By M.K. Styllinski
“Truly, something is amiss within the supposed science of vaccinology, especially if the only logic behind vaccines and vaccinations is the rabid belief that vaccines provide immunity from disease.”
– Catherine J. Frompovich
A ‘conscientious objector’ was originally one who refused to have their children inoculated. Were they just the religiously inclined and those unduly mistrustful of authority, cast adrift in a sea of superstition without the benefit of hard science? Or did they intuitively know something we don’t? 
These series of posts are about Official Culture and as such, we will be delving into hot topics. The subject of vaccinations produces very strong reactions in parents and medical professionals. The former, due to the natural wish for their doctors to provide the best possible care for their children and loved ones and the latter, from the ingrained medical orthodoxy that there is watertight proof of historical efficacy and that vaccinations are generally beneficial as a preventative medicine.
But is this another sacred cow? I don’t mean to say that ALL vaccinations and its orthodoxy are at fault. There may be however, a strong case to question the science at the heart of vaccine acceptance, most especially when it is so inextricably entwined in the medical and pharmaceutical establishments.
The United States VAERS (Vaccine Adverse Effects Reporting System) receives over 11,000 incidences of serious negative reactions to vaccination annually, 1 percent (or over 112 persons) which include deaths from vaccine reactions.  More worrying still is the fact that only 10 percent of adverse reactions are reported, a figure supported by both the FDA and the National Vaccine Information Centre (NVIC) investigations.  What is more, the majority of these reports are from doctors who may or may not have an allegiance to their pharmaceutical providers. It is statistically significant that according to writer and journalist Alan Philips: “… the NVIC reported that in New York, only one out of 40 doctor’s offices [2.5 percent] confirmed that they report a death or injury following vaccination, — 97.5 percent of vaccine related deaths and disabilities go unreported there. Implications about the integrity of medical professionals aside (doctors are legally required to report serious adverse events), these findings suggest that vaccine deaths actually occurring each year may be well over 1,000.” 
In March 2004 an influential article “Death by Medicine” was written by a group of medical and non-medical PhD researchers for Life Extension magazine. They found that: “… only 1.5 percent of all adverse events result in an incident report, and only 6 percent of adverse drug events are identified properly….The Psychiatric Times noted that the AMA is strongly opposed to mandatory reporting of medical errors…Dr Jay Cohen, who has extensively researched adverse drug reactions (ADR), commented that because only 5percent of ADRs are being reported, there are in reality, 5 million medications reactions each year.” 
As of August 2008, the sum of cash paid out by the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program was $1,804,415,262.35.
Clearly, something is amiss.
The source of the vaccination mythology is derived from one Edward Jenner, an English physician and scientist who pioneered the smallpox vaccine in 1796. Often cited as “the father of immunology” Jenner was working under the flawed hypothesis that anyone who experienced cowpox would be immune to smallpox. Despite the fact that many health professionals during the 19th Century were aware of many cases of smallpox among those with cowpox histories, and despite the fact that there was already a decline in the number of cases of smallpox, Jenner forged ahead with his idea and placed cowpox pus under the skin of an eight year old boy James Phipps in order to prove this unsubstantiated rumour as fact. The guinea-pig boy was subsequently “vaccinated” 20 more times by Jenner and died aged 20. His son was also vaccinated more than once and died aged 21 years. Both died of tuberculosis, a condition which some researchers have linked to the small pox vaccine. 
Though there is no evidence that vaccination worked, King George III was suitably impressed. So much so that he obtained what amounted to a royal financial decree allowing the doctor to practice his idea of transferring diseased ingredients to otherwise healthy people in the hope that his hypothesis would prove to be true. However, from the outset, the science was entirely erroneous. What are not discussed are the facts of history which tend to deviate substantially from medical establishment and Big Pharma’s PR.
In 1872 a large compulsory vaccination program was instituted in Japan. There was little improvement in the level of smallpox. In fact, by 1892 there were 165,774 cases of smallpox with 29,979 deaths.  Another compulsory smallpox vaccine program was also enforced in England in 1867. After 4 years, over 97.5 percent of people between 2 and 50 had been vaccinated. The expected impact against the disease did not arrive but a smallpox epidemic did, just one year later where 44,840 died.  Between 1871 and 1880 the incidence of smallpox escalated from 28 to 46 per 100,000.  From these cases alone there was no evidence at all that the smallpox vaccine prevented the disease and lowered the death rate. Even in 1950s England with the introduction of the polio vaccine incidence of the disease was declining by 82 percent before the first vaccination program in 1956.  An interesting correlation appeared in European countries that refused vaccination for small pox and polio: the epidemics ended as abruptly as they had arrived. 
In 1959, over in the United States the state of Massachusetts saw 77.5 percent of paralytic cases receive 3 doses of injected polio vaccine (IPV). Three years later Dr. Bernard Greenberg, head of the Dept. of Biostatistics for the University Of North Carolina School Of Public Health, testified at U.S. Congressional hearings, that cases of polio actually increased after forced vaccinations with a 50 percent increase from 1957 to 1958, 80percent increase from 1958 to 1959. As is common practice then as it is today, the Public Health Service manipulated the statistics so that all seemed rosy in vaccination land. 
In 1905, just prior to US takeover of the mortality rate stood at around 10 percent. After a massive and compulsory vaccination program immunizing more than 95percent of the population, twelve years later the Philippine Islands suffered a disastrous epidemic of smallpox devastating the population resulting in a case mortality of 65 percent. The 1920 Report of the Philippines Health Service makes interesting reading:
“From the time in which smallpox was practically eradicated In the city of Manila to the year 1918 (about 9 years) in which the epidemic appears certainly In one of its severest forms, hundreds after hundreds of thousands of people were yearly vaccinated with the most unfortunate result that the 1918 epidemic looks prima facie as a flagrant failure of the classic Immunization towards future epidemics.”
“We were fortunate enough to address their own medical (and) health officials where we reminded them of the incidence of smallpox in formerly “immunized” Filipinos. We invited them to consult their own medical records and asked them to correct us if our own facts and figures disagreed. No such correction has been forthcoming, and we can only conclude that between 1918-1919 there were 112,549 cases of smallpox notified, with 60,855 deaths. Systematic (mass) vaccination started in 1905, and since its introduction case mortality increased alarmingly. Their own records comment that “The mortality is hardly explainable.” – Dr Kalokerinos (Second Thoughts on Disease by Kalokerinos & Dettman. 
From January, 1988, to March, 1989, a widespread outbreak (118 cases) of poliomyelitis type 1 polio occurred in the country of Oman. Transmission of Paralytic Polio took place amongst fully vaccinated children. Incidence of the disease was highest in children younger than 2 years old despite: “…an immunisation programme that had recently raised coverage with 3 doses of oral poliovirus vaccine (OPV) among 12-month-old children from 67 percent to 87 percent.” Even though a report in the Lancet medical journal in 1991 proposed that the reason for the cases was due to prior success of an immunization program allowing new strains to flourish, the doctors admit: “…the estimated attack rate of infection among children aged 9-23 months exceeded 25 percent in some regions, suggesting that a substantial proportion of fully vaccinated children had been involved in the chain of transmission.” 
Assuming vaccinations have some efficacy at all, only a small percentage could said to be attributable to a real decline in deaths in the last two hundred years. But this is a huge leap away from scientific reality as the rate of decline has remained virtually unchanged after the introduction of mass vaccinations. A far more likely reason for the decline of disease and associated deaths is the steady improvement in better nutrition, water quality sanitation and higher standards of living in general. A 2000 World Health Organization report found that the disease and mortality rates in third world countries have no direct correlation with immunization procedures or medical treatment, but are closely related to the standard of hygiene and diet. 
There may be a case for a marginally different type of vaccination that is known as “imperfect” which may offer minimal protection and prevention but studies are largely inconclusive and do not justify the vast expenditure as oppose to research and development into areas that are less invasive and costly. As a December 2001 study in the science journal Nature explained:
“..vaccines designed to reduce pathogen growth rate and/or toxicity diminish selection against virulent pathogens. The subsequent evolution leads to higher levels of intrinsic virulence and hence to more severe disease in unvaccinated individuals. This evolution can erode any population-wide benefits such that overall mortality rates are unaffected, or even increase, with the level of vaccination coverage. In contrast, infection-blocking vaccines induce no such effects, and can even select for lower virulence. These findings have policy implications for the development and use of vaccines that are not expected to provide full immunity, such as candidate vaccines for malaria.”  [Emphasis mine]
Even the “infection-blocking vaccine” inducing no effects is a moot point and wholly unsubstantiated. The above citation does underscore why vaccines may actually suppress the immune system over the long-term and cause increased vulnerability to future infections. Nevertheless, for the sake of compromise, transferring to a less invasive form of vaccination prior to evaluating and changing to alternatives ( as well as addressing the socio-economic factors involved) may eventually make vaccinations obsolete.
Most revealing as to the true nature of how the medical establishment defines the parameters of our health is from the MMR vaccine manufactured by Merck designed to offer protection against mumps, measles and rubella.
In 1998 Dr. Andrew Wakefield published a paper in the medical journal The Lancet which presented evidence that autism spectrum disorders could be caused by the MMR vaccine. Sunday Times journalist Brian Deer wrote a scathing critique of Wakefield’s personality history and gave only a cursory evaluation of the actual findings of the paper. It amounted to a vicious hit piece designed to distract attention away from MMR and autism link.
He was accused of having multiple undeclared conflicts of interest; of manipulating the evidence and breaking ethical codes of conduct. This was buttressed with an editorial by Fiona Godlee in the British Medical Journal which described Wakefield’s research as “fraudulent.” The Lancet paper was partially retracted in 2004 and fully retracted in 2010. In the same year Wakefield was found guilty by the General Medical Council of serious professional misconduct and struck off the Medical Register. The Centre for Disease Control and Prevention, the Institute of Medicine of the US National Academy of Sciences, the American Academy of Paediatrics, the UK National Health Service, and the Cochrane Library undertook studies of the findings in 1999 and beyond but found no connection between the vaccine and autism. The health benefits of MMR were roundly supported and reiterated. 
In summary, Wakefield was comprehensively vilified, hanged, drawn and quartered for revealing a possible link with MMR and autism. A 2011 journal article described the vaccine-autism link as “the most damaging medical hoax of the last 100 years.”  That conclusion heavily promoted by the mainstream media – often with heavy Vaccine industry and Big Pharma backing – remains the final conclusion on the subject of MMR–autism link. Wakefield hardly did himself any favours with his financial irregularities yet we must also remember that the original research called for more research rather than a categorical proclamation of a definitive link. In Wakefield’s own words he was: “…part of a group of well-respected physicians who presented a study that simply suggested that there might be a connection between the combined MMR vaccine when administered as a combination of live viruses to certain children and autism, and that suggested that further research is warranted.” 
Then all hell let loose. If we read the press reports, anyone would think he has advocated poisoning little old ladies and torturing kittens. Stepping back from the crusade drawn up by a profit-based edict of unassailable belief rather than science, it becomes clear that there is much more to this David and Goliath furor than meets the eye.
According to Dr. Wakefield this is an unjustified campaign of slander based on his findings. In his continuing legal action against Deer and BMJ, the suit states: “Deer misrepresented the facts of the underlying cases, repeatedly misrepresenting or distorting the content of records for the purpose of falsely accusing Dr. Wakefield of having done precisely what Deer has done…” 
Reading the actual lawsuit is sobering. Many more examples of Deer and Godlee’s character assassinations and fabrications against Dr. Wakefield come to light though you would be hard-pressed to find any mention of such in the mainstream media. Wakefield lists some of the false and misleading statements which constitute libel and defamation from the Times article of January 2011 which include:
- Dr. Wakefield’s case study was “fixed” and based on “bogus data”;
- Dr. Wakefield’s findings were “manufactured” to give “an appearance of a link [to] autism;”
- Dr. Wakefield’s undisclosed goal of the project “was to sue the vaccine manufacturers” and that “Wakefield evidenced his [new] ‘syndrome’ for the lawsuit and built his platform to launch the vaccine scare;”
- Deer’s self-proclaimed “investigation of the MMR issue exposed the frauds behind Wakefield’s research.”
- Dr. Wakefield doctored the underlying data to reach his conclusions as “[n]o case was free of misreporting or alteration;”
- The children who were the subject of The Lancet paper “were recruited through anti-MMR campaigners and the study was commissioned and funded for planned litigation;” and
- Plaintiff Wakefield “nevertheless, apparently now self-employed, professionally ruined, remains championed by a sad rump of disciples.” 
The same level of attack was carried out by Dr. Fiona Godlee in the British Medical Journal which Wakefield describes as “factually inaccurate, malicious, unwarranted and constitutes defamation per se.”
The sheer weight and “unprecedented personal attack” carried out by Deer and the BMJ began to be understood when it was revealed that both received “significant revenue from the very vaccine manufacturers” named in Dr. Wakefield’s original paper. These are Merck & Co. and GlaxoSmithKline. BMJ posted a note online explaining that these “competing interests” should have been disclosed. This was a little too late for Andrew Wakefield who continues to seek exemplary damages, actual and compensatory damages; and special damages, including injury to reputation and character, injury to feelings, humiliation, loss of earning capacity, declaratory relief, costs and expenses, and pre-judgment and post-judgment interest. 
Far from measles outbreaks rising because of lack of vaccinations – the opposite is true. Most children who succumb to measles had already been vaccinated against the disease. When did measles and chicken pox become the deadly disease; the horror that strikes down your child never to recover, a line now promulgated by health organisations?
Yet again, outbreaks of measles were already in decline by the 1970s and well before the onset of vaccination programs. Not only is immunity short-lived but it may actually extend the resistance to future strains of measles. According to the Centre for Disease Control and Prevention’s own literature: “measles transmission has been clearly documented among vaccinated persons. In some large outbreaks…over 95 percent of cases have a history of vaccination.” 
 Bonk: The Curious Coupling of Science and Sex 2009 By Mary Roach. Published by Canongate Books Ltd.
 National Technical Information Service, Springfield, VA 22161, 703-487-4650, 703-487-4600.
 Dayton Daily News, by KM Severyn,R.Ph.,Ph.D, May 28, 1993 | National Vaccine Information Center (NVIC), ‘Investigative Report on the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System.’
 ‘Dispelling Vaccination Myths’ By Alan Philips, Citizens for Healthcare Freedom Last Revision: May 2001.
 Death by Medicine By Gary Null, Ph.D., PhD; Carolyn Dean MD, ND; Martin Feldman, MD; Debora Rasio, MD; and Dorothy Smith, PhD. Life Extension magazine, March 2004 issue.
 Favez, G, “Tuberculous Superinfection Following a Smallpox Re-Vaccination”, Praxis, July 21, 1960; 49:698-699; Ambs, E et al, “Tuberculous Abscess of the Upper Arm With Regional Lymphadenitis as a Consequence of Injection in Two Siblings”, Med Klin, July 7, 1967, 62:1050-1054; Eleanor McBean, The Poisoned Needle (Mokelumne Hill, CA : Health Research, 1974) pp. 28-29]
 ‘Smallpox: Setting the Record Straight By Vaccination Liberation’ Idaho Observer, June 2000 | http://www.proliberty.com/observer/20000607.htm
 ‘The Salk Vaccine And The “Disappearance” of Paralytic Polio- Is Paralysis A Viral Disease?’ By Gary Krasner & Barry Mesh. http://www.whale.to/a/krasner1.html
 NVIC News, April 92, p12. See Note 23 pp 45-46.
 Hearings before the Committee on Interstate and Foreign Commerce, House of Representatives, 87th Congress, Second Session on H.R. 10541, May 1962, p.94.
 The Blood Poisoners By Lionel Dole Published by Health for All; First Edition edition, 1965 | ISBN-10: 0852690312.
 ‘Widespread Transmission of Paralytic Polio Amongst Fully Vaccinated Children in Oman’1991: Sutter R W; Patriarca P A; Brogan S; Malankar P G; Pallansch M A; Kew O M; Bass A G; Cochi S L; Alexander J P; Hall D B. Outbreak of paralytic poliomyelitis in Oman: evidence for widespread transmission among fully vaccinated children. Lancet 1991;338(8769):715-20.
 ‘Dispelling Vaccination Myths’ By Alan Philips, Citizens for Healthcare Freedom Last Revision: May 2001.
 ‘Imperfect vaccines and the evolution of pathogen virulence’ Gandon S, Mackinnon MJ, Nee S, Read AF Nature 414 (6865): 751-756 DEC 13 2001.
 Demicheli V, Jefferson T, Rivetti A, Price D 2005. Demicheli, Vittorio. ed. “Vaccines for measles, mumps and rubella in children”. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 19 (4): CD004407. DOI:10.1002/14651858.CD004407.pub2. PMID 16235361. Lay summary – Press release.
 Flaherty DK (October 2011). ‘The vaccine-autism connection: a public health crisis caused by unethical medical practices and fraudulent science’. Ann Pharmacother 45 (10): 1302–4. DOI:10.1345/aph.1Q318. PMID 21917556.
 Law suit filed by Andrew Wakefield January 12 against BJM, Brian Deer, Fiona Godlee. D1GN-12-0000003.Travis County, Texas.
 ‘A New Look at the Vaccine Question’ by Richard H. Pitcairn, D.V.M., Ph.D., Animal Natural Health Center, Eugene Oregon | http://www.geocities.com/~l