Vaccines and Disease

The fatal tendency of mankind to leave off thinking about a thing which is no longer doubtful is the cause of half their errors
-- John Stuart Mill

In 1949 the DTP vaccine was licensed to prevent diphtheria, tetanus, and pertussis (whooping cough) issuing forth the modern use of vaccines in the prevention of childhood illnesses. Polio immunization was later introduced to prevent that dread disease. In 1963 the measles vaccine was licensed and was combined with mumps and rubella toxoids to create the MMR vaccine. In more recent times the hepatitis B and chickenpox vaccines have been developed and incorporated into our healthcare system. Now a child can expect to receive up to 33 vaccines during their childhood with more vaccines on the horizon, such as herpes zoster (shingles), West Nile virus, influenza, pneumococcal, HIV, and many more.

The belief that vaccines are safe and effective is very pervasive in today’s society. The vast majority of the medical, public, and government communities have a well-established belief system in the benefits of vaccines. Even children’s books show how important it is to “get a shot from the doctor to keep us well.” Our belief system is so ingrained that we look to medical science to create new vaccines to protect us from everything from AIDS to ear infections.

Unlike almost any other health-related issue in the free world, governments mandate many vaccines for the theoretical public good. In the United States all 50 states require a large number of vaccinations before children are allowed to attend public schools or day care centers. Although most states have religious and medical exemptions, with some having a philosophy exemption, public and medical officials exert a great deal of pressure to vaccinate. The pervasive attitude that plagues will return and ravage the western world without everyone giving their child a full set of vaccinations is a powerful force in modern society.

One of the chief concepts that vaccine proponents tell us and that we generally believe in modern society is that the use of vaccines is responsible for the virtual elimination of many childhood scourges that used to ravage the world. We are told and assume that in the 1800s and early in the 1900s many diseases killed a large number of people and vaccines were invented and stopped these diseases from being a threat. But is this in fact the case? An immunization booklet produced by the CDC (Centers for Disease Control) states the following:

“Why are baby shots so important? These shots protect your baby from nine diseases: measles, mumps, rubella (German measles), diphtheria, tetanus, pertussis (whooping cough), polio, Haemophilus influenzae type b (Hib disease), and hepatitis B. Are these diseases very serious? Today we might not think of these diseases as being very serious because thanks to vaccines, we don’t see them as often as we used to. … Measles used to kill hundreds – sometimes thousands – of people a year. In the 1920s, over 10,000 people a year died for diphtheria.”

“Years ago, diphtheria was a widespread and greatly feared disease. Through the 1920s, it struck about 150,000 people a year and killed about 15,000 of them. Since then these figures have dipped considerably, thanks to parents who have gotten their children vaccinated against this terrible disease. There were only 918 cases in 1960, 435 in 1970 and 128 in 1976. Today, only a few cases occur each year.”

“Before measles vaccine was available, nearly all children had measles by the time they were 15 years old. An average of 530,000 cases a year were reported in the United States during the 10 years before vaccine was available. And during each of these years, over 450 people died because of measles. Now, thanks to the measles vaccine, the number of measles each year is a fraction of what it was then.”[1]

These statements are certainly compelling. On the face of it we cannot help but assume that vaccines have played a key role in improving all of our lives. But looking carefully at the evidence over a longer period of time reveals a different picture of disease evolution and the role vaccines have played. One Swiss scientist that analyzed data over a longer period of time came to a different conclusion of what occurred in Switzerland.

“An analysis has been made of the evolution in Switzerland of mortality due to the main infectious diseases ever since the causes of death began to be registered. Mortality due to tuberculosis, diphtheria, scarlet fever, whooping cough, measles, typhoid, puerperal fever and infant gastro-enteritis started to fall long before the introduction of immunization and/or antibiotics. The decline was probably due to a great extent to various factors linked to the steady rise in the standard of living: qualitative and quantitative improvements in nutrition; better public and personal hygiene; better housing and working conditions and improvements in education.”[2]

In that research paper, several graphs of death rates in Switzerland show massive drops in diseases deaths long before vaccinations are introduced. One graph shows diphtheria death rates for children from 0 to 14 years of age peaking at over 200 deaths per 100,000 in the late 1800s. This is followed by death rates decreasing to less than 10 deaths per 100,000 near the time of the introduction of the vaccine in the mid 1930s. An apparent 95 percent decrease in diphtheria death rates before introduction of the vaccine. Another graph within the same study show scarlet fever decreasing from 200 deaths per 100,000 in the late 1800s to virtually zero by the 1930s before drug treatments were introduced. And yet another graph in the study shows typhoid also decreasing from 50 deaths per 100,000 in 1876 to virtually zero by the 1940s when drug treatments were introduced.

A review of “Childhood’s Deadly Scourge” states:

“During the last two decades of the 19^th century diphtheria was the leading cause of death of toddlers in the industrialized world, in some cities killing more than a thousand in a single year. In contrast, since 1980 fewer than 100 cases have been reported in the entire United States. Although diphtheria is hardly the only infectious disease to have thus faded, its story is unique because the early period of its decline can be directly linked to advances in bacteriologic knowledge and practice. Between 1880 and 1930 health authorities in New York City were responsible for much of the practical innovation in the control of diphtheria, as well as a good share of scientific progress.”[3]

The Vital Statistics of the United States contains compiled statistics for a wide variety of information since early in the 1900s. Among those are death rates from all diseases including infectious diseases. An introductory statement from the 1937 statistics indicates that death rates from infectious diseases declined greatly in the early part of the century. These declines occurred well before the advent of vaccines to treat these conditions.

“The trend in death rates for specific causes, over the past 20 or 30 years, may be characterized by two general statements. In the first place, there has been a great reduction in the death rates for infectious and preventable diseases; in the second place, there has been an increase in the rates for certain diseases characteristic of older ages. Greatest proportional rate decreases have taken place for such diseases as typhoid and parathyroid fever, which has declined from a rate of 23.5 in 1910 to 2.1 in 1937; and diphtheria, which declined from a rate of 21.4 in 1910 to 2.0 in 1937. … The rate reductions for infectious and preventable diseases can be largely attributed to the development of modern public-health practice.”[4]

From these figures we can see that death rates from typhoid decreased by 91% from 1910 to 1937 and death rates from diphtheria declined by 90.5% during the same time period. The decrease in diphtheria occurred well before the use of vaccination.

Even a more recent editorial statement from the Journal of Pediatrics states that proper sanitation was largely responsible for the early large declines in infectious diseases.

“… the largest historical decrease in morbidity and mortality caused by infectious disease was experienced not with the modern antibiotic and vaccine era, but after the introduction of clean water and effective sewer systems.”[5]

Another paper published in the premier medical journal The Lancet in 1977 by the Department of Community Medicine in the United Kingdom also indicates that vaccines were not responsible for the decline in disease rates in that country.

“There was a continuous decline [whooping cough deaths], equal in each sex, from 1937 onward. Vaccination, beginning on small scale in some places around 1948 and on a national scale in 1957, did not affect the rate of decline if it be assumed that one attack usually confers immunity, as in most major communicable diseases of childhood. … The steady decline of whooping cough between 1930 and 1957 is predictive of a linear exponential decay characteristic of a general and progressive lessening in the volume and spread of infection among the susceptible population. With this pattern well established before 1957, there is no evidence that vaccination played a major role in the decline in incidence and mortality in the trend of events.”[6]

The author’s conclusion that “there is no evidence that vaccination played a major role in the decline in incidence and mortality” is quite monumental and far different than the general public perception.

So how can the statements made by the CDC on how “thanks to vaccines” diseases are a thing of the past be correct? Back in 1924 Mark Twain was quoted as saying, “There are three kinds of lies — lies, damned lies, and statistics.” When Mark Twain made this statement his point was that numbers could be manipulated by the unscrupulous to misrepresent facts, to justify a particular bias, or fulfill a particular agenda. It is an unhappy fact of modern life that anyone with an idea can support that idea with statistics. The less the public knows about the source of the statistics, the more possible it is to have lies posing as scientific results.

Simple statements such as “in the 1920s, over 10,000 people a year died from diphtheria”, although accurate are very misleading. Providing a piece of historical fact without any real context and mixing it with statements on how vaccines helped cure these diseases leads the reader to erroneously conclude that vaccines were instrumental in the massive declines of these diseases.

The CDC’s statements on vaccines only provide a few facts and then draw a conclusion on this limited information. To understand the role of vaccines we must use the raw information and analyze it over a long period of time. The Vital Statistics of the United States provides the most accurate information of death rates from various causes starting early in the 1900s.[7] Figure 1 is a graph of the death rates from measles, typhoid, scarlet fever, whooping cough (pertussis), and diphtheria. Both the pertussis and diphtheria vaccines were made widely available in 1949 and the measles vaccine was introduced in 1963.

Figure 1. Death rates from infectious diseases

This graph shows that large drops in disease death rates occurred long before vaccines were introduced. From 1910 to 1963, when the measles vaccine was introduced, death rates from measles had declined from 12.3 per 100,000 to 0.2 per 100,000 – a 98% decrease. From 1900 to 1949 death rates from whooping cough declined from 12.2 per 100,000 to 0.5 per 100,000 – a 96% decrease. From 1900 to 1949 death rates from diphtheria declined from 40.3 per 100,000 to 0.4 per 100,000 – a 99% decrease. These are clear and major changes in the seriousness of diseases well before any vaccines were introduced. Close up views (figures 2-4) of the diphtheria, pertussis, and measles death rates show this dramatic drop well before vaccination programs began.

Figure 2. Death rates from Diphtheria

Figure 3. Death rates from Pertussis

Figure 4. Death rates from Measles

Another interesting point of note is that certain diseases that also once killed many people declined and vanished without any assistance from mass vaccination programs. Typhoid death rates of about 31 per 100,000 each year was not uncommon. Scarlet fever once killed large number of people at a death rate of 10 per 100,000 each year. While quite deadly during their prime, these two “killers” were in effect eradicated due in large part to advances in hygiene and a better understanding of germ activity. The Canadian Medical Journal contains the following statements in an advisory statement:

“Typhoid fever is caused by Salmonella typhi, which affects only humans, often causing serious systemic illness. The organism is generally transmitted by the feces or urine of the people with the disease or those who are the S. typhi carriers. The death rate is approximately 16% for untreated cases and 1% for those given appropriate antibiotic therapy. … The incidence of typhoid fever is very low in all of the industrialized countries. Approximately 70 cases are reported in Canada and 190 in the United States annually. The low incidence of typhoid fever in these countries is attributable to improved living conditions, better drinking-water quality and the treatment of sewage. The vaccine does not seem to play an important role in maintaining this lower incidence. Most infections occurring in the industrialized countries are acquired elsewhere. … It is certain that vaccination does not afford adequate protection when heavily contaminated foods are ingested. … There cannot be too much emphasis placed on hygiene and food precautions; these measures appear to be the most effective protection against the disease.”[8]

So if the forces of improved living conditions, better drinking-water quality and the treatment of sewage virtually eliminated illnesses such as typhoid and scarlet fever, then isn’t it reasonable to consider that other diseases such as measles and pertussis would have had similar fates? An analysis of the death rates for all these diseases does support this idea. The Conquest of Disease by Thurman B. Rice, MD from 1932 states:

“The benefit of pure water is expressed not only by the lowering of the typhoid rate but also in a considerable lowering of other death rates, and even of the general death rate. … Why has the death rate [for Scarlet fever] markedly fallen in the days before the cause of the disease was understood? It must be remembered that a given germ is only part of the cause of a disease; there are often many other very important contributing, predisposing, or determining factors. As housing conditions were improved, as the general laws of sanitation, ventilation, and personal hygiene came to be better understood; as we came to insist on individual drinking cups; fresh air in bedrooms, and frequent bathing; as doctors became more proficient in treating the infection so as to prevent its serious complications and sequelae; as boards of health became more efficient in the enforcement of public health laws; as methods of isolation and disinfection were better understood the death rate declined accordingly.”[9]

It would appear that at best vaccines could be credited with only a tiny fraction of the overall decline of disease deaths in the 1900s. And because death rates were declining it is impossible to say whether vaccines had a real effect or that the same forces that caused the majority of the decline would have continued to have a positive impact. Those forces were primarily that of improved sanitation, proper personal hygiene, improved diet, and the natural cycles of these diseases.

Based on our knowledge that proper sanitation, improved living conditions, and improved nutrition were the key factors that caused declines in these diseases, we can ask the question whether the present deaths and complications from these diseases are in people of poor socioeconomic or compromised nutritional status? Is it possible that the focus on mass vaccination programs diverted attention from continued improvements in sanitation and nutrition that would have further reduced or eliminated disease deaths and complications?

It would seem that the people who recognized the underlying cause of diseases and instituted better living conditions, proper water and better sanitation should be recognized for their remarkable achievements, not the inventors and promoters of vaccines. This analysis, which is based on historical and scientific studies, is a far different picture than the one alluded to by the CDC in their vaccine literature.

ALL INFORMATION, DATA, AND MATERIAL CONTAINED, PRESENTED, OR PROVIDED HERE IS FOR GENERAL INFORMATION PURPOSES ONLY AND IS NOT TO BE CONSTRUED AS REFLECTING THE KNOWLEDGE OR OPINIONS OF THE PUBLISHER, AND IS NOT TO BE CONSTRUED OR INTENDED AS PROVIDING MEDICAL OR LEGAL ADVICE. THE DECISION WHETHER OR NOT TO VACCINATE IS AN IMPORTANT AND COMPLEX ISSUE AND SHOULD BE MADE BY YOU, AND YOU ALONE, IN CONSULTATION WITH YOUR HEALTH CARE PROVIDER.