[back]
WRITTEN TESTIMONY OF DR. HOWARD B. URNOVITZ August 3, 1999
COMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENT REFORM AND OVERSIGHT
House of Representatives I am grateful to this committee for allowing me to address the
issue of vaccine safety. I am Dr. Howard B. Urnovitz. In 1979, I received my
doctorate degree in Microbiology and Immunology from the University of Michigan, where I
studied vaccines. I am testifying today as the Scientific Director of the Chronic Illness
Research Foundation. For the record, I am also the chief science officer of a
biotechnology corporation.
My testimony will describe the insights of recent scientific studies into the health
consequences of exposing individuals to both toxic and foreign biologic materials,
particularly multiple bacterial and live virus vaccines. The conventional wisdom
concerning the use of vaccines needs to be reconsidered, taking into account the adverse
medical effects that vaccines can have on the human body. Vaccine science must evaluate
not only acute adverse side effects, but also possible associated chronic illnesses such
as learning and behavior disorders, Autism Spectrum Disorders, intussusception, arthritis,
cancer, diabetes, chronic fatigue syndrome, multiple sclerosis, autoimmune thyroiditis,
and other chronic health problems. These chronic illnesses are increasingly costly
to society in both human and financial terms.
By year's end, the Chronic Illness Research Foundation and its research colleagues will
have published four peer-reviewed papers on the genetic basis of four different chronic
diseases: vaccine associated human cancers, Gulf War Syndrome, multiple sclerosis, and
AIDS. The implications of these findings for vaccine safety are:
1. the human body retains a genetic memory of the foreign substances to which it has been
exposed, including viral and bacterial vaccines;
2. each individual responds to foreign substances differently, based on his or her own
unique genetic background;
3. there appears to be a limit on how much foreign material to which the human body can be
exposed before some level of genetic damage occurs and a chronic disease initiates.
It is known that our genetic blueprints for life, received from our mother and father,
create new genetic material, allowing each individual to cope with toxic environmental
exposures. Research needs to focus more intensely on precisely how the body handles
the unprecedented level of gene-damaging substances in our air, water, food and even some
medicines. These substances range from infectious agents, both natural and
vaccine-related; pesticides, herbicides, petroleum byproducts and other synthetic chemical
hazards; and physical hazards such as radiation. Regarding vaccine safety, I suggest
the initiation of
serious inquiries into the following research areas:
1. How do genes change in response to vaccines, and what are the chronic consequences of
these changes?
2. What are the acceptable limits of dose, age, timing, and combinations of vaccines that
the body can handle? (Not only with respect to their ability to create an immune response
to the infectious agent, but also with respect to their acute and chronic health effects.)
3. How might we minimize vaccine adverse effects on our genome through life style, diet,
and pharmaceutical intervention?
4. How can we repair or minimize the effects of genetic damage?
Today, we are beginning to understand the indirect mechanisms that link toxic exposures
and chronic disorders. Unfortunately, efforts by scientists to explore fully the possible
negative effects of vaccines mandated by public policy has been met with stiff resistance
by public health agencies.
Let me give you two examples of vaccine programs that are underway that lack a solid
scientific foundation. First, several of my colleagues and I currently have a
peer-reviewed paper in a major medical journal due out in September that contains the
medical profile of a woman who died from a mysterious case of AIDS. Over several
years, her laboratory tests showed a consistent pattern of negative or indeterminate HIV-1
blood antibody tests.
However, when an alternative fluid test was used, she was HIV-1 antibody positive in her
urine. The virus was eventually isolated from this woman and sequenced. This HIV-1
variant came to be known as HIV-1 Group O. Analyses of the viral genetic material suggest
that the virus originated, in part, from genetic reshuffling of human chromosomal
material. HIV-1 could have serious consequences with respect to the initiation of
autoimmune diseases. To put it simply, are we embarking on a course that will vaccinate
people against their own genes?
The second example concerns the intensive effort to create a vaccine for the hepatitis C
virus. If you read the literature very carefully, you will find that, while there is
a strong marker for the disease, there is no hard scientific evidence to support the
existence of a hepatitis C virus. Clearly, a non-A, non-B hepatitis disease exists, but
the science behind an associated virus is weak at best. As a scientist I am
compelled to ask, how can we vaccinate people against a disease-causing agent that has not
been fully characterized?
Protecting the public against vaccine related chronic diseases is and will be a difficult
task. Not only must researchers meet the scientific challenges, but
increasingly they also must battle the politics of science. Research is showing that
our understanding of chronic diseases, as illustrated by my two examples, often is
seriously inadequate. Because the issue of vaccine safety involves both policy and
science, the public needs to be better represented in the decisions made by public health
agencies. In this realm, where science and politics collide, Congress should take a more
active role in representing the public interest during the formulation of public health
policies.
On the issue of informed consent: Had my mother and father known that the poliovirus
vaccines of the 1950s were heavily contaminated with more than 26 monkey viruses,
including the cancer virus SV40, I can say with certainty that they would not have allowed
their children and themselves to take those vaccines. Both of my parents might not
have developed cancers suspected of being vaccine-related, and might even be alive
today. Government, industry, and medicine should embrace the ethical principle of
informed consent about possible adverse reactions associated with vaccines.
I appreciate the opportunity to discuss with you my research findings that span a quarter
of a century. I will continue to work with my colleagues to unravel the links
between toxic exposures and chronic illnesses. While others seek to map the human
genome, our goal is to study the detours the human body's genes must take to survive in an
increasingly toxic environment. I ask that the full text of my statement be
submitted for inclusion in the record of this hearing.
Thank you.
[Burton] [Vaccination]