Vaccine History - The Untold Story

Vaccine History Table of Contents (page navigation)

Vaccines Not Attributable to Decline in U.S. Mortality in Last Century

The inevitable misconception that arises when discussing vaccination is that the vaccines lowered the mortality in the U.S. and therefore, no matter any shortcomings of vaccination, vaccines saved lives and are therefore necessary. But is that really the case? Did vaccines lower the mortality rate of these diseases that they are purportedly protecting us against? According to JAMA, the Journal of the American Medical Association, one of the most prestigious medical journals, the answer is no, vaccines are not attributable to saving lives. In fact, the true reason for the drastic decline in mortality rates of these diseases is attributable to the ‘theory of epidemiological transition.’ – The Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA), 1999

Theory of Epidemiological Transition - simply put, this means that better "improvements in living conditions, sanitation, modern healthcare, and medicine like penicillin and antibiotics" replaced infectious diseases.

"Over the last 100 years, North America and Europe have experienced a substantial decline in mortality and an increase in life expectancy. The "theory of epidemiologic transition" attributes these trends to the transition from an "age of pestilence and famine," in which the mortality pattern was dominated by high rates of infectious disease deaths, especially in the young, to the current "age of degenerative and man-made diseases" in which mortality from chronic diseases predominates." - JAMA, 1999

Vaccines are not included in this theory, in fact, the theory was originally posited by Abdel Omran in 1971, and at the time the polio vaccine, the first widely disseminated vaccine in the U.S., had only hit the market in 1955. The measles vaccine came in '63 and the mumps in '67. That was all the vaccines that were on the market when Omran's now widely held theory of epidemiological transition was observed.

The below chart demonstrates that annual mortality rates did not drastically decline due to the increase use of vaccinations. The graph is the average mortality rate in the U.S. when nine categories of infectious disease are added together as an overall average. These nine diseases are "pneumonia and influenza (analyzed as a single category), tuberculosis, diphtheria, pertussis, measles, typhoid fever, dysentery, syphilis ("syphilis and its sequelae"), and AIDS." Bare in mind, vaccinations did not become prominent until the 1950's and 60's, and those were only for a half of the diseases. Notice, the mortality rates level off at the time of the vaccines implementation.

Fig. Crude Infectious Disease Mortality Rate in the United States from 1900 Through 1996 - JAMA

Looking at the Last Century's Mortality Rate

PEDIATRICS, the official journal of the American Academy of Pediatrics, considered the gold standard for Pediatricians describes the same historical trends in mortality. The vast decline in mortality occured before the vaccines were invented.

"Between 1900 and 1998, the death rate from the major infectious diseases declined 99.7%, from 466 to 0.7 deaths per 100 000 (Fig 9). The percentage of child deaths attrib- utable to infectious diseases declined from 61.6% to 2%. This decline incorporates the emergence of human immunodeficiency virus (HIV)/AIDS which in 1998 accounted for 􏰀0.3% of child deaths. Once again, nearly 90% of the decline in infectious disease mortality among US children occurred before 1940, when few antibiotics or vaccines were available." - Pediatrics, 2000

Below, we see 3 periods of drastic decreases in mortality for diseases that cannot be attributed to vaccines. Half of the diseases still don't have a vaccine. Yet, they all precipitously dropped to near 0 mortality rate without the aid of vaccines. The below chart is taken from Infectious Disease Epidemiology, 2005.


Cont'd

In fact, as the chart below clearly shows Measles, Diphtheria, and Whooping Cough all saw their sharpest declines in mortality rates before the creation of their respective vaccine. Additionally, Scarlet Fever and Typhoid show the same drastic deline over the same time period, and as you can recall, there are no vaccines for these diseases.

The debate between on vaccine efficacy in U.S. history often leads down the path of the so-called eradication of small pox. Advocates will claim that the small pox vaccine was responsible for its disappearance.

Dr. Suzanne Humphries differs, stating (around 4:15 in the video), “Only 5 to 10% of the earth’s population was ever vaccinated for small pox. And it was done during a time when there was lots of sanitation occurring, which meant there was, there were fewer rodents and insects around that were able to carry the disease from person to person; it meant that people’s immune systems were improved because of better nutrition and child labor laws. So there were lots of things occurring during this period when small pox disappeared. However, now, you know back during the time of small pox, there was chicken pox, monkey pox, goat pox, horse pox, there were all kinds of pox that looked identical, that were very hard to tell apart. We still have monkey pox on the planet. So, many of these pox diseases that we all lump together because we didn’t have genetic testing, we still have these diseases. If you look at a person, a victim, of monkey pox, it looks just like small pox. So the question is, did we really eradicate small pox? And I have my doubts about that.

U.S. Highest Infant Mortality Rates & Infant Vaccination Rates

This chart is based off of the data collected by the CIA of most of the 1st world nations.Truth be told, we are 169th of 224 nations; the 224th nation having the lowest infant mortality rate. But why doesn't the US have the lowest infant mortality rate or bare minimum top 10 lowest? We have the most expensive healthcare, the greatest doctors, and we give our babies the highest amount of vaccines by age 1?

Well, the answer to that question may very well be correlated to the high amount of vaccines.

"The US childhood immunization schedule specifies 26 vaccine doses for infants aged less than 1 year—the most in the world—yet 33 nations have lower IMRs. Linear regression analysis of unweighted mean IMRs showed a high statistically significant correlation between increasing number of vaccine doses and increasing infant mortality rates, with r = 0.992 (p = 0.0009)."  - PubMed - National Center for Biotechnology Information, 2011

"A new report reveals that the United States has the highest first-day infant death rate out of all the industrialized countries in the world. About 11,300 newborns die within 24 hours of their birth in the U.S. each year, 50 percent more first-day deaths than all other industrialized countries combined, the report's authors stated." - CBS News, 2013


The 'Science' Relied On Itself Is Suspect

In fact, the very scientific research used to push vaccines and the entire agenda can and should be called into question.

The editor in chief of The Lancet, perhaps the world's most prestigious medical journal, Richard Horton, wrote the following in The Lancet April 11, 2015 issue saying,

"The case against science is straightforward: much of the scientific literature, perhaps half, may simply be untrue. Afflicted by studies with small sample sizes, tiny effects, invalid exploratory analyses, and flagrant conflicts of interest, together with an obsession for pursuing fashionable trends of dubious importance, science has taken a turn towards darkness...The apparent endemicity of bad research behavior is alarming. In their quest for telling a compelling story, scientists too often sculpt data to fit their preferred theory of the world."

Former editor-in-chief of The New England Journal of Medicine (NEJM), Marcia Angell wrote similar assertions of the medical industries bogus scientific research in her 2009 article, "Drug Companies & Doctors: A Story of Corruption" saying,

"Similar conflicts of interest and biases exist in virtually every field of medicine, particularly those that rely heavily on drugs or devices. It is simply no longer possible to believe much of the clinical research that is published, or to rely on the judgment of trusted physicians or authoritative medical guidelines. I take no pleasure in this conclusion, which I reached slowly and reluctantly over my two decades as an editor of The New England Journal of Medicine." - The New York Review of Books, 2009

Richard Smith, who edited the British Medical Journal for more than a decade, said there was no evidence that peer review was a good method of detecting errors and claimed,

“most of what is published in journals is just plain wrong or nonsense”. - The Independent (London), 2015

Dr. Peter Rost, a former Vice President of Marketing for Pfizer, speaks out in the following video about the way corporation select 3rd parties to test their drugs.

He says, “But, as you and I can probably both imagine, if you have a promotional budget at a corporation, you’re probably going to give that money to the universities that do the programs that most support your drug. And the ones that don’t or that are critical in any way, shape, or form, they aren’t going to get anything. And everybody obviously knows that this is how things work. And that means that even if you can officially claim, ‘Well, that we… this is arm’s length; we didn’t have anything to do with it. We just gave them a grant. They can do anything that they want with it.’ Reality is, they aren't going to continue to get money unless they are saying what you want them to say. They know it. You know it. It’s only maybe the public that doesn’t know it.”

Analysis Shows Flaws in 'Scientific' Studies

In 2005, a comprehensive analysis was conducted providing clear evidence to the above assertions, that in fact, most published research findings are false.

Fig. Percentage of Natural and Medical Sciences (left panel) and Social Sciences and Humanities (right panel) papers published by the top 5 publishers, 1973–2013. - PLOS One, 2015

"There is increasing concern that most current published research findings are false...Simulations show that for most study designs and settings, it is more likely for a research claim to be false than true. Moreover, for many current scientific fields, claimed research findings may often be simply accurate measures of the prevailing bias." - PLOS One, 2005

The wide proliferation of false research in the medical and scientific industry can be traced back in part to the fact that half of the millions of research papers are disseminated by just a few publishers. Like any oligopoly, when the power to move scientific and medical implementation rely on the conclusions of research in the hands of a few, the power to corrupt creeps in. The following PLOS One study concludes that half of all medical and scientific research comes from 5 major publishers.

"This paper provides such analysis, based on 45 million documents indexed in the Web of Science over the period 1973-2013. It shows that in both natural and medical sciences (NMS) and social sciences and humanities (SSH), Reed-Elsevier, Wiley-Blackwell, Springer, and Taylor & Francis increased their share of the published output, especially since the advent of the digital era (mid-1990s). Combined, the top five most prolific publishers account for more than 50% of all papers published in 2013." - PLOS One, 2015


The Vaccine Court (The Federal Vaccine Injury Compensation Program)

The vaccine court came as the result of increased efforts to make sure children had recommended vaccinations prior to beginning school. More vaccinations equated to more vaccine injuries. According to The Washington Post, 1998, "Juries in a series of vaccine injury lawsuits saw documents indicating that the drug companies knew DPT carried some risk...DPT became something of a cause celebre, like nitrates in bacon or lead paint in public housing. Several juries awarded plaintiffs $5 million or more. Alarmed vaccine manufacturers either stopped production or jacked up their prices. By 1984, DPT vaccine rationing loomed, and the progress made to combat these diseases seemed threatened."

In turn to ease vaccine manufacturer's fears, The Vaccine Court (The Federal Vaccine Injury Compensation Program) was established in 1986 under Ronald Reagan. The damages paid out to the injured families are paid for by a $0.75 tax on each vaccine sold. President Reagan stated that it was “administered not by the executive branch, but by the Federal judiciary,” and that it was an “unprecedented arrangement” inconsistent with the constitutional requirement for separation of powers. – NY Times, 1986

Massive Uphill Battle

The burden of proof lies squarely on the shoulders of the families to prove causation. - Huffington Post, 2009

  • Jury trials are prohibited.
  • Damages are capped.
  • Awards for pain and suffering are strictly limited and punitive damages banned altogether.
  • Vaccine defender have an army of Department Justice attorneys with virtually unlimited resources for expert witnesses and other litigation costs.
  • Plaintiffs must fund upfront costs for their own experts.
  • The court gives overwhelming weight to written medical records over all other forms of testimony and evidence.
  • HHS has gone to great lengths to keep the Vaccine Safety Datalink (VSD) records away from plaintiff’s attorneys.