You can read Part I of: Vaccines and Halacha, an Alternative View HERE.
Long-term adverse effects
Short-term monitoring of the vaccines has demonstrated that vaccines can sometimes have devastating effects on the central nervous system, the immune system and many vital organs of the body. Seizures, encephalopathy, asthma, and ‘unexplained deaths’ are just a few recognized dramatic “side” effects of vaccines. If vaccines can, at times, cause such striking and sudden damages to the body, it is only logical that they may also, in many more cases, produce some less obvious and dramatic but equally profound and damaging effects on various metabolic systems of the human body. Detecting such possible effects is impossible through passive observation alone, but requires long-term studies monitoring two large groups of people, one subjected to vaccination and one not, and comparing their respective rate of cancer, leukemia, MS, asthma, lupus, heart attack, dementia, learning disabilities, allergies, etc.
How long should such a study last in order to provide reliable and satisfactory information? 1 year, 10 years, or 100 years? I think that 30-40 years would give a fairly good idea of whether vaccines are safe even long-term (if no major changes in the rate of disease were detected in 30 years, it is unlikely that anything significantly different would occur afterwards), but even a 10 year study may possibly be considered sufficient to provide a reliable insight on the safety (or lack of safety) of the vaccines.
Does such a study exist?
Was such a study ever done for even five years?
Was it at least done for one year?
Information inserts from the vaccine-producing pharmaceutical companies tell us that in phase-three studies (the studies used to obtain licensing of a product from the FDA and required to establish the its safety), adverse effects of INFANDRIX (DTaP vaccine) were monitored for up to 3, 8 and 15 days only; adverse effects of the Hepatitis B vaccine were monitored for 5 days only. Considering this information, VARIVAX (the chickenpox vaccine) is probably the safest vaccine around, having been monitored for up to 42 days…
There is a paucity of research on long-term effects
In May 2001, Congressman Dan Burton testified that,
“there is a paucity of research looking at long-term safety of any vaccine” (House of Representatives, 15 may 2001, page H2174).
Scientific evidence does not support the safety of immunizations: safety studies on vaccinations are limited to short time periods only: several days to several weeks. There are NO (NONE!) long-term (months or years) safety studies on any vaccination or immunization. There is limited but rapidly growing scientific evidence of long-term adverse side-effects of vaccines that need much more study (Harold E. Buttman, MD, Feb. 6 2001).
As astounding, shocking, unbelievable and outrageous as it sounds, this is the deplorable truth: no long-term studies exist on the safety of vaccines.
When we see many terrible diseases on the rise, cancer, ulcerated colitis, Crohn’s disease, chronic fatigue syndrome and asthma to name but a few, and when we know the severe reactionsvaccines may trigger, being חושש that vaccination plays a substantial role in the increasing incidence of such diseases is not the extrapolation of a deranged mind, but the cautious analysis of שכל הישר.
How chronic childhood illnesses may be linked to vaccines
Critics of vaccinations claim that the dramatic rise in ear infections, allergies and asthma in children can be attributed at least in part to the damaging effects of vaccines. The incidence of asthma has steadily increased since the introduction of vaccines.
From 1980-1989 self-reported asthma in the U.S.A. increased 38%, and the death rate for asthma increased 46% (CDC, 1992). Several clinical studies have confirmed an association between vaccination and asthma. A team of New Zealand researchers followed 1,265 children born in 1977. Of the children who were vaccinated 23% had asthma episodes. A total of 23 children did not receive the DPT vaccines, and none of them developed asthma (instead of the expected 5-6 cases). In a similar study in GB, 243 children received the vaccine and 26 of them (10.7%) later developed asthma, compared to only 4 of the 203 children who had never received the DPT vaccine (2%).
The DPT vaccine increased the risk by 540%. Of the 91 children who had received no vaccine at all, only one developed asthma (1.1%). In the U.S.A., a third study was conducted based on the data from the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey of infants through adolescents aged 16. Data showed that children vaccinated with DPT or tetanus were twice as likely to develop asthma compared to unvaccinated children. (The Vaccine Guide, pp.49-50).
Aluminum in vaccines
Yes, most vaccines have much less mercury, but wait until the evidence against aluminum in vaccines becomes common knowledge. The study of research regarding aluminum’s harm to human cells already contains hundreds of articles.
The most damning conclusions were recently published by Dr Robert Sears, a very well-known and well-respected pediatrician and the son and partner of Dr. William Sears, long regarded as “America’s Pediatrician.” Using the numbers he gathered from the FDA’s own data and Web site, Dr. Sears points out the unbelievable difference between the acknowledged toxic dose for a baby, 20 micrograms, and the amount found in the hepatitis B vaccine given on the day of birth, 250 micrograms.
At two months of age, this same infant could receive immunizations containing as much as 1,875 micrograms of aluminum. This is disgraceful and dangerous, and Dr. Sears goes on to say that his
“instinct was to assume that the issue had been properly researched, and that studies had been done on healthy infants to determine their ability to rapidly excrete aluminum.”
No studies have been done. None. He, and we, can conclude what scientists have known for a long time: Evidence has existed for years that aluminum in amounts this large is harmful to humans. We can only guess what harm we might be causing to babies with these huge overdoses of aluminum.
Like many of you and like some of my colleagues, I am extremely concerned about what has caused the tremendous increase in autism and related disorders over the past decade. The presumption that doctors are much better at diagnosis is absurd and unscientific. (I know that I am not 400 or 800 percent smarter than I was years ago.)
The truth is that we have to look much harder at what happens when we directly and repeatedly inject toxic material into babies, toddlers, and children. The benefits for most healthy children are easily matched or outweighed by the risks of the immunization schedule used by almost all pediatricians.
Vaccines and infant mortality rates
A new study in the Journal of Human and Experimental Toxology (May 2011) found that countries that administer a higher number of vaccines during the first year of life experience higher infant mortality rates. The study looked at the relationship between the aggressiveness of that country’s vaccination schedule and how it corresponded to the infant mortality rate (IMR).
Analysis of the countries IMRs showed a statistically significant relationship between increasing the number of routinely administered infant vaccines during the first year of life and the corresponding infant mortality rate. This study’s findings were in line with previous studies on infant mortality rate and vaccinations.
For example, in Japan where vaccines were eliminated for children under the age of two in 1975, infant mortality rate subsequently plummeted to the lowest level in the world. Is it just “coincidence” that the infant mortality rate is twice as high in America compared to Sweden and Japan, where half as many vaccines are given to very young babies? According to this study, it is not.
Experienced with kinesiology, and like practitioners using verbal muscle testing, I can attest that many chronic and acute conditions are linked, time and again, to vaccines. Diseases like allergies, asthma, ADD, etc. In many cases, we observe dramatic improvements after performing various procedures enabling the body to detoxify from the toxins of the vaccines (see document # 12 for a testimony of Dr. J. Scott).
Delayed reactions to vaccines can take years to manifest
In one of the largest randomized epidemiological trials ever conducted, the effect of the Haemophilus vaccine on the development of insulin dependent diabetes mellitus (IDDM) was studied in Finland. This study involved over 240,000 children, with about half of them receiving the Haemophilus vaccine and the other half not. Both groups were monitored for over 8 years. The results demonstrated a rise in IDDM which was specific for the vaccinated group; however, there was a consistent delay of 3,5 years between vaccination and onset of IDDM.
(British Medical Journal, 1999; 319, p. 1133)
Dr. Mayer Eisenstein, M.D., J.D., M.P.H., is the medical director of the four Homefirst medical centers in the greater Chicago metropolitan area catering for over 10,000 children whose parents refuse to vaccinate.
He reports that SIDS and autism are almost non-existent among these children (following the current national rate of 1 case of autism per 166 children, he should have had at least 60 autistic children among his patients), ear infections represent only 1% of the doctors’ visits, and the incidence of asthma is so dramatically lower than the state-wide rate (2 per 1,000 instead of 120 per 1,000) that the HMO called him to verify the facts. At the end of the conversation they told him they understand this might be due to the fact that most of his patients are not vaccinated…
No-one can honestly say vaccines are completely safe
I have only provided a tiny sample of the concerns about the long-term safety of vaccines. In any case, one thing is for sure: Due to the absolute lack of comprehensive long-term studies on the possible adverse effects of vaccines on the various metabolic systems and functions of the human body, no one can honestly affirm that vaccines are safe.
Pro-vaccination doctors claim that,
“vaccines are under constant surveillance and study by government agencies to ensure their safety”.
This is, at least, the myth created by government agencies and spread by the pediatricians who follow them blindly. The surveillance system they are referring to is VAERS, which is a very passive surveillance system, very biased and very flawed, as we have pointed out throughout the above pages; and the events reported there represent only 1 to 10% of the actual short-term adverse effects.
As for ongoing studies, they are mostly contracted by government agencies and pharmaceutical companies, with all the נגיעות and biases this implies; and yet, many such studies reveal serious concerns with vaccination. Additionally, none of these projects have studied the possible long-term risks of vaccines.
While it remains anyone’s right (maybe) to throw all caution to the wind and choose to vaccinate his children, one is surely not obligated to do so. Maintaining having the right to force someone to get vaccinated in order to (theoretically) protect someone else, when proof of vaccine safety is utterly lacking, is preposterous and outrageous.
מאי חזית דדמא דידיה סמיך טפי דילמא דמא דידי סמיך טפי; שב ואל תעשה עדיף.
In regards to the responsibility of schools, one should not forget that if a school is deemed responsible for what might happen to pregnant teachers through lack of the children’s immunization (בשב ואל תעשה), so much more so is it responsible for the adverse events resulting from immunizations it imposes upon its students (בקום ועשה). In such a delicate situation, there is no question that, עפ”י הלכה, the appropriate approach should be שב ואל תעשה עדיף.
What is the counter-argument of doctors?
Doctors counter that even if a vaccine seems to cause more damage than good, it is still recommended because without the vaccine, we would have real epidemics of that disease and a tremendous amount of sick and dead people.
In order to analyze the validity of such claim, we will have to look into the alleged effectiveness of vaccines. However, even if this claim was true, עפ”י הלכה one may still refuse to get the shots, given that vaccination carries substantial and life-threatening risks.
Vaccines: are they effective?
Doctors claim that without the vaccines, childhood diseases would be rampant; we would have real epidemics and great numbers of fatalities. The only reason these diseases are so rare today is due to the merit of vaccines.
However, careful analysis of available data by independent scientists and statisticians has consistently brought the conclusion that most diseases for which we are vaccinating today were in sharp decline before vaccination was introduced. As an example, the measles death-rate fell into rapid decline from about 1915 onward, fifty years before the introduction of the vaccine.
Similarly, from 1923 to 1953 (before introduction of the Salk polio vaccine), the polio death rate in the U.S.A. and England had already declined on its own by 47 and 55%, respectively. Unlike the population in European countries, people in the U.S.A. are not being vaccinated against tuberculosis and yet, tuberculosis has practically disappeared from both continents at the same time and same rate. Likewise, typhoid and scarlet fever are diseases of the past, without the help of any vaccine.
Polio is virtually nonexistent in the U.S.A. today. However, there is no credible scientific evidence that the vaccine caused polio to disappear. From 1923 to 1953, before the Salk killed-virus vaccine was introduced, the polio death rate in the U.S.A. and England had already declined on its own by 47% and 55%, respectively. Statistics show a similar decline in other European countries as well. And when the vaccine did become available, many European countries questioned its effectiveness and refused to systematically inoculate their citizens. Yet, polio epidemics also ended in these countries.
The number of reported cases of polio following mass inoculations with the killed-virus was significantly greater than before mass inoculations, and may have more than doubled in the U.S.A. as a whole.
For example, Vermont reported 15 cases of polio during the one-year report period ending August 30, 1954 (before mass inoculations), compared to 55 cases of polio during the one-year period ending August 30, 1955 (after mass inoculations) – a 266% increase. Rhode Island reported 22 and 122 cases for these two periods, a 454% increase. In New Hampshire the figures were 38-129; in Connecticut, they were 144-276; and in Massachusetts they were 273-2027 – a whopping 642% increase!
The eradication of smallpox
Many medical textbooks lead off with the boast that one of medicine’s great achievements is the eradication of smallpox through vaccination. However, if you actually examine the epidemiological statistics, you discover that between 1871 and 1872, 18 years after compulsory vaccination was introduced, four years after a coercive four-year effort to vaccinate all members of the population was in place (with stiff penalties for offenders) and when 97.5% of the population had been vaccinated, England experienced the worst smallpox epidemic of the century, which claimed more than 44,000 lives.
In fact, three times as many people died from smallpox at that time as had in an earlier epidemic, when fewer people were vaccinated. After 1871, the town of Leicester, England, refused vaccination, largely because the high incidence of smallpox and death rates during the 1870 epidemic convinced the population it didn’t work. In the next epidemic of 1892, Leicester relied solely on improved sanitation and quarantines. The town only suffered 19 cases and 1 death per 100,000 population, compared with the town of Warrington, which had six times the number of cases and 11 times the death rate of Leicester, even though 99 per cent of its population had been vaccinated.
Surveillance vs immunization
The World Health Organization has pointed out that the key to eradication of the disease in many parts of West and Central Africa was switching from mass immunization, which was not working very well, to a campaign of surveillance, containing the disease through isolation procedures.
Sierra Leone’s experience also demonstrates that vaccination wasn’t responsible for the end of smallpox. In the late sixties, Sierra Leone had the highest rate of smallpox in the world. In January 1968, the country began its eradication campaign, and three of the four largest outbreaks were controlled by identifying and isolating cases alone, without immunization. Fifteen months later, the area recorded its last case of smallpox.
The U.S. government is quick to note that during the plague years of polio, 20,000-30,000 cases per year occurred in America, compared to 20-30 cases a year today. Nevertheless, Dr. Bernard Greenberg, head of the Department of Biostatistics at the University of North Carolina School of Public Health, has gone on record to say that cases of polio increased by 50% between 1957 and 1958, and by 80% from 1958 to 1959, after the introduction of mass immunization.
Nevertheless, in the midst of the polio panic of the 1950s, with the pressure on to find a magic bullet, statistics were manipulated by health authorities to give the opposite impression.
According to the World Health Statistics Annual (1973-1976, vol. 2),
“There has been a steady decline of infectious diseases (for example, smallpox, diphtheria, whooping cough and scarlet fever) in most developing countries regardless of the percentage of immunizations administered in these countries. Improved conditions are largely responsible as well as improved nutrition, as the primary determinants in the decline in death rates.”
Is the decline in natural infections due to vaccines?
Dr. Richard Moskowitz, a Harvard University graduate with a medical degree from New York University and a long-time family-practice physician, remarks,
“There is a widespread agreement that the time period since the common vaccines were introduced has seen a remarkable decline in the incidence and severity of corresponding natural infections.
“But the customary assumption that the decline is attributable to the vaccines remains unproved, and continues to be questioned by eminent authorities in the field.”
He goes on to say that the incidence and severity of pertussis, for example, had already begun to decline precipitously long before the introduction of the pertussis vaccine. He also quotes epidemiologist C. C. Dauer, who in 1943 stated,
“If mortality from pertussis continues to decline at the same rate during the next 15 years, it will be extremely difficult to show statistically that pertussis immunization had any effect in reducing mortality from whooping cough.”
What the pharmaceutical companies themselves say
I was pleasantly surprised to find these facts in the information sheet provided with the vaccines by the pharmaceutical companies themselves:
Prior to the introduction of poliovirus vaccines in 1955, large outbreaks of poliomyelitis occurred each year in the U.S.A. The annual incidence of paralytic disease of 11.4 cases per 100,000 population declined to 0.5 cases per 100,000 by the time oral poliovirus vaccine was introduced in 1961 (a 95.6% decrease in 6 years). Incidence continued to decline thereafter to its present rate of 0.002 to 0.005 per 100,000 population (2 to 5 per 100 million population).
In other words, the decline observed before introduction of the vaccine would have brought us to the present incidence anyway.
Therefore, there is no proof whatsoever that the polio vaccine produced any substantial benefits. Additionally, the standards for defining polio were changed when the polio vaccine was introduced. The new definition of a “polio epidemic” required more cases to be reported (35 per 100,000 instead of the customary 20 per 100,000).
At the same time, paralytic polio was redefined as well, making it more difficult to confirm, and therefore tally, cases: prior to the introduction of the vaccine the patient only had to exhibit paralytic symptoms for 24 hours. Laboratory confirmation and tests to determine residual paralysis were not required. The new definition required the patient to exhibit paralytic symptoms for at least 60 days, and residual paralysis had to be confirmed twice during the course of the disease.
Finally, after the vaccine was introduced, cases of aseptic meningitis (an infectious disease often difficult to distinguish from polio) were more often reported as a separate disease from polio, whereas before the introduction of the vaccine these were counted as polio cases. The vaccine reported effectiveness was therefore intentionally skewed. And despite all the above, the decline of polio after the introduction of the vaccine was not much different than before the vaccine…
Additionally, once vaccination against a certain disease has been introduced, doctors are less likely to diagnose someone with that disease.
George B. Shaw made the following statement regarding the reclassification of disease:
During the last considerable epidemic at the turn of the century, I was a member of the Health Committee of London Borough Council, and I learned how the credit of vaccination is kept up by diagnosing all the revaccinated cases of smallpox as pustular eczema, varioloid or what not, except smallpox.
According to statistics from the Los Angeles County Health Index, in July 1955 there were 273 reported cases of polio and 50 cases of aseptic meningitis, compared with five cases of polio and 256 cases of aseptic meningitis a decade later (after introduction of the vaccine).
In the early part of the last century (when the only vaccine available was the smallpox vaccine), over 3,000 deaths in England were attributed to chickenpox, and only some 500 to smallpox, even though authorities agree that chickenpox is only very rarely a fatal disease. Martha, from Sheffield, England, recently experienced this sort of fast-shuffle name-change with pertussis:
“Not long ago, after our two-year old developed full-blown pertussis, I took her to our GP, prepared to face a reprimand for neglecting to have her vaccinated. However, the doctor diagnosed asthma and prescribed Ventolin. I was so unconvinced by this diagnosis that I consulted another GP within the practice. To my amazement he insisted that pertussis no longer exists due to mass vaccination, and confirmed the diagnosis of asthma.
“I then pressed for a sputum test to prove or disprove the existence of pertussis. I later received a patronizing phone call, following my doctor’s discussion with our local consultant microbiologist. “They do not test for pertussis because it does not exist,” I was told. I then asked, should the condition clear up in a few weeks, presumably asthma would have been an unlikely diagnosis? To which he replied: “We now have a new condition called viral asthma which is similar to pertussis.”  He said they see many children with this condition. He added, “Since they stopped testing for pertussis, there have been no recorded cases in our area”. No comments…
(See document # 13 for similar testimonies).
Hiding the facts?
Unfortunately, the government is hiding the true facts and, instead, uses scaring tactics to urge the public to vaccinate their children:
On October 14, 2005, the major media outlets shrieked a report of “The first outbreak of polio in the United States in 26 years, occurring in an Amish community in central Minnesota”. The specter of hundreds of children in braces and iron lung machines lining the halls of hospitals immediately danced through the air, and directly into the minds of parents who have chosen to not vaccinate their children.
However, first of all, there wasn’t an “outbreak of polio” at all. There was only the discovery of an inactivated poliovirus in the stool of 5 children. None experienced any type of polio symptoms or paralysis. Furthermore, the virus that was identified was not “wild polio”, but a virus found exclusively in the oral polio vaccine (OPV), so it was definitely the administration of the vaccine that somehow caused these children to carry the germ.
The unasked question is why was finding this strain front-page news? My suspicion is that it was because it was an Amish child; a large number of the Amish choose to not vaccinate their children. A confirmation would serve a dual purpose: to make an “example” of the Amish and scare parents into believing polio still being “in circulation,” when in fact, it is not.
Distorting the truth
I, myself, had a hard time to believe that the government and news agencies were manipulating and distorting the truth to this extend. I therefore got a copy of the report from the Minnesota Department of Health (MDH), and was able to see with my own eyes that Dr Tenpenny was absolutely correct.
There had been no case of polio among the Amish whatsoever, only the discovery of the presence of vaccine-derived poliovirus in the stool of 5 Amish children.
Although this whole episode proves absolutely nothing about the risks of polio in an unvaccinated population and the benefits of polio vaccination today, nevertheless, government agencies and medical establishments made heavy use of this incident to convince people of the need to vaccinate, and pediatricians were quick to believe this government hoax without researching it further.
In regards to diphtheria, a significant decline in the incidence of diphtheria began long before the vaccine was discovered. In the U.S.A., from 1900 to 1930, years before the vaccine was introduced, a greater than 90% decline in reported deaths from diphtheria had already occurred. Many researchers attribute this decline to increased nutritional and sanitary awareness. Scientific data supports this theory as well.
As for measles, there were 13.3 measles deaths per 100,000 population in 1900. By 1955, eight years before the first measles shot, the death rate had declined by 97.7%, to 0.3 death per 100,000. In fact, the death rate from measles in the mid 1970s (post-vaccine) remained exactly the same as in the early 1960s (pre-vaccine).
Additionally, according to Dr. Atkinson of the CDC, “measles transmission has been clearly documented among vaccinated persons. In some large outbreaks…over 95% of cases have a history of vaccination. Of all reported cases of measles in the U.S.A. in 1984, more than 58% of the school-age children were adequately vaccinated. More recent outbreaks continue to occur throughout the country, sometimes among 100% vaccinated populations.
It is interesting to note the dichotomy in the doctors’ way of thinking: when healthy children die within hours of receiving a vaccine, they are quick to say that the temporal relation between the vaccine and the observed adverse event is just coincidental. But when the incidence of a disease decreases following the introduction of vaccination, they see it as an irrefutable proof that vaccines are effective, even though other factors might have been at play…
The basic assumption underlying vaccination
The premise of vaccination rests on the assumption that injecting an individual with a weakened live or killed virus will trick his body into developing antibodies to the disease, as it does when it contracts the same pathogen naturally. But modern medicine doesn’t really know whether vaccines work for any length of time.
All the usual scientific studies can demonstrate is that vaccines may create antibodies in the blood. This may have nothing to do with protecting an individual from contracting the disease over the long (or even short) term. As such, Merck, Inc. (producer of many childhood vaccines) reports:
Seroconversion was not always associated with protection from breakthrough disease. Rather, the higher the titer, the greater the likelihood of protection…
(Summary for Basis of Approval of Varivax).
The flu vaccine
The best proof that production of antibodies due to vaccination may not accurately reflect on the immunity status of an individual is the fact that a large percentage of outbreak cases occurs in fully immunized children and that, unlike the immunity conferred by natural infection, immunity due to vaccines is in most cases not permanent.
Antibodies in the blood are not the only way the body recognizes and defends itself from disease. For example, nasal antibody plays a significantly more important role than serum antibody in prevention of influenza. Additionally, vaccines via injection use an unnatural route of antigen presentation.
The normal route of entry of antigens is via the mucous membranes of the GIT, respiratory and genitourinary systems where IgA initiates the natural immune response; the mucous membrane is where 80% of our immune system resides. In one report, for instance, measles antibodies were found in the blood of only one of seven vaccinated children who’d gone on to develop measles; they hadn’t developed antibodies from either the shot or the disease itself.
Similarly, the Public Health Laboratory in London has discovered that a quarter of blood donors between 20 and 29 had insufficient immunity to diphtheria, even though most would have been vaccinated as babies.
Each vaccine should be considered separately
When analyzing the effectiveness of vaccines, one must obviously consider each vaccine separately, for not all diseases have the same incidences of morbidity and mortality, and not all vaccines have the same effectiveness. Presenting all the arguments regarding the effectiveness of all the pediatric vaccines would take much too many pages for this presentation (which was supposed to be short). I will, therefore, select two or three examples, והמבין יבין.
Doctors are obligated by law to inform parents of the risks and benefits of each vaccine.
To that end, when a doctor vaccinates a child, he gives parents a sheet presenting some basic information about the disease for which the vaccine is being provided, the reason why the vaccine is recommended, and the risks involved in receiving the vaccine. This information sheet is conveniently provided to the doctor by the AAP, and all he has to do is make photocopies and distribute it freely to his patients.
Based on the information on this sheet, the parent can make an “informed” decision and reach an “educated” consent to subject his child to vaccination (how valid is the consent when the parents don’t want the vaccines and their risks, but are forced to do so because they will not find a school for their children otherwise, or because they will not find a doctor willing to treat their children?). In the course of our discussion, I will take the opportunity to point out to the lack of honesty and accuracy in the information related to parents through this sheet.
The mumps vaccine
Mumps is a relatively innocuous disease when experienced in childhood. In rare cases, mumps has been associated with viral meningitis, deafness (usually transient), orchitis (inflammation of the testes) and oophoritis (inflammation of the ovaries). Permanent sequelae are very rare. The vaccine is meant to protect adult males (when contracting mumps, they could suffer sterility of one testes, on rare occasion, and from both testes on extremely rare occasions) and to address the few cases of meningitis associated with the disease.
Here is what The Vaccine Book has to say about it (written by board-certified pediatrician Robert W. Sears, M.D., F.A.A.P., and a strong supporter of vaccination practices):
What is mumps? Mumps is a virus similar to measles. It causes fever, rash and swelling of the saliva glands in the cheeks. Rarely, the virus infects internal organs. The swelling of the cheeks is usually the most telling sign of mumps, and a blood test can be done to confirm the diagnosis. It is transmitted like the common cold, and once you catch mumps you are protected for life.
Is mumps serious? No. In fact, most kids who have mumps have some fever and a slight rash but not enough for anyone to worry about or even make a diagnosis. For teens and adults, however, mumps can be more serious. Males may have sore, swollen testicles, and men or women can have arthritis, kidney problems, heart problems, or nervous system dysfunction. Very rarely, the disease can make adults (men and women) sterile.
Is mumps common? No. In the past decade, only about 250 cases have been reported each year in the U.S.A. Early in the twentieth century, there were several hundred thousand cases each year (Note: if this is true, then it supports the claims of opponents to vaccination that most dreaded diseases were in sharp decline before vaccination was introduced. Dr. Sears writes that early in the twentieth century there were several hundred thousand cases each year, while the information insert of the mumps vaccine tells us that [only] 152,209 cases of mumps were reported in 1968, just before the introduction of the vaccine. But let’s leave this point for now).
Mumps breaks out despite mass vaccination
In the spring of 2006, a mumps outbreak occurred among Iowa college students and spread to several surrounding states. More than 3,000 cases were eventually reported (according to the CDC, 6,584 cases were reported then; see document # 14), the largest outbreak in over twenty years. About twenty victims were hospitalized. Most of the infected people had been [fully] vaccinated during childhood, but immunity from the vaccine usually wears off by adulthood, so this wasn’t a case of vaccine failure. It occurred simply because adults don’t get booster shots for mumps; we’re all too chicken!
This MD doesn’t even realize the lack of logic in his words, but he expects us to trust his judgment that vaccination makes sense. Let’s review what he wrote: mumps in children is not a serious disease at all; the main purpose of vaccination is to protect the adults, who are more seriously affected by mumps. Anyone who got mumps once is protected for life.
Immunity from the vaccine, on the other hand, wears off by the time children reach adulthood. Adults usually don’t get boosters.
What all this means is that by practicing mass vaccination of children, doctors are protecting them temporarily from a minor disease but, at the same time, are preventing them from developing permanent immunity to that very disease, making them more susceptible to contract it in their adult years and to suffer more serious damage.
In short, the vaccine is achieving exactly the opposite of what it was supposed to achieve. Is there any היתר for this? Is there any היתר for prescribing a medication that helps protect against the common cold, but increases the risks of cancer by 400%?
Increases in the age of infection
Since the introduction of the vaccine, mumps has apparently declined in pre-pubescent children; however, there appears to have been an increase in post-pubescent adolescents, and adults. This age-shift is very significant in that post-pubescent adolescents and adults are at greater risk of complications than children. In one study, whose findings appear to correlate well with other studies, not only was there an increase in the number of mumps cases following the introduction of mandatory mass mumps immunization, but the average age of infection was above 14 years for 63 of the 68 cases reported.
One study focused on a 1991 (Jan.-June) outbreak, in Maury County, Tennessee, among high school and junior high school students. Of the 68 cases investigated, 67 had been previously vaccinated against mumps, and this was amongst a highly (98%) vaccinated school-population.
Prior to the 1988 school immunization requirement, mumps was uncommon in this area. During a period of 9 years (from 1971-1979 inclusively) only 85 mumps cases had been reported (about 10 cases a year), and there were no cases reported at all during the 1980s. A few years after the mandatory requirement came into effect, which increased immunization uptake to 99.6% in Maury County, there was a resurgence of mumps.
Despite the fact that herd immunity thresholds were exceeded, disease incidence increased! (proving that mass vaccination increases the chances of being infected with the disease.)
The mumps vaccine can cause meningitis
The mumps vaccine itself has been known to infect individuals with mumps (a fact that was demonstrated during the clinical trials), and it can cause meningitis in vaccine recipients. Considering the innocuous nature of the disease itself, the apparent lack of safety and efficacy of this vaccine, and its ability to defer the disease to older hosts, its continued use most assuredly counters the requirements of the principles of beneficence and non-malfeasance.
(Immunization: History, Ethics, Law and Health, pp.113-114).
I ask again, is there any היתר in the world for vaccinating children against mumps? Our discussion up to this point has not even broached the possible dangerous adverse effects of this vaccine.
Now, this is what the doctors’ information sheet says about mumps (with my comments in bold letters):
Why get vaccinated?
Mumps virus causes fever, headache, and swollen glands.
Who cares? The vaccine causes the same symptoms, in quite high numbers; this is not a reason to give the vaccine.
It can lead to deafness, meningitis (infection of the brain and spinal cord covering), painful swelling of the testicles or ovaries, and rarely, death.
Although this is true, unlike when they write later the risk from the vaccine and include the percentage, here they did not give the incidence of such adverse events and made it sound as if deafness, meningitis, etc., are quite common effects of mumps, when in reality all these side-effects are fairly rare.
Telling only part of the truth is also a form of lying. In fact, the mumps vaccine also causes meningitis and, sometimes, death. And as far as preventing infertility, the information insert of this vaccine tells us that “MMR vaccine has not been evaluated for carcinogenic or mutagenic potential, or potential to impair fertility”!!!
You or your child could catch these diseases by being around someone who has them. They spread from person to person through the air. Measles, Mumps, and Rubella vaccine (MMR II) can prevent these diseases. Many more children would get them if we stopped vaccinating.
Studies have shown that the vaccine may increase the incidence of mumps, not decrease it (see above, on page 34).
Most children who get their MMR shots will not get these diseases.
In Switzerland, six years after the MMR vaccine was introduced, the incidence of mumps shot up sharply, mostly among the vaccinated. Similarly, in Tennessee, a large outbreak occurred among students, 98% of whom had been vaccinated. Likewise in the ongoing mumps outbreak of the NY-Monsey-Lakewood frum community, most cases occurred in fully vaccinated individuals.
Besides, let’s assume for a minute that most children who get their MMR shots will not get mumps while children; but once they reach adulthood and have lost the artificial immunity from the vaccine, they may get it and suffer a lot more from it.
What are the risks from MMR vaccine?
A vaccine, like any medicine, is capable of causing serious problems, such as severe allergic reactions. The risk of MMR vaccine causing serious harm, or death, is extremely small.
Getting MMR vaccine is much safer than getting any of these three diseases.
Let’s assume this to be true, that between getting these diseases and getting the MMR vaccine, the MMR vaccine is safer. But what are the chances of catching these diseases to begin with? On the other hand, they want to give each person 2 shots of MMR.
The question really is, what are the chances of getting the disease and suffering permanent damage from them ((מיעוטא דמיעוטא דמיעוטא) versus the chances of suffering recognized adverse effects from the shot (see numbers below), unrecognized short-term side-effects (call VAERS for 1-10% of this incidence) and longer-term side-effects (no one knows, for no one looked into it)?
Additionally, MMR vaccine has been shown to increase the chances of getting mumps, not the opposite.
Mild problems: fever (up to 1 person out of 6); mild rash (about 1 person out of 20); swelling of glands in the neck (rare).
Moderate problems: seizure (jerking or staring) caused by fever (about 1 out of 3,000 doses. Since each person is supposed to get 2 shots, they should rather write: 1 out of 1,500 persons); temporary pain and stiffness in the joints, mostly in teenage or adult women (up to 1 out of 4 1 out of 2 persons); temporary low platelet count, which can cause a bleeding disorder (about 1 out of 30,000 doses 1 out of 15,000 persons).
Severe problems: serious allergic reaction (less than 1 out of a million doses); several other severe problems have been known to occur after a child gets MMR vaccine, but this happens so rarely, experts cannot be sure whether they are caused by vaccine or not. These include deafness, long-term seizures, coma, or lowered consciousness, permanent brain damage.
Does it say anywhere that in order to be חושש לסכנה one has to be sure? May one eat a particular food if he is not sure it is Kosher? May one eat a particular food if he is not sure it is not poisonous? What if there is evidence that it causes coma, seizures and permanent brain damage, but the evidence is not decisive? This is exactly what we are talking about here.
There is evidence of a causal effect between the vaccine and these severe adverse effects, but the evidence is not enough for a panel of (biased) scientists to be sure!
Is this information honest?
Can we call this an honest information sheet? Can we rely on the judgment of the AAP that mumps vaccination is justified? Can a parent make an informed decision based on this sheet?
As for the CDC, here is part of what they write about the need for vaccination against mumps (see document # 14):
Before the mumps vaccine was introduced, mumps was a major cause of deafness in children, occurring in approximately 1 in 20,000 reported cases… An estimated 212,000 cases of mumps occurred in the U.S.A. in 1964.
Based on this CDC ratio of 1 case of deafness per 20,000 cases of mumps, the incidence of 212,000 cases of mumps a year would result in only 11 deafs per year. How, then, can they honestly say that “before the mumps vaccine was introduced, mumps was a major cause of deafness in children”???
This dishonesty is nothing but an attempt to develop people’s fear of childhood diseases, in order to promote blind acceptance of vaccination practices. If the authorities are manipulating the truth about the need for vaccines, how can we not suspect them of manipulating the truth in regards to their safety and effectiveness, as well?
After vaccine licensure in 1967, reports of mumps decreased rapidly. In 1986 and 1987, there was a resurgence of mumps with 12,848 cases reported in 1987.
If the mumps vaccine is as effective as they say, how do they explain such a high resurgence, 20 years after the introduction of the vaccine? Wouldn’t the explanation of vaccine-opponents be more plausible that, in reality, the vaccine is hardly effective, and that the decrease observed after 1967 has nothing to do with vaccination, but concurs with the overall decrease observable in the years before vaccination, due to improved sanitation, improved nutrition and other factors?
Back to the main point
But I have gotten sidetracked. The main point is that the mumps vaccine achieves exactly the opposite of what it was supposed to: Even if the mumps vaccine would be effective during childhood and completely safe, it leaves its recipients unprotected from getting mumps in adulthood, when mumps is more severe and could cause serious damage.
Conversely, by not giving the mumps vaccine one allows his child the possibility to contract mumps during childhood when it is a very benign infection, and to develop natural immunity for life. Who would not want to do that?
Note: Throughout the summer, fall and winter of 2009, there has been a mumps outbreak in the tristate area, with about 1,000 cases reported by the end of 2009. Here are some facts about this outbreak, as communicated by the epidemiologist of Ocean County Board of Health on Nov. 28, 09:
As of the 28th of Nov., there have been 114 documented cases of mumps in Lakewood, almost exclusively in the frum community. Together with the Boro Park, Monsey, Williamsbourg communities etc., there have been around 1000 cases in the Northeast frum community. In Lakewood, there is an average of 1 new documented case of mumps a day. It is suspected that there are many instances of self-diagnosed and self-treated cases of mumps that are not included in theses numbers.
As of the beginning of November, there were 98 documented cases of mumps in Lakewood. Of all these cases, there has been no known hospitalization. 1 person reported temporary deafness, 1 person suffered from inflamed ovaries, and 13 people reported inflamed testicles. All these symptoms were transient (temporary), but it is known that an average of 10% of people suffering from inflamed testicles from mumps may experience impaired fertility.
In all the cases where the vaccination status has been verified (89 cases), 90% of them (81 cases) had been vaccinated age-appropriately prior to infection and only 10% (8 cases) had not been vaccinated. If all cases are taken into account (even those in which the vaccination status has not been verified), at least 82% of all documented cases had been vaccinated prior to infection.
Vaccination doesn’t ‘guarantee’ protection
As one can see for oneself, although the incidence of mumps among the non-vaccinated population is relatively higher than among the vaccinated population, being vaccinated is far from a guaranteed protection, and the doctors’ claims that the MMR vaccine is 99% effective is obviously exaggerated. The non-vaccinating population represents roughly 2% of the frum community.
Consequently, if there were 8 cases of mumps among the non-vaccinated, there should have been 400 cases among the vaccinated. Instead there have been 80 cases, which represents a 80% protection, not 99% as doctors claim (data from pharmaceutical companies and the CDC shows that the vaccine produces antibodies in 73-96% of vaccinees.
Additionally, clinical evidence shows that presence of antibodies does not necessarily equate with adequate immunity). Likewise, to blame the outbreak on the non-vaccinated population “who constitute a reservoir of disease carriers” is simply preposterous, when so many vaccinated people are also prone to the disease.
All in all, the true benefits of the mumps vaccine are really small, considering the fact that mumps itself is usually a very benign disease, with occasional complications that are usually benign and transient, and that the vaccine is not 100% effective. Considering that even if all people were to be vaccinated, herd immunity threshold would not be met, compelling someone to vaccinate against his will is not logically justified.
However, when considering also the potential risks of serious side-effects and permanent damage from the MMR vaccine (and there are scores of people here in Lakewood that can testify to that, with documentation from hospitals, doctors, etc.), compelling people to vaccinate is not only logically unjustified, it is also irrational and halachically forbidden.
How long does it take to produce ‘sufficient immunity’?
NJ law states that in the event of an outbreak, the health commissioner has the authority to request that all non-vaccinated students shall be excluded from school (from day 12 after exposure to day 25 after exposure) if they have been exposed to someone in that school within two days of his becoming sick with mumps. But if they get the vaccine they can be readmitted immediately.
When I asked Ocean County Board of Health how long does it take for the vaccine to produce sufficient immunity, I was told, two weeks. So I asked, why then could one be readmitted to school immediately after receiving the vaccine, I was told,
“This is a very valid question. There is no medical basis for such a decision. The only justification given is that once a person has taken at least one shot of MMR and done whatever he can, we shouldn’t penalize them and we should allow them to return to school,” even though they are as susceptible to contract the disease as before.
So the whole insistence of keeping non-vaccinated children out of school is NOT to protect the public and try to restrict the outbreak for, if so, even those receiving the vaccine now would be required to stay out of school for another two weeks, until they have developed adequate immunity.
The real reason is only to get people to comply with what doctors and pharmaceutical companies want, and so that pharmaceutical companies will continue to rake in their billions from the vaccine industry. THAT’S THE ONLY REASON. Call it despotism, communism, government control of the public for the benefit of the few or whatever you want to call it, but do not call it “health care.”
The rubella vaccine
Rubella, like mumps, is a benign illness in children that is not much worse than a case of flu. However, it can be dangerous to a developing fetus if a pregnant woman contracts the disease in the first trimester of pregnancy. In that case, her baby carries a 20-50% chance of being born with CRS (congenital rubella syndrome), which can produce major birth defects including blindness, deafness, limb defects, mental retardation or miscarriage.
How effective is the rubella vaccine? Pharmaceutical companies claim that one single shot of the MMR vaccine produces seroconversion (presence in the serum of antibodies to the disease) in 99% of vaccinees. Maybe (as explained earlier, any data produced and provided by pharmaceutical companies is חשוד). But, contrary to what they profess, real-life experience shows that seroconversion may not guarantee immunity to disease.
In one study at the University of Pennsylvania on adolescent girls given the vaccine, more than 1/3 lacked any evidence whatsoever of immunity. In a rubella epidemic in Casper, Wyoming, 91 of the 125 cases (73%) occurred in vaccinated children. In another study, by Dr. Beverley Allan of the Austin Hospital in Melbourne, Australia, 80% of all army recruits who had been vaccinated against rubella just four months earlier still contracted the disease. So, how effective do you think the rubella vaccine really is???
Additionally, because viruses easily mutate, the vaccine may only protect against one strain of a virus, and not any new ones. Indeed, an Italian study showed that 10% of girls had been infected by a ‘wild strain’ of the virus, even within a few years of being given their shot. Furthermore, children with congenital rubella syndrome have been born to mothers who’d received their full vaccination quota against rubella.
In fact, it seems that all vaccination accomplishes is to increase the incidence of the disease: a few years after the countrywide measles and rubella vaccination campaign of 1994 where all school children between the ages of 5 and 16 received the double shot, the number of cases of rubella in Scotland climbed to a 13-year high.
Most occurred in children and young adults aged between 15 and 34 who had been given preschool shots and whose immunity to rubella had worn off. It appears therefore that, thanks to vaccination, young women are most susceptible to rubella at the point in their lives when the disease is dangerous to them.
A similar pattern, where the illness suddenly became an adult one, occurred in Finland in 1982, following a mass immunization program. In the U.S.A., Rubella and CRS (Congenital Rubella Syndrome) became nationally reportable in 1966. In 1966, 1967 and 1968, 11, 10 and 14 cases of CRS were reported, respectively.
In 1969, the year the rubella vaccine was licensed, 31 cases of CRS were reported. This number did not decline in the following years despite widespread vaccination: in 1970 and 1971, CRS cases soared to 77 and 68 respectively, and remained quite high (30-62 per year) for over a decade before they returned to the pre-vaccine rates (and in 1991, 41 cases occurred). So, how effective is the rubella vaccine in preventing or even reducing the incidence of rubella-related birth defects?
Additionally, what actually happened is that rubella infections became less common in young children, but appeared more frequently in older adolescents and adults, posing a greater health risk for women of reproductive age. In 1980, D. Cherry, a member of the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices, explained that,
“essentially, we have controlled the disease in persons 14 years of age or younger but have given it a free hand in those 15 or older.”
Considering the fact that naturally occurring rubella epidemics in the pre-vaccine era “produced immunity in about 80% of the population by 20 years of age”, it becomes evident that, by vaccinating children against rubella, the immunization strategy produced the opposite results of those anticipated.
To sum up, the risks of contracting rubella are extremely small (less than 100 cases per year in the entire U.S.A.); the vaccine’s effectiveness is quite questionable, as many people who contracted the disease were fully vaccinated; furthermore, there is evidence that the vaccine increases the incidence of CRS, not the opposite.
If, additionally, we take into consideration the fact that many serious adverse effects have been associated with this vaccine, it becomes obvious that permitting the vaccination against rubella is at least problematic.
Forcing vaccination onto others is outrageous and irresponsible.
This same pattern is playing out with other diseases, too
In the late 1990s, despite the fact that the UK had the triple MMR vaccine in place since 1988 and enjoyed an extraordinary high coverage of vaccination among toddlers, cases of measles went up by nearly 25%. (Report from the Office of Population Censuses and Surveys, 1993).
Here is what the CDC has to say about measles, and the reasons we must vaccinate:
More than 90% who are not immune will get measles if they are exposed to the virus. Before measles immunization was available, nearly everyone in the U.S.A. got measles. An average of 450 measles-associated deaths were reported each year between 1953 and 1963. This represents less than 1 death per 2,000 cases, since close to 1 million cases of measles were reported each year in the 1940s. Yet, the CDC reports that today, as many as 3 of every 1,000 persons with measles will die in the U.S.A., a 600% increase in the mortality rate!
How is this possible? Simply because measles vaccination has caused a shift in the age of people coming down with the disease. Instead of being exposed to the disease in childhood, now children are being immunized with vaccines that do not confer lifelong immunity, raising their risks of contracting the disease as adults when mortality from it is higher.
In conclusion, until a proper study about the effectiveness of vaccines is achieved in real-life setting with a non-vaccinated control group, no one will really know the extent to which vaccines are effective or ineffective.
The problems exposed here with the mumps and rubella vaccine can be found in virtually all other mandatory vaccines of children.
Lack of long-term studies, evidence of severe adverse-effects, lack of clinical evidence of effectiveness, and growing evidence that the vaccines increase the incidence of the diseases or delay them to a later stage in life when the disease is more dangerous for the individual. There are many more issues to be addressed (see document # 15 for a short overview of the main issues), but out of concern about ביטול תורה, I rely on the fact that the material presented so far should be more than sufficient for the רבנים to take a decision on this matter.
To sum up what we have demonstrated:
- Evidence of long-term vaccine safety is utterly lacking;
- The 1-10% of short-term adverse events from vaccines occur in sufficient numbers to prohibit vaccination, unless their benefits are even greater, and proven beyond doubt;
- Such benefits have not been objectively observed nor proven; on the opposite, there is considerable evidence that vaccines may cause more harm than good.
- Since, as we have seen, medical procedure on a healthy individual for his protection and that of others may only be done if “no real risk is involved and only minimal discomfort is caused”, we may conclude that current vaccination policies violate the biblical commandment of ונשמרתם מאד לנפשותיכם, and should be forbidden.
- Should someone choose to deny the above evidence and claim that vaccination benefits outweigh its risks, it remains that, since medical authorities and pharmaceutical companies concede that vaccination does involve some risks, no one has the authority to force other people to vaccinate their children.
 Journal of Manipulative and Physiological Therapeutics, 2000; 318(7192); pp.1173-1176.
 Dr. Jay N. Gordon (M.D., F.A.A.P., I.B.C.L.C., F.A.B.M.), in his Foreword to Mothers Warriors, by Jenny McCarthy.
 Dr. J. Scott spent years doing research at the National Institute of Mental Health in Bethesda, MD, before joining the faculty of the University of California Medical School. With a special interest on sleep research and biofeedback, he later trained in kinesiology, and eventually developed Health Kinesiology, one of the most comprehensive and powerful kinesiology systems in existence.
 The above-mentioned Finnish study only studied the possible link between the Haemophilus vaccine and IDDM; it did not look into the possible link between vaccines and other diseases (if it did, who knows how many more harmful consequences would have become apparent…). Additionally, the Finnish study did not prove the safety of this vaccine at all; on the contrary, it highlighted the causal relationship between the vaccine and IDDM.
 As explained earlier, although הגאון רבי חיים עוזר זצוק”ל allowed one to undergo a surgical procedure even if the chances of a cure are smaller than the risk of succumbing to the procedure itself, this is only true when the individual is gravely ill anyway. In the case of vaccination where the individuals are presently perfectly healthy, a היתר to vaccinate can be given only if the gains are clearly greater than the risks. Since the long-term risks have never been properly evaluated, it is difficult to understand how a פוסק could issue a clear היתר on vaccination practices.
 International Mortality Statistics (Washington, DC; Facts on File, 1981), pp.177-178.
 Vaccines: Are They Really Safe and Effective?, p.18.
 Campaign Against Fraudulent Medical Research Newsletter, 1995; 2; pp.5-13, quoting statistics from “London Bills of Mortality 1760-1834” and “Reports of the Registrar General 1838-1896”.
 Bulletin of the World Health Organization, 1975;52; pp.209-222.
 British Medical Journal, 1975;310; p.62.
 What Doctors Don’t Tell You, pp.123-124.
 Vaccinations: a Thoughtful Parent’s Guide, p.22.
 Information sheet of the polio vaccine.
 Reading the end of that paragraph in the information sheet brings one to wonder about the היתר to give the (live) polio vaccine:
Of the 127 cases of paralytic poliomyelitis reported in the U.S.A. between 1980 and 1994, six were imported cases (caused by wild polioviruses), two were “intermediate” cases, and 119 were vaccine associated paralytic poliomyelitis cases associated with the use of live attenuated oral poliovirus vaccine.
In other words, the live polio vaccine caused roughly as many cases of polio as it was supposed to prevent! Considering the fact that the vaccine is given to healthy individuals, it becomes apparent that inoculating children with it is absolutely אסור: The ability of the vaccine to lower the incidence of the disease has not been demonstrated at all, and on the contrary, the vaccine is the recognized cause of almost all the polio cases in the country. Although things have greatly improved when the government switched to the inactivated poliovirus vaccine, which is less likely to cause polio cases, its effectiveness in lowering the incidence of the disease has not been demonstrated. Furthermore, although doctors claim that no serious adverse events have been associated with the inactivated polio vaccine, the fact is that since the beginning of 2008, VAERS received reports of 4 deaths temporally related to the inactivated polio vaccine, 8 life-threatening events, 10 permanent disability cases and 160 trips to the emergency room (VAERS report files). These numbers result from less than 6 months of adverse-event monitoring, and represent only 1 to 10% of the actual events possibly related to the polio vaccine (one should also keep in mind that even without any vaccine the incidence of disability and death from the disease itself would not be much higher).
 Hearings before the Committee on Interstate and Foreign Commerce, House of Representatives, 87th Congress, May 1962, pp.94-112.
 Immunization: History, Ethics, Law and Health, p.101.
 Immunization, pp. 27-28.
 Sometimes, the opposite scenario happens: One set of statistics frequently used to document vaccine efficacy is the increase in pertussis incidence when vaccine administration is stopped or decreased. This has occurred in Great Britain, Japan, and Sweden. Many critics, however, charge that during times when the number of vaccine recipients decreases, physician sensitivity to the disease increases, and every lingering cough is then reported as pertussis, thereby inflating the actual number of cases. Indeed, during pertussis outbreaks, any cough that continues for more than 14 days can be labeled ‘pertussis’ without a confirmatory culture (CDC, 1990):
We should be skeptical about the ‘outbreaks’ that are reported to have occurred. Pertussis is actually rather difficult to diagnose conclusively, as it requires special cultures or antibody tests that many laboratories cannot perform and that many doctors, in the presence of suggestive symptoms, rarely take the trouble to order. (Mothering, 1987; 34; pp.34-39.
 What Doctors Don’t Tell You, p.125.
 Although DNA analysis of the germ revealed it had been circulating for about 2 years, the OPV has not been used in the US since 2000, so its presence in 2005 in the stool of Amish children isolated from foreigners remains a mystery. In most likelihood, someone in the Amish community or its vicinity was inoculated with an old specimen of OPV by accident, instead of the newly recommended IPV.
 Polio “Non-Outbreak” Among the Amish, by Dr. Sherri Tenpenny, DO, Dec. 2, 2005.
 Vaccine-Derived Poliovirus Outbreak, Minnesota 2005, Minnesota Department of Health.
 Indeed, in an article entitled A Jewish Perspective on the Controversial Issues Surrounding Immunization, a frum medical doctor writes “…on a small scale, we see what can happen when a population is not immunized by looking at the high polio rate in the Amish community.” It is a tragedy that distorted facts are being used as the basis for Halachic rulings and guidance.
 International Mortality Statistics (Washington, DC: Facts on File, 1981), pp.177-178.
 “The New Epidemiology of Measles and /rubella”, Hospital Practice (July 1980), p.49.
 FDA Workshop to Review warnings, use Instructions, and Precautionary Information (on vaccines) (Sept. 18th, 1992), p.27.
 20th Immunization Conference Proceedings (May 6-9, 1985), p.21.
 Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report (US Government, Dec. 29, 1989).
 Journal of Pediatrics, 1973:82. pp.798-801.
 The Lancet, 1995; 345, pp.963-965.
 “Mumps Outbreak in a Highly Vaccinated Population,” The Journal of Pediatrics 119 no.2 (August 1991), p.187.
 “Sustained Transmission of Mumps in a Highly Vaccinated Population: Assessment of Vaccine Failure and Waning Vaccine-induced Immunity,” The Journal of Infectious Diseases 169 (January 1994), pp.77-82.
 In order to test vaccine efficacy, 34 volunteers were revaccinated, 2 of which (oddly enough) had contracted mumps during the outbreak and had submitted serum samples post-infection. Serum samples were taken prior to revaccination and of the 34 volunteers, 6 had high anti-mumps antibody titres, 25 had intermediate titres and 3 were seronegative (demonstrating no evidence of immunity; 10%). After 10 months, antibody titres were found to be similar to those measured immediately before revaccination. Revaccination did not improve protection against the disease for the majority of recipients.
 The increased incidence of mumps following mass vaccination, and the resultant increase in the average age of infection, have been documented by numerous researchers. See for example The Journal of Pediatrics (August 1991, pp.187-193).
 Other vaccines have caused similar results. For example, the compulsory use of diphtheria toxoid was followed by significant increases in incidence rates. In France, incidence increased by 30%, cases tripled in Switzerland, Hungary saw a 55% increase, and cases in Germany increased from 40,000 per year to 250,000, most of whom were immunized. In nearby Norway, which refused mass toxoid use, there were only 50 cases in 1943 while France had 47,000 cases (Trevor Gunn, Mass Immunization: A Point in Question, 1992, p.16; Miller, Vaccines? p.24).
 Scandinavian Journal of Infectious Diseases, 1996;28; pp.235-238.
 Journal of Infectious Diseases, 1994; 169; pp77-82.
 One must keep in mind that even among men who did not contract mumps at all, 5% of them experience impaired fertility. Additionally, impaired fertility does not mean complete infertility. Mumps almost never affects both testicles and, as the late Dr. Mendelsohn used to say, one testicle produces enough sperm to populate the planet…
 Additionally, the medical community concedes that immunity from the vaccine lasts for a maximum of 10 years so, even among the vaccinated, most adults are not immune.
 The CDC concedes that seizure may occur following the MMR vaccine, at the rate of 1 in 3,000 doses, pain and stiffness in the joints in 1 out of 4 teenagers and adults women, temporary low platelet count (a life threatening situation) in 1 out 30,000 doses, and deafness, long-term seizures, coma, and permanent brain damage in very rare cases.
 Dr. Stanley Plotkin, professor of Pediatrics, University of Pennsylvania School of Medicine.
 Australian Journal of Medical Technology 1973; 4; pp.26-27.
 The Lancet, 1990; 336; p.1071.
 Acta Paediatrica, 1994; 83; pp.674-677.
 Pediatric Infectious Diseases Journal, 1996; 15; pp. 687-692.
 The Lancet, 6 April 1996.
 The fact that rubella and CRS became reportable only in 1966 gives us an insight into the dishonesty of government agencies in regards to vaccines: In its paper “What Would Happen If We Stopped Vaccinations?” (2003), the CDC writes, “In 1964-1965, before rubella immunization was used routinely in the U.S.A., there was an epidemic of rubella that resulted in an estimated 20,000 infants born with CRS.” Why do they give estimated numbers and not scientific data? Because there is no scientific data for the years 1964-1965, only for 1966 and on. Why, then, don’t they give us the incidence of rubella for the pre-vaccine years of 1966, 67 and 68, for which we have reliable numbers? Because the incidence of CRS during these years were so low (11, 10 and 14 cases a year), that these (scientific) numbers would be held as proof that the vaccine is ineffective. Going back to a year for which there is no reliable records and during which there was a known epidemic enabled the CDC to propose an inflated estimated incidence that no one will be able to disprove, and to create the false impression that the rubella vaccine is both highly needed and highly effective (besides, if 1964-1965 were years of unusual high incidence of CRS, they could not be used as a basis to honestly judge the vaccine’s effectiveness). This intentional misleading of the public is nothing but disgusting.
 CDC, Summary of notifiable diseases, U.S.A., 1995.
 The Journal of Infectious Diseases (169, Jan. 1994), pp.77-82.
 Canadian Medical Association Journal, (July 15th, 1983), p.106.
 ע’ ספר נשמת אברהם יו”ד סי’ קנ”ז סק”ד בשם הגרש”ז אויערבאך זצ”ל.