Diphtheria vaccine quotes
[back] Diphtheria vaccines  Quotes

See: DPT vaccine quotes  Diptheria quotes Whooping Cough quotes

An astonishing journal paper.   1  November, 1993. FASEB Journal, volume 7, pp.1381-1385. Authors—Stephan Dirnhofer et al. Dirnhofer is from the Institute for Biomedical Aging Research of the Austrian Academy of Sciences.  A quote from the paper: "Our study provides insights into possible modes of action of the birth control vaccine promoted by the Task Force on Birth Control Vaccines of the WHO (World Health Organization)."A birth control vaccine?  What? Yes. A vaccine whose purpose is to achieve non-pregnancy where it ordinarily could occur.Sterilization? This particular vaccine is apparently just one of several anti-fertility vaccines the Task Force is promoting. Yes. There is a Task Force on Birth Control Vaccines at WHO. This journal paper focuses on a hormone called human chorionic gonadotropin B (hCG). There is a heading in the paper (p.1382) called "Ability of antibodies to neutralize the biological activity of hCG." The authors are trying to discover whether a state of no-fertility can be achieved by blocking the normal activity of hCG. They state, "We conclude from our results that both the efficacy and safety of the WHO vaccine are not yet ensured."
    Another journal paper. The British Medical Bulletin, volume 49,1993. "Contraceptive Vaccines" is the title of the paper. The authors—RJ Aitken et al. From the MRC Reproductive  Biology Unit, University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh, UK.
    "Three major approaches to contraceptive vaccine development are being pursued at the present time. The most advanced approach, which has already reached the stage of phase 2 clinical trials [human trials testing efficacy], involves the induction of immunity against human chorionic gonadotro-phin (hCG). Vaccines are being engineered ... incorporating tetanus or diptheria toxoid linked to a variety of hCG-based peptides... Clinical trials have revealed that such preparations are capable of stimulating the production of anti-hCG anti­bodies. However, the long-term consequences of such immu nity in terms of safety or efficacy are, as yet, unknown...The authors are talking about creating an immune response against a female hormone....The authors state, "The fundamental principle behind this approach to contraceptive vaccine development is to prevent the maternal recognition of pregnancy by inducing a state of immunity against hGC, the hormone mat signals the presence of the embryo to the maternal endocrine system."...... Rappoport, Jon  (Ownership of All Life p66)

"If there had been any justification for the contention that mass immunization—introduced at the end of 1940—had influenced the death-rate of diphtheria there would have been a very marked decline in the 1941-48 period, as compared with the other diseases. The figures show, however, that although diphtheria ....had a slightly increased percentage decline as compared with whooping cough....... it was a long way behind the decreases shown by scarlet fever....... and measles.......The Chief Medical Officer of the Ministry of Health attributed the decline in the death rates of scarlet fever and measles, in part, to improvements in nutrition. It could only be determination not to look at the facts fairly that prevented him from attributing the diminution of all these diseases to improvement in sanitary, housing, economic, educational and social conditions, rather than to any "prophylactics " which may have been used. It can be asserted with justification that without any "immunization" whatsoever, the diphtheria position would have been just as good today as it is, and it might have been even better."--- Lilly Loat [Book 1951] The Truth About Vaccination and Immunization

"At the beginning of the Second World War immunization was made compulsory in Germany and the diphtheria rate soared up to 150,000 cases (1939) while in unvaccinated Norway there were only 50 cases."--E. McBean

"Vaccination against diphtheria was introduced to Germany in 1925. After the introduction of the vaccine the number of cases of diphtheria steadily increased until, shortly after the Second World War, production of the vaccine was halted. There was a decline in the incidence of the disease which coincided with the fact that the vaccination was no longer being used. When the vaccine was subsequently reintroduced the decline in the incidence of the disease slowed down. As with whooping cough, tetanus and other diseases the incidence, and number of deaths from diphtheria, were in decline long before the vaccine was introduced. "---- Dr Vernon Coleman MB  

"Most doctors insist that the decline is due to immunization with the DPT vaccine, but there is ample evidence that the incidence of diphtheria was already diminishing before a vaccine became available.....Today your child has about as much chance of contracting diphtheria as she does of being bitten by a cobra. Yet millions of children are immunized against it with repeated injections at two, four, six, and eighteen months and then given a booster shot when they enter school. This despite evidence over more than a dozen years from rare outbreaks of the disease that children who have been immunized fare no better than those who have not. .....In view of the rarity of the disease, the effective antibiotic treatment now available, the questionable effectiveness of the vaccine, the multimillion dollar annual cost of administering it, and the ever-present potential for harmful, long-term effects from this or any other vaccine, I consider continued mass immunization against diphtheria indefensible."--Dr Robert Mendelsohn MD

"The cities of Lasalle, Peru and Oglesby, were reported, in The Illinois Medical Journal, Nov. 1929, p. 337, by Arlington Ailes, M.D., Health Director of these three cities, aggregating 30,000 people, not to have had a case of diphtheria in two and one-half years and not a death from this disease in three and one-half years, with the use of toxin-antitoxin ‘practically nil." Their neighboring city, Chicago, where toxin-antitoxin has been lavishly used showed a rise in both the case rate and death rate. "In 1928 it (diphtheria in Chicago) again increased over 60 percent and nearly 100 percent in mortality." --Shelton

"How often have we heard that "diphtheria in Britain has been practically wiped out by immunization"? Has it once been broadcast that the compulsory inoculation of the same toxoid at the same time in France was followed, in the six years of 1941-6, by 150,000 serious cases, with 15,000 deaths, over and above the average figures, or that Sweden, without this wonderful toxoid, had no diphtheria deaths in 1937 or 1938?"--Lionel Dole

"In the British Medical Journal, June 5th, 1937 (p. 1182) will be found an account of the death of a Waterford girl, aged 12, and the illness of 23 other children, tuberculosis having developed following the inoculation of Toxoid Antitoxin Floccules."---Beddow Bayley  (1939 Book: The Schick Inoculation Against Diphtheria)

"In 1919, at Dallas, Texas, U.S.A., ten children were killed and sixty others made seriously ill by toxin-antitoxin which had passed the tests of the New York State Health Department. The Mulford Company, at Philadelphia, the manufacturers, paid damages in every case. 2. In 1924, twenty-five children in Bridgewater and twenty in Concord, U.S.A., were poisoned by toxin-antitoxin. Many had high fevers, and their arms turned black and swelled to two or three times their normal size.  3. In 1924 (September) of 40 children immunised with toxin-antitoxin in a home for infants at Baden, near Vienna, six died and a number suffered from skin necroses of various sizes at the site of the injection.....4. In 1928, the Lancet of February 4th (p. 249), refers to "a more recent Russian disaster " (Bull. Hygiene, August 1927, p. 667) in which " 14 children received toxin in place of anatoxin (i.e., toxoid); eight of them died within two weeks, four of polyneuritis within a month and two recovered after symptoms of general intoxication." 5. In 1927 also there were five deaths in immunised children in China, thirty-seven others being made seriously ill. 6. In 1928, at Bundaberg, Australia, twelve children out of seventeen who were inoculated with toxin-antitoxin died, the five others being critically ill for some time. The material had been issued and declared safe by the Public Health Department of Queensland.....7. In 1930, at Medellin, Columbia, South America, forty-eight children were inoculated, with the result that many were taken ill during the same night, one died the following afternoon, fourteen others within sixty hours and two more within six weeks—a total of sixteen deaths.  ......8. In 1932, at Charolles, in France, 172 children were immunised with anatoxin (toxoid). All were taken ill soon afterwards, developing local abscesses with abundant suppuration, necessitating surgical intervention in several cases. In one case the child died. The parents of the children demanded an official enquiry, but no explanation of the tragedy has so far been forthcoming.........In the province of Chiavari over 80 inoculated children were gravely affected, some being paralysed in arms and legs, others having their sight injured. One child died. In Venice and Rovigo severe symptoms, including paralysis, supervened and death occurred in ten cases."--Beddow Bayley  (1939 Book: The Schick Inoculation Against Diphtheria)

"In 1931, DR, I. HARRISON TUMPEER described the following case (Journal of American Medical Association, April 25th, 1931, pp, 137a-6):-A girl of five years had received the usual three injections of toxin-antitoxin in 1926 when one year old. In 1927 she was pronounced Schick-negative. She developed diphtheria in 1930, and an injection of serum was given in the left gluteal region, followed three days later by a second dose on the opposite side. In three bours the buttock began to swell and became extremely tender, until eventually the whole region became black and gangrenous. .....In spite of assiduous irrigation of the wound she became rapidly worse, suffering considerable pain. Following a blood transfusion on the twenty-seventh day of illness, she became cyanotic, vomited, lost consciousness and died a few hours afterwards..... The third case ... reported .... occurred in a boy aged two years and four months. (Journal of American Medical Association, February 18th, 1938, p. 490.)  .... The three usual toxin-antitoxin inoculations had been performed at the age of eleven months. The serum was injected into the buttocks and was followed by an urticarial eruption over the entire body, the edematous swelling of the face being sufficient to close the eyes. ..... He was then given a further injection of serum in the left buttock; within an hour the site became purple, and on the following day a similar injection into the right buttock resulted in a similar reaction. During the next few days the areas of purple swelling extended from the buttocks over the front of the abdomen and right thigh, and large blebs about one and a half inches in diameter appeared; six days later these gave rise to a bloody watery discharge.  At this time the child was admitted into hospital, and presented gangrenous areas on both buttocks, both sides of the abdomen, and the thighs. There was a patch of pneumonia in the right lung and a left otitis media.  Despite the removal of large masses of necrotic tissues, surgical drainage and three blood transfusions, the child died in twenty-one days from admission to hospital. (See Figs. 4, 5 and 6.)"---Beddow Bayley  (1939 Book: The Schick Inoculation Against Diphtheria)

"I made the comment to the doctors that poliomyelitis, as a clinical entity was vary rare prior to the compulsory vaccination law around 1874. I said that my gut said that there was a link, because up until that time polio had floated around happily giving everyone natural immunity with just the very odd, amazingly rare clinical presentation. After 1874, there was an explosion in paralysis, and all the things so emotional shown in old news reels. And more people got paralytic polio with the use of the toxin anti-toxin diphtheria horse serum in the 1890’s."--Hilary Butler

"There is good reason to doubt the accuracy of the Ministry of Health’s figures regarding "immunized" and "unimmunized." All who had had only one injection are shut out of the " immunized " class, as are also those whose injections were made less than three months or six months before the development of diphtheria. (For a long time at Birmingham it was maintained that immunity did not develop until six months after the last injection, and the general practice all over the country now is to insist on a limit of three months, and exclude from the " immunized " class all who were injected less than three months before attack.).....But in spite of all this "cooking " of the figures, the authorities have had to admit some 36,000 immunized cases of diphtheria in Great Britain in the eight years 1941-48, and 239 deaths in the " immunized."--- Lilly Loat [Book 1951] The Truth About Vaccination and Immunization

"The Chief Medical Officer of the Board of Education, SIR GEORGE NEWMAN, has described the procedure as a "safe, practical and efficient method of protection." ...No reference to the disasters which have been recorded in various parts of the world, nor to the severe reactions which are a frequent sequel to the inoculation, is made in these official statements."--Beddow Bayly

"It is obvious that this practice of screening statistics, apparently in order to suppress facts unfavourable to immunisation, invalidates most of the evidence brought forward by the supporters of immunisation. They have even gone so far as to invent a new disease known as TONSILLITIS IN SCHICK-NEGATIVE CARRIERS to describe cases of apparent diphtheria in persons "who had at one time or another been Schick-negative."
    It will be noted that whereas at the time of the introduction of antitoxin in 1894 the final diagnosis of diphtheria was changed from clinical to bacteriological and resulted in the inclusion of thousands of ordinary sore throats in the diphtheria statistics and a consequent fall in the case mortality, a manoeuvre favourable to the use of the antitoxin), the present change, in abandoning the hitherto accepted bacteriological diagnosis, automatically reduces the number of cases of diphtheria and therefore produces figures apparently favourable to immunisation, the latest craze.
    But in addition to this fundamental change of front there has to be mentioned another alteration in diagnosis. This consists in the refusal to classify cases as diphtheria among the immunised, on the ground that they only present mild symptoms. According to the Medical Officer of Health for Ipswich (see East Anglian Times, February 22nd, 1934), it has become the practice not to regard as diphtheria persons who, after immunisation, develop sore throats even though the presence of the Klebs-Loeffler bacilli (hitherto considered to be diagnostic of the disease) can be demonstrated in them.
    Such a manoeuvre is not only bound to falsify all subsequent vital statistics, but can be shown to be unjustifiable on grounds of medical pathology, for the assumption that mild cases are not likely to be diphtheria is not borne out by historical records."----Beddow Bayly