[i-v-y] Japanese SIDS info/Viera Scheibner

[Guest guest]

http://www.whale.to/vaccines/scheibner1.html

Comments on JAPANESE SIDS REBUTTAL

Firstly, the author of this " Rebuttal " (Australian Skeptics) hasn't done

his homework: he can't even spell my name and my book

VACCINATION was published in 1993 and not 1992. In my opinion, his homework

about vaccines and infant deaths is of

the same quality as his homework about my book and my work.

1. Between 1970 and 1974, 37 infant death occurred after DPT vaccination in

Japan; because of this the doctors in one

prefecture boycotted vaccination (Iwasa et al. 1985 and Noble et al. 1987).

Consequently, the Japanese Government first

stopped DPT vaccination for 2 months in 1975, and, when vaccination was

resumed, the vaccination age was lifted to 2 years.

Interestingly, not only the entity of sudden death disappeared from vaccine

injury compensation claims (only 2 deaths were

subject of vaccine injury compensation claims in the 2-year olds compared

with 37 in younger children), but the the overall

infant mortality has improved: Japan zoomed from 17th to first place in

infant mortality in the world. This means that Japan

moved from a very high bracket to the lowest infant mortality rate in the

world ( 1991). Interestingly, Noble et al.

(1987) who spent some 2 weeks in Japan studying the acellular whooping

vaccine there, wrote that " It is difficult to exclude

pertussis vaccines as a causal factor even when other etiologies are

suggested, particularly when the adverse events occur in

close temporal association with vaccination " .

The same thing happened in England after 1 July 1975 when thanks to the

first media reports of brain damage linked to

vaccination, parents stopped vaccinating: the compliance fell down to 30%

or even 10% in some areas. As unwittingly

documented by McFarlane (1982), the overall infant mortality rate

plummeted. She wrote:

" The postneonatal mortality fell markedly in 1976, the year in which a

sharp decline in perinatal mortality rate began. Between

1976 and 1979, however, neither the late nor the postneonatal mortality

rates fell any further. Indeed, the postneonatal

mortality rate increased ,slightly among babies born in 1977 " . This very

closely correlates with the documented oscillations in

vaccination compliance: low compliance was linked to low death rate and

vice versa. The vaccination compliance was lowest in

1975-76. Then it started climbing up in 1977-78, simply because people have

short memories and the new parents did not

know about the publicity surrounding vaccination as the cause of serious

side effects (young couples become interested in these

issues only after they have their first children). Fine and son (1982)

wrote " ...it is surprising that the interepidemic period

did not decrease after the 1974 fall in vaccine uptake. " They expected the

incidence to increase in the unvaccinated children.

Indeed, this interepidemic period was unusually long with the lowest

incidence of whooping cough on record.

When in 1988 Japanese parents were given the choice to start vaccinating

anything between 3 months of 4 years, obviously

many ignorant parents started at 3 months because the low SIDS rate

increased fourfold in the last 13 years (Byron Shire

Echo; June 1994). The article quoted Professor Hiroshi Nishida of Tokyo

Women's Medical College, who said that the SIDS

rate among babies aged under 1 year had sharply increased to 0.33 % in 1992

when compared with 0.07 % in 1980.

2. SIDS is a rather rubbery diagnosis and the figures can be and are

manipulated. However, the total infant deaths are a bit

more difficult to manipulate. The definition of SIDS is a death of a child

unexpected by history and with insufficient

determination of cause of death. So, it depends on the degree of damage

whether the infant death will be diagnosed as Sudden

Infant Death Syndrome or pneumonitis, bronchiolitis, brain edema etc. With

the increasing number of vaccines administered as

part of the " routine " now, we shall see increasing numbers of babies with

very serious reactions to vaccines and they will not be

diagnosed as SIDS. We already see it in the epidemic of Shaken Baby

Syndrome, when babies develop serious brain and

other haemorrhages and die or remain seriously damaged and the parents are

being accused of causing it by allegedly shaking

their babies to death (Scheibner 1998).

Cherry et al. (1988) discussed the pertussis vaccine deaths in a rather odd

way. Under the subheading Non-SIDS deaths they

quoted Madsen's (1933) description of two babies who died soon after

pertussis vaccination. In a way which can be described

as contemptuous they tried to explain these immediate deaths (one-half hour

after the second vaccination given four days after

the first) and two hours after the second vaccination respectively) and

Werne and Garrow (1946) who reported on the deaths

of identical twins following the second injection of diphtheria and

pertussis antigens. These children died within 24 hours of their

vaccinations and had symptoms of anaphylactic shock (Cherry et al. 1988

wrote " suggestive " of schock) and then concluded

that the injuries were also consistent with diffuse viral infection such as

that which might be due to an enterovirus. No evidence

whatsoever was offered for this unfounded assumption.

Under a subheading " SIDS " , Cherry et al. (1988) tried to diffuse the impact

of the published data on vaccine deaths by writing

about a small section of the Tennessee deaths within 24 hours of their DPT

vaccination. " An extensive evaluation of this

possible association was made, and there was a weak statistical association

with one lot of vaccine. It was the impression of the

investigators and a panel of outside consultants that there was no causal

relationship between the specific lot of vaccine and

SIDS. " and " A statistically significant number of excess deaths was noted

in the first week following immunization (observed 17,

expected 6.75 P less than .0005). This study was criticized by Mortimer and

colleagues (1992) because ...did not take

cognizance of the well-known age distribution of SIDS " . This is a blatant

circular argument: the well-known distribution of

SIDS follows closely the vaccination schedule and none of the studies of

SIDS distribution or incidence was the vaccination

status of the SIDS victims even mentioned. This is " science " squarely

standing on its head.

They also wrote that of the six children having serious side effects to

Wellcome pertussis vaccines (described by Griffith

(1978), " one was found to have pneumonia, one Reye Syndrome, and a four-day

febrile illness, one acute tracheobronchitis,

one tuberculous meningitis, and one an encephalomyelitis which had its

onset seven days after immunization " . Vaccines are

known to cause pneumonia; the Reye Syndrome is a recognised side effect of

vaccination, vaccines cause febrile illnesses and

seven days is one of the characteristic critical days for the onset of

vaccine reactions. I would also like to see details of the

" tuberculous meningitis " before concluding that this was not a reaction to

the administered vaccines.

Wilkins (1988) dealt with the question of delayed reactions to vaccines.

She wrote that " if one assumes that the adverse

reaction to the DTP vaccine may result from an immunologic intravascular

complexing of particular antigen (whole-cell or

disrupted organisms) with specific antibody to produce a Jarisch-Herxheimer

reaction, then adverse reaction may not occur

within 24 hours of inoculation...If the post inoculation interval is

extended to 2 weeks, an additional 93 case infants (now

representing a total of 98 case infants) might have been at risk for an

adverse reaction to DTP vaccine. "

Perhaps the most revealing is the comment of Cherry et al. (1988) about

articles by Torch (1982 and 1986a, . Even though

the two articles published in 1986 were available at the time. Cherry et

al. (1988) did not quote them. One wonders why?

Perhaps, the answer is contained in the articles (see below).

Torch (1982 and 1986 a, analysed the symptoms and postmortem findings in

babies and small children after vaccination and

described them in sufficient detail not to leave anything to imagination.

Torch (1986b) concluded that " Although many feel that

the DPT-SIDS relationship is temporal, this author and others maintain a

causal relationship exists in a yet-to-be determined

SIDS fraction. "

3. Even though vaccinators as a rule are very reluctant to use the word

CAUSED when they talk about vaccine damage, they,

interestingly, talk about REACTIONS to vaccination. The word reaction in

itself implies the causal link, though it does not

actually say so. You can't have a coincidental reaction to vaccination, you

can only have coincidental occurrence of some

damage or symptoms, demonstrably caused by something else. They often use

the word " TEMPORAL " meaning occurring in

time, always overlooking the fact that these " TEMPORAL REACTIONS " always

occur AFTER and not NOT BEFORE

vaccination, and that the reality of the occurrence after vaccination is

the first condition to fulfill when establishing causality; if

something happens before vaccination we would not even consider it being

caused by the subsequent administration of

vaccines.

4. In the past, vaccinators were denying that vaccines cause any adverse

effects. Thanks to strong anti-vaccination awareness,

vaccinators now have to admit that yes, no vaccines are 100% safe or 100%

effective and reactions do occur and the

vaccinated children are getting the " vaccine-preventable diseases " . Yes,

there are mild or strong local reactions; and yes, there

are systemic reactions, like fever, convulsions, hypotonic-hyporesponsive

episodes, screaming (a cerebral cry), drowsiness, but

only within a maximum of 7 days after vaccination. They also have great

difficulty recognising and accepting the damage in

individual cases. They always claim that the damage was coincidental, or

worse still, caused by the parents of the affected or

killed child by accusing them of Shaken Baby Syndrome.

The vast majority of published studies of vaccine reactions included a

follow-up of up to only 48 hours. This conveniently

excludes about 90% of reactions to vaccination (see also Wilkins 1988).

Characteristically, most vaccine reactions are delayed, many starting only

2-3 weeks after vaccination.

5. With this introduction, we may find it rather curious why Cherry et al.

(1988) would even contemplate to publish some 40

pages of a Report of the Task Force on Pertussis and Pertussis Immunization

in which they analyse in quite a detail all those

" temporal " reactions to the pertussis vaccine. But they did.

Among many other examples of this remarkable, and as it might seem, wholly

misplaced diligence. Cherry et al. (1988) looked

into sudden infants deaths after pertussis vaccination. That babies as a

rule are given the pertussis vaccine together with the

diphtheria and tetanus toxoids as DPT did not seem important to these

authors. If you administer 3 in 1 vaccines how do you

know which vaccine caused what? Unless, of course, you know precisely what

damage the pertussis component of this toxic

trio causes. In fact, the pertussis vaccine is as a rule used to induce

encephalomyelitis in laboratory animals (Steinman et al.

1982) and when these unfortunate animals develop encephalomyelitis, as

expected, and intended, it is never considered just

coincidentally temporally related to the administration of the pertussis

vaccines, or a result of some Shaken Rat Syndrome

inflicted by laboratory staff: it is only when the same vaccine causes the

same reactions in babies, it is as a rule considered

coincidental and only temporally related or a result of Shaken Baby

Syndrome inflicted on them by their parents or other

carers. Kirschner and Stein (1985) called this hostile attitude of medical

staff a form of medical abuse.

On page 971, Cherry et al. (1988) under the heading " development of

alternative B pertussis vaccines " write that " During the

past several decades, many laboratories attempted to identity and separate

significant protective antigens from those bacterial

components that account for adverse reaction. Until recently, this effort

amounted to a trial and error process that proved to be

exceedingly difficult in face of the array of biologically active products

that could be derived from B pertussis organisms..-Two

of the extracted vaccines will be described. The experimental vaccine of

Pillemer et al. (319) was partially purified by

adsorption to human RBC stroma. In extensive comparative field trials in

the United Kingdom, it was highly protective in

children but caused significantly more systemic reactions than available

conventional whole-cell vaccines. It was not pursued

further. " We should not even have to go any further. Cherry et al. (1988)

here clearly and without a shadow of a doubt (at least

in my mind) used the word " caused " when describing the adverse systemic

reactions which were observed and documented as

a result of this pertussis vaccine administration in extensive comparative

trials.

But let's read further:

" An extracted pertussis vaccine (TRiSolgen manufactured by Eli Lilly Co)

was marketed in the United States from 1962 to

1977 (for fifteen years!). " There are few published data evaluating this

product. The antigen was chemically extracted from

whole bacteria, cell debris was removed by centrifugation and no additional

purification steps were taken. The vaccine was

never well characterized, two published small field trials provided

information regarding reaction data and agglutinin liters. 320,

321 Only one of these trials, was carried out in a randomized, double-blind

fashion, and in this study the difference between the

reaction rates following the extracted vaccine varied only slightly from

the comparative whole-cell vaccines. The local reactions

were less frequent with extracted vaccine, although the systemic reactions

were not significantly different.

In addition, there are no specific data concerning efficacy or frequency of

uncommon temporally related severe neurologic

events with this extracted vaccine. "

So, vaccines which were discontinued (after 15 years of use!) or never

reached the distribution do cause serious side effects

and have never been properly researched.

Also, ordinary systemic reactions are caused by the vaccine, but when it

comes to the 'severe neurologic events' they are

suddenly only temporally related. In other words, the vaccine causes only

mild reactions and the severe reactions are caused by

nothing.

But Cherry et al.(1988) continued in their strange rhetoric. On page 972

(Development of Acellular Vaccines in Japan) they

write under a subheading (Transient Local and Systemic Reactions): " In

general, transient local and systemic reactions caused

by acellular vaccines were less frequent and milder when compared with

Japanese conventional whole-cell vaccines. A small

number of children in the United States received a Japanese T-type

component vaccine and similar mild reactions were

observed. " Well, no problem using the word 'caused' when it comes to what

they called transient local and systemic reactions.

However, when it comes to severe events, they suddenly change their choice

of words into " Temporally Related Severe

Events " (p. 972). Cherry et al. (1988) write here: " In the 5 year period

from 1970 through 1974, a period when standard

whole-cell DTP immunization was started routinely at 3 to 5 months, there

had been a total of 57 severe temporally related

events and 37 deaths (9.5 severe reactions and 6.1 deaths per year)

including presumed vaccine-associated encephalopathy

and other CNS diseases, as determined by claims paid by the Japanese

national compensation system. When whole-cell

vaccines were initiated at 24 months of age, in the six years between 1975

and 1980, there were eight severe temporally

related events (average 1.6 [per] year) and three deaths. The whole-cell

DTP vaccines used in'the latter period were equivalent

to those in prior use. Thus, the age of starting routine immunization

appears to be a far more important determinant of

temporally associated reactions than the switch from conventional

whole-cell vaccine to acellular vaccines " .

And then Cherry et al. (1988) continued:

" The conclusion can be drawn that either (1) DTP prepared with whole-cell B

pertussis is less likely to cause neurologic

disease when begun at 24 months or (2) the purported reactions in infants

were in large part unrelated<developmental events

expected commonly in that age group but attributed to vaccine because they

were time related... The rate of severe reactions

does not differ significantly between the acellular and whole-cell vaccine

when used at 24 months of age. (Table 8). The

decrease in severe reactions is slight, if any. The category " sudden death "

is also instructive in that the entity disappeared

following both whole-cell and acellular vaccines, when immunization was

delayed until a child was 24 months of age. " And

further: " It is clear that delaying the initial vaccination until a child

is 24 months, regardless of the type of vaccine, reduces most

of the temporally associated severe adverse events. Furthermore, analysis

of cases with paid claims in the Japanese national

compensation system indicates many of the putative cases to be related to

other medical conditions " .

This paragraph is the source of controversy. As I see it. Cherry et al.

(1988) here clearly indicate that the shift of the start of

vaccination to 2 years reduced the incidence of (what they would describe

as temporal) severe adverse events. Without saying

in which age group, one can reasonably assume that he also meant the

unvaccinated babies younger than 2 years of age. All this

must inevitably change the temporal into causal; the continued use of the

word temporal is inappropriate. This interpretation is

supported by the lack of decline in the incidence of these reactions after

DTP vaccination of 2 year-olds and the causal link is

very obvious.

As far as the infant death rate or SIDS rate and vaccination schedule is

concerned, it is quite clear that the shift of the lower

vaccination limit to 2 years resulted in Japan zooming from 17th to first

place in infant mortality rate: meaning from very high to

the lowest rate in the world. This could hardly be interpreted to mean that

only the number of vaccine deaths which were

subject to compensation claims declined as the proponents of vaccination

claim.

As far as low vaccination compliance in the seventies and the incidence of

whooping cough is concerned. Noble et al. (1987)

published a very interesting graph on their Figure 21 (page 1352) which is

showing that whilst the vaccination compliance

started climbing up after 1976, so did the incidence of whooping cough. Far

from showing the effectiveness of vaccination, this

figure 2 shows that vaccination was at best irrelevant to the issue of the

incidence of whooping cough. Inappropriate

correlations abound in this article, like for example comparing the

incidence of whooping cough in 1884 (the epidemic year)

with the incidence in 1970 (a non-epidemic year). Equally unreliable are

the data on adverse reactions to the acellular vaccine.

Indeed, when acellular vaccines were tested in the nineties in Sweden, they

expected 20 deaths and experienced 45 (plus one

accidental death) (Olin et al. 1997 and elsewhere). Also, the rate of side

effects was much higher than anticipated. This includes

a large epidemic of whooping cough within about 7 months into the trial,

and in the children who were given three trial doses,

which prompted the discontinuation of the trial before the planned date

(Olin 1995). This shows that like the whole cell

pertussis vaccine, the acellular one causes whooping cough. When the US

mandated DPT vaccination in 1978, it resulted in the

sustained three-fold increase in the incidence of whooping cough

particularly in the well-vaccinated age group between 2 and 6

months (Hutchins et al. 1988). This explains the substantial increases in

the incidence of whooping cough in Japan after 1976,

when the vaccination compliance started climbing up. In fact, one must read

the figures 1 and 2 of Noble et al. (1987)

correctly, as showing a fall in the incidence with the falling vaccination

compliance and the increasing incidence with the upward

climb in compliance. Any other interpretation offends common sense.

Perhaps the most important statements in Noble et al. (1987) are on page

1355: " It is difficult to exclude pertussis vaccine as a

causal factor even when other etiologies are suspected, particularly when

the adverse events occur in close temporal

association with vaccination " and on page 1356: " If acellular vaccines have

produced a reduction in the occurrence of serious

reactions with sequelae in children over 2 years of age, the decrease is

slight " .

My evaluation of the " Japanese SIDS Rebuttal " is that it is as bad as they

come, and it is poor on real facts and real analysis

and rich in abusive language and reasoning unworthy of a scientific

analysis, not withstanding compassion for the pain and

documented suffering vaccination causes to infants and all their

recipients. The Skeptic Magazine never published either the

longer or the shorter version of my response to Basser's original article.

I am back to my original response which is ignoring this

type of literature and groups of people who are not interested in the truth

or real facts, but in silencing people who express

opinions and publish facts which are uncomfortable for them.

And last but not the least: Japan discontinued MMR vaccination in 1993, and

shortly afterwards, compulsory vaccination of

any kind.

REFERENCES

Iwasa, Ishida, S., and Akama, K. 1985. Swelling of the brain in mice caused

by pertussis vaccine - its quantitative

determination and the responsible factors in the vaccine. Japan J Med Sci

Biol; 38: 53-65.

Noble, G.R., Bernier, R.H., Esber, E.C., Hardegree, M.C., et al. 1987.

Acellular and whole-cell pertussis vaccines in Japan:

report of a visit by US scientists. JAMA; 257(10): 1351-1356.

, 1990. Press & Sun Bulletin (taken from Los Angeles Times);

March 1, 1990. Report: U.S. slips in fight to cut

infant mortality.

Mason, J.O., 1991. Reducing infant mortality in the United States through

" healthy start " . Publ Health Reports (Sep-Oct).

McFarlane, A., 1982. Infant deaths after four weeks. Lancet (Oct 23).

Fine, P.E., and son,. J., A., 1982. The recurrence of whooping cough:

possible implications for assessment of vaccine

efficacy. Lancet (March 20): 666-669.

The Byron Shire Echo (June 22, 1994). SIDS cases quadruple in 13 years.

Scheibner, V., 1998. Shaken Baby Syndrome - the vaccination link. Nexus

(August-September): 35-38 & 88.

Cherry, J.S., Brunell, P.A., Golden, G.S., and Karzon, D.T., 1988. Report

of the task force on pertussis and pertussis

immunization. Pediatrics (suppl): 939-984.

Madsen, T., 1933. Vaccination against whooping cough. JAMA; 101: 187-188.

Werne, J., & Garrow, I,. 1946. Fatal anaphylactic shock: Occurrence in

identical twins following second injection of diphtheria

toxoid and pertussis antigen. JAMA;131:730-735.

Griffith, A., H., 1978. Reactions after pertussis vaccine: A manufacturer's

experience and difficulties since 1964. Br Med J; 1:

809-815.

Bernier, R.,H., , J.AS., Dondero, T.J., Jr. 1982.

Diphtheria-Tetanus-Pertussis vaccination and sudden infant deaths in

Tennessee. J Pediatr; 1982; 101: 419-421.

Baraff, L.J., Ablom, W.J., Weiss, R.C., et al. 1983. Possible temporal

association between diphtheria-tetanus-

toxoid-pertussis vaccination and sudden infant death syndrome. Pediatr

Infect Dis; 2: 7-11.

Mortimer, E.A., Jr., , P.K., and Adelson, L. 1983. DTP and SIDS.

Pediatr Infect Dis; 2: 492.

Wilkins, J., 1988. What is 'significant' and DTP reactions. Pediatrics;

81(6): 912-913.

Torch, W.S., 1982. Diphtheria-pertussis-tetanus (DPT) immunization: a

potential cause of the Sudden Infant Death Syndrome

(SIDS). Neurology; 32(4): A169 abstract).

Torch, W.C., 1986 a. Characteristics of diphtheria-pertussis-tetanus (DPT)

postvaccinal deaths and DPT-caused Sudden

Infant Deaths Syndrome (SIDS): a review. Neurology (suppl 1); 36: 148

(abstract).

Torch, W.C., 1986 b. Diphtheria-pertussis-tetanus (DPT) imunization may be

an unrecognized cause of Sudden Infant Death

(SIDS) and Near-Miss Syndrome (NMS): 12 case reports. Neurology (suppl 1);

36: 149 (abstract).

Steinman, L., Weiss, A., Adelman, N. et al. 1985. Pertussis toxin is

required for pertussis vaccine encephalopathy. Proc Nati

Acad Sci USA; 82: 8733-8736.

Kirschner,R.H., and Stein,R.J., 1985. The mistaken diagnosis of child

abuse. A form of medical abuse? Am J Dis Child; 139:

873-875.

Pillemer, L., Blum, L., and Lepow, I.H. 1954. Protective antigen of

Haemophilus pertussis. Lancet; 1: 1257-1260.

Olin, P., Rasmussen, F., Gustafsson, L., Hallander, H.O., et al. 1997.

Randomised controlled trial of two-component,

three-component, and five-component acellular pertussis vaccines compared

with whole-cell pertussis vaccine. Lancet; 350:

1569-1577.

Olin, P., 1995. Acellular vaccines - a question of efficacy. J Hosp Infect;

30 (suppl): 503-507.

Hutchins, S.S., Cochi, S.L.,, Brink, E.W., et al. 1988. Current

epidemiology of pertussis in the United States. Tokai J exp din

Med; 13 (suppl): 103-109.

[scheibner] [Vaccination]

--------------------------------------------------------

Sheri Nakken, R.N., MA

Vaccination Information & Choice Network, Nevada City CA

530-272-7306

http://www.nccn.net/~wwithin/vaccine.htm

" All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men ( &

women) do nothing " ...Edmund Burke

ANY INFO OBTAINED HERE NOT TO BE CONSTRUED AS MEDICAL OR LEGAL ADVICE. THE

DECISION TO VACCINATE IS YOURS AND YOURS ALONE.

Well Within's Earth Mysteries & Sacred Site Tours

http://www.nccn.net/~wwithin

International Tours, Homestudy Courses, ANTHRAX & OTHER Vaccine Dangers

Education, Homeopathic Education

KVMR Broadcaster/Programmer/Investigative Reporter, Nevada City CA

CEU's for nurses, Books & Multi-Pure Water Filters

--------------------------------------------------------

Sheri Nakken, R.N., MA

Vaccination Information & Choice Network, Nevada City CA & Wales UK

$$ Donations to help in the work - accepted by Paypal account

vaccineinfo@...

(go to http://www.paypal.com) or by mail

PO Box 1563 Nevada City CA 95959 530-740-0561 Voicemail in US

http://www.nccn.net/~wwithin/vaccine.htm

ANY INFO OBTAINED HERE NOT TO BE CONSTRUED AS MEDICAL OR LEGAL ADVICE. THE

DECISION TO VACCINATE IS YOURS AND YOURS ALONE.

Well Within's Earth Mysteries & Sacred Site Tours

http://www.nccn.net/~wwithin

International Tours, Homestudy Courses, ANTHRAX & OTHER Vaccine Dangers

Education, Homeopathic Education

CEU's for nurses, Books & Multi-Pure Water Filters