normal antibody producers, and this has been known since the late 1960s when vaccines were being developed and advanced. But antibody response is really the only thing that is talked about and promoted when it comes to vaccines. Because this knowledge disturbed the simplistic antibody-protection paradigm, it was considered a “disconcerting” discovery in this 1968 medical paper.
One of the most disconcerting discoveries in clinical medicine was the finding that children with congenital agamma-globulinaemia, who could make no antibody and had only insignificant traces of immunoglobulin in circulation, contracted measles in normal fashion, showed the usual sequence of symptoms and signs, and were subsequently immune. 
How does nutrition play a role in disease? Discovered in the 1920s, vitamin A was dubbed the “anti-infective” vitamin. It alone has a tremendous impact on measles deaths. During the 1990s, mortality reductions of 60 to 90 percent were measured in poor countries using vitamin A in hospitalized measles cases.
Combined analyses showed that massive doses of vitamin A given to patients hospitalized with measles were associated with an approximately 60% reduction in the risk of death overall, and with an approximate 90% reduction among infants . . . Administration of vitamin A to children who developed pneumonia before or during hospital stay reduced mortality by about 70% compared with control children. 
Availability of vitamin C-rich fruits and vegetables was another factor in disease morbidity and mortality reduction. There were improving trends in overall nutrition, as seen by a parallel in the decline in deaths from measles and the vitamin C deficiency disease, scurvy. Experiments done in the 1940s showed that vitamin C was effective against measles, especially when used in higher doses.
During an epidemic [of measles] vitamin C was used prophylactically and all those who received as much as 1000 mg. every six hours, by vein or muscle, were protected from the virus. Given by mouth, 1000 mg. in fruit juice every two hours was not protective unless it was given around the clock. It was further found that 1000 mg. by mouth, four to six times each day, would modify the attack; with the appearance of Koplik’s spots and fever, if the administration was increased to 12 doses each 24 hours, all signs and symptoms would disappear in 48 hours. 
In the early 1900s, other treatments were being successfully used to treat measles. In 1919 Dr. Drummond commented that cinnamon oil was an effective prophylactic against measles or that it made measles milder.
It has been my practice, when I meet with a case of measles in a family, to prescribe a course of cinnamon for all unprotected members of the family. In the majority of cases the person so treated [with cinnamon] escaped the disease [measles] altogether, or else had it in very mild form. 
Nutrition and other factors have a big impact on measles, so why aren’t we talking about them at all? Because the emphasis is always on a single, highly lucrative medical procedure—vaccination. This sole paradigm has swept virtually all other strategies to the wayside.
Another key factor to consider is that measles vaccine does not create lifelong immunity, whereas natural infection with measles does. The only way to remain immune with artificial immunity via vaccines is to be vaccinated several times during a lifetime. We have not yet seen how the vaccine will play out over several generations of exclusively vaccinated people. Epidemics are likely to become more common in the future.
A 2009 study published in Proceedings of the Royal Society investigated what could happen with waning measles vaccine immunity even with high vaccine coverage among children. They predicted that, after a long disease-free period in the population, the introduction of infection will lead to far larger epidemics than predicted by standard models.
We can foresee that vaccination will have two conflicting effects . . . it will reduce the number of newborn susceptibles and hence should have some of the usual associated public-health benefits reducing the number of cases in young children. However, this reduction in cases will lead to a reduction in boosting and therefore a greater susceptibility to infection in older age classes . . . When immunity wanes, vaccination has a far more limited impact on the average number of cases. While this observation has clear public-health implications, the dynamic consequences of the interaction between vaccination, waning immunity and boosting are far more striking. For high levels of vaccination (greater than 80%) and moderate levels of waning immunity (greater than 30 years), large-scale epidemic cycles can be induced. 
A 1984 study  reported that by 2050, the proportion of measles susceptibles may be greater than in the pre-vaccine era. So have we created a ticking time bomb with waning immunity? Will there actually be bigger measles epidemics in the future? If there are, the response will probably be to blame the unvaccinated, which has in fact been done for over 100 years, and then to enforce more vaccinations upon different age groups.
Because of the zealous pro-vaccine bias that permeates society, the true forces that drove the major decline in deaths from infectious diseases are not acknowledged. At most, there is a slight admission that “sanitation” has some effect, but better medical care and antibiotics are still given the credit.
Groups of individuals who have anointed themselves as “skeptics” seek to derail anything that questions vaccination. The definition of skeptic used to be “one who instinctively or habitually doubts, questions, or disagrees with assertions or generally accepted conclusions,” but this definition in its modern usage has been hijacked and transformed to someone that essentially blindly supports any orthodox position as gospel. These people will continue on their crusade of supporting vaccines at all costs and to assail anything that might question their myopic view. If those people had a desire to learn the truth, perhaps they would peek beneath the hood of infectious diseases and vaccines, and learn a little more. Imagine what could be in the trunk!
1. Irwin W. Sherman, Twelve Diseases That Changed Our World, 2007, p. 66.
2. Paul A. Offit, MD, Deadly Choices—How the Anti-Vaccine Movement Threatens Us All, 2011, p. xii.
3. James D. Cherry, MD MSc; Philip A. Brunell, MD; Gerald S. Golden, MD; and David T. Karzon, MD, “Report on the Task Force on Pertussis and Pertussis Immunization—1988,” Pediatrics, June 1988, vol. 81, no. 6, Part 2, p. 939.
4. Historical Statistics of the United States Colonial Times to 1970 Part 1, Bureau of the Census, 1975, pp. 77.
5. John B. McKinlay and Sonja M. McKinlay, “The Questionable Contribution of Medical Measures to the Decline of Mortality in the United States in the Twentieth Century,” The Milbank Memorial Fund Quarterly, Health and Society, vol. 55, no. 3, summer 1977, p. 425.
6. Letter from Victoria Romanus, MD, PhD, Department of Epidemiology Swedish Institute of Infectious Disease Control, Stockholm Sweden, August 25, 1995.
7. Record of Mortality in England and Wales for 95 Years as Provided by the Office of National Statistics, 1997; Health Protection Agency Table: Notification of Deaths, England and Wales, 1970–2008.
8. Edward Rothstein, MD, and Kathryn Edwards, MD, “Health Burden of Pertussis in Adolescents and Adults,” Pediatric Infectious Disease Journal, vol. 24, no. 5, May 2005, p. S44.
9. Vital Statistics of the United States 1963, Vol. II—Mortality, Part A, pp. 1–18, 1–19, 1–21.
10. Vincent A. Fulginiti, MD; Jerry J. Eller, MD; Allan W. Downie, MD; and C. Henry Kempe, MD, “Altered Reactivity to Measles Virus: Atypical Measles in Children Previously Immunized with Inactivated Measles Virus Vaccines,” Journal of the American Medical Association, vol. 202, no. 12, December 18, 1967, p. 1080.
11. “Measles Vaccine Effective in Test—Injections with Live Virus Protect 100 Per Cent of Children in Epidemics,” New York Times, September 14, 1961.
12. “Thaler to Hold State Senate Hearing to Find Fastest Way to Expedite Plan,” New York Times, February 24, 1965.
13. Jane E. Brody, “Measles Will Be Nearly Ended by ’67, U.S. Health Aides Say,” New York Times, May 24, 1966.
14. Lisa Belkin, “Measles, Not Yet a Thing of the Past, Reveals the Limits of an Old Vaccine,” New York Times, February 25, 1989.
15. B. Goldman, “The Bodyguard: Tapping the Immune System’s Secrets,” Stanford Medicine, summer 2011.
16. P. J. Lachmann, “Immunopathology of Measles,” Proceedings Royal Society of Medicine, vol. 67, November 1974, p. 1120.
17. “Measles as an Index of Immunological Function,” The Lancet, September 14, 1968, p. 611.
18. Wafaie W. Fawzi, MD; Thomas C. Chalmers, MD; M. Guillermo Herrera, MD; and Frederick Mosteller, PhD, “Vitamin A Supplementation and Child Mortality: A Meta-Analysis,” Journal of the American Medical Association, February 17, 1993, p. 901.
19. Fred R. Klenner, MD, “The Treatment of Poliomyelitis and Other Virus Diseases with Vitamin C,” Southern Medicine & Surgery, July 1949.
20. “Cinnamon as a Preventive of Measles,” American Druggist Pharmaceutical Record, New York, November 1919, p. 47.
21.J. M. Heffernan and M. J. Keeling, “Implications of Vaccination and Waning Immunity,” Proceedings of the Royal Society B, vol. 276, 2009.
22. D. L. Levy, “The Future of Measles in Highly Immunized Populations: A Modeling Approach,” American Journal of Epidemiology, vol. 120, no. 1, July 1984, pp. 39–48.