Unvaccinated and bizarrely proud of it

A colleague who read my previous post about the 60 Minutes miracle cure programme pointed out some of the reaction to the story on the Facebook page of the official-sounding Vaccination Information Network.

A visit to the page finds it is anything but informative. Despite that, the VINE has attracted a following of 8000-plus people interested in a hodge-podge of pseudoscientific information about vaccinaton, the “AIDs hoax” and worse.

Obviously, people commenting on the 60 Minutes story were triumphant that “nutritional therapy” had won out in the case of Alan Smith. As one poster writes:

Great to hear about this, everyone should know how Vit C cures the most stubborn bacteria. I am sure there are many others that did not get the right treatment and are not alive today.

The Vaccination Information Network, which is the work of anti-vaccine campaigner Erwin Alber, was according to Facebook, started in 1988, in New Zealand, “to help parents make an informed choice on behalf of their child”.

Consider that last bit when you look at the photos of the children below, whose parents proudly on their behalf, proclaim their anti-vaccine status on Facebook…


Now should I show you some pictures of children who were not vaccinated and suffered physical and/or mental disablement as a result? No, I think you get the point…


  1. erwinalber

    Shattering the false philosophy and junk science of conventional medicine

    Thursday, March 30, 2006
    by Mike Adams, the Health Ranger
    Editor of NaturalNews.com

    Millions of Chinese oppose mass vaccination plan
    Tuesday, September 14, 2010 by: Jonathan Benson, staff writer

    Love it! It looks like people are finally waking up to what is being done to them and to the WHO’s genocidal intentions! 🙂 .

  2. erwinalber

    Thanks for the correction Alison – my attention span must have been running a bit short. At least that’s what I hope it was, and not incipient Alzheimers from the childhood diphtheria shot I was unfortunately given.

    My point still stands though.

  3. erwinalber

    Ah well, the German’s have a saying “When the cat’s gone out, the mice frollick!”

    No doubt Peter will soon drop the curtains on the show!

    May you enjoy living in blissful ignorance while it lasts!

  4. drmike

    Erwinalber, Peter suggested closing the thread and I assumed allowed some time for everyone to have a final post. I posted one, as did Grant and Alison. You have posted five times – leading to a response from Grant and now myself. If anyone is prolonging this thread, it is you.

  5. erwinalber

    Alison, using y remark to draw a link to Neanderthal cavemen’s life expectancy is as ludicrous and pathetic as pro-vaxers using the high death rates from measles, tetanus and other diseases in Third World countries as an argument for vaccinating children in America or other “developed” nations. I’m talking about now.

    “When others in the community cannot be vaccinated eg infants or people who are immunocompromised, then any loss of herd immunity puts them at risk of very serious disease & death.”

    Or so the pseudo-science used to promote the vaccination racket goes. Talk about herd mentality! It’s such crap that to be frank, every time I hear people put forward the concept of herd mentality I suffer a severe onset of an urge to spew. I think the medical term for it is nausea, in case you prefer it.

  6. Grant Jacobs

    The one I represent is that the universe is an ordered system based on intelligence and that this intelligence is expressed in nature, including our organisms, and that.if our rains are intact and not messed up due to vaccination, we are wired up to this intelligence which is basically inherent in everything.

    Thank you for clearly explaining the ideology you hold that underlies your opposition to vaccination. You seem to want to imply my previous comment was re-opening the discussion: it was writing closing remarks as Peter invited. Likewise, my statement re ideology are not new, as you imply (“I now stand…”), but a summing together of several points I raised earlier. Thank you.

  7. Alison Campbell

    If we take responsibility for our own health and live as healthily and naturally as possible, there is no problem.

    Seriously? Back in the Neolithic, when all there was available, was ‘natural’ & there was certainly no prospect of vaccination, people would have been judged reasonably old if they’d made it past 30. Once they’d come up with agriculture & began to live a more settled existence – still all natural, no vaccinations etc – the lifespan didn’t increase & in addition people were faced with the reality of zoonoses (like measles) jumping to them from their domestic animals. ‘All-natural’ isn’t necessarily any healthier.

    People with this [natural] world view like to figure things out for themselves… – I have news for you: so do those on the other side of your fence. You are presenting both straw-man & false-dichotomy logical fallacies here.

    On the issue of freedom of speech, action etc – people have that right, but they should not by exerting it be impinging on the rights of others. When others in the community cannot be vaccinated eg infants or people who are immunocompromised, then any loss of herd immunity puts them at risk of very serious disease & death. Or – as I’ve asked you before – is it simply OK in your view for a certain proportion of the population to be placed at risk or, indeed, to die?

    Please don’t trot out the usual cliches in response to this query; we’ve answered them previously and your refusal to address those responses suggests that your argument isn’t particularly strong.

  8. erwinalber

    I was under the impression that Peter Griffin was going to close this thread. I wish he had, because closing it would prevent the danger of going back on the merry-go-round of futile arguments. I now stand accused of standing of pushing an ideology. Well, if true, the same is true about pro-vaccination people.

    The reason why the two ideologies will never be reconciled is because they originate from two very different viewpoints, or world views. The one I represent is that the universe is an ordered system based on intelligence and that this intelligence is expressed in nature, including our organisms, and that.if our rains are intact and not messed up due to vaccination, we are wired up to this intelligence which is basically inherent in everything. The more we live in harmony with and cooperate with this intelligence, which is a combination of love and wisdom, and the less we interfere with the natural order of things, the better. Hence the tendency towards home births, breastfeeding, not vaccinating, home-schooling, natural foods, etc. If we take responsibility for our own health and live as healthily and naturally as possible, there is no problem. In this world view, the less the government interferes in our lives, the better. The individual is sovereign. It is the role of government is to rule on behalf of the people, and to serve the individuals society is composed of. People with this world view like to figure things out for themselves and don’t take much notice of authority figures or so-called experts and in fact tend to be deeply distrustful of them.

    The other viewpoint seems to be that the universe is based on randomness and that we need to rely on external authorities such as scientists and government institutions to figure things out and to solve our problems for us and to protect us against the perceived threat of infectious diseases. In this world view, the government plays a central role and in fact rules over people. Here, society and the state take precedence over the individual. People with this viewpoint tend to trust experts and other authority figures to do their thinking and decision-making for them. Here we may have a tendency to medicalised childbirth, bottle feeding, state schooling, belief in the value of supposed public health measures such as vaccination and fluoridation and scientific developments such as genetic engineering.

    These are of course very much generalisations, to get a point across. In reality, the lines are of course somewhat blurred, and some people will change sides when they become disillusioned, as may be the case with parents whose child suffers a vaccine injury.


    Problems arise when representatives of one side tries to impose their view of the world on the people on the other side, as is the case with attempts to make vaccinations mandatory. What people on each side of the debate need to come to terms with is that why someone thinks the way they do is based on reasons that make sense to them, no matter how irrelevant or idiotic they may seem to someone on the other side of the debate. The most important thing is that if we are to live in a free society, our freedom of thought, speech and practice must be upheld.

    As regards vaccination, I am unhappy that some of my taxes go towards paying for a practice which I abhor. I feel that if people believe in such nonsense, they should pay for it out of their own pocket instead of relying on money from us non-vaxers to help pay for it.

  9. Grant Jacobs

    Returning briefly. While followers of Alber’s campaign deserve some sympathies for being misled, I think that Alber’s campaign itself deserves the criticism it has drawn.

    Rather than repeat DrMike’s short essay (I agree with the points he makes), I will leave readers with two thoughts:

    (1) As I wrote earlier in my experience the simplest way to see the effectiveness of vaccines without having to understand the science is to observe the return of the diseases the vaccines target when the vaccinations are reduced or stopped, and the curtailing of these diseases when the vaccines are re-introduced.* This has been observed many times, for different vaccines targeting different diseases in different communities. The examples given earlier of Malawi (measles) and Nigeria (polio) may be exotic for readers here, but it is also true England (measles), Germany (pertussis, which Erwin presented incorrectly as supporting his “argument”) and other examples in more familiar settings.

    (2) Erwin does not have an argument, and never did. He has a ideology, which he self-justifies. There is a fundamental and very important difference. Arguments put evidence first, then draw conclusions. Ideologies are based on “just so” statements that are shored-up. Erwin puts his belief ahead of evidence, as he has amply demonstrated. When shown that a claim he has made is wrong he avoids acknowledging it. He relies on quotes, put-downs, and stereotypes, none of which are evidence. None of the research papers or studies he referenced have supported him or say what he thinks they do. This shows that he does not check his claims before making them. It is possible that he may not be capable of checking them (i.e. that he lacks the science background to understand them), in which case he should not make the claims in the first place – it is dishonest to present an argument you don’t understand as if you do.

    That these diseases are a rarity is a luxury the wealthier parts of the world have as a consequence of modern medicine, both public health and vaccination. Claiming that because we rarely see serious cases of these diseases today, we don’t need vaccines is a contradiction in terms. A key reason we don’t see these serious cases is, in large part, because of the vaccinations.

    * While this is anecdotal in one sense, that’s the price for avoiding the science. The ‘property’ way is through understanding the controlled trials and research science, of course.

  10. drmike

    Closing comments:

    First let’s begin with a point of agreement – the human immune system is a complex and impressive defense against foreign organisms.
    However, most of us here agree that impressive as it is, there are some diseases that when we encounter them can cause substantial often permanent damage e.g. smallpox, polio. Others, while a significant number of the population may experience short term illness can still cause severe illness in a significant minority (measles, mumps) particularly those who are vulnerable, e.g. children.
    Vaccines are a way of exposing the body to weakened or inactive viruses (or other antigens) in order to stimulate an immune response. This immune response ensures that when the body is exposed to the actual (full strength) antigen it can mount a full defense.
    Those who oppose vaccines tend to make two arguments: that vaccines do not work and that vaccines are harmful. They cherry pick data that in their opinion support these two points. They often list screeds of journal references to support their arguments, however, if you actually read these papers they do not say what the anti vaccine people say.
    It is true that some vaccines do not work for everyone. Some people (typically 5 to 20%) of the population do not respond to vaccinations. They remain vulnerable to the disease. This is why herd immunity is important. If one child in a classroom has not responded to a vaccine then so long of the rest of his classmates have been vaccinated and developed antibodies and therefore cannot contract the disease and infect him, he is safe within the classroom environment. The moment there is at least one classmate who is unvaccinated, the risk is there that should the classmate become infected so will the “non-responsive” child.
    In a population dense, high mobility world where diseases can cross the globe in 24 hours any disease outbreak can now be carried world wide. We cannot afford to have herd immunity drop.
    Those who oppose vaccines also state that they are harmful. This is a potentially valid argument – introduction of anything different into the body can cause a reaction. For example, a small number of people react badly to traces of toxins in peanut butter. However, the evidence we have at hand show only a small minority of people respond badly to vaccines with sore arms, fever etc. There have been suggestions that some deaths or severe illnesses have been linked to vaccines, however, there is no clear evidence to confirm this. Often there is a confusion of correlation with causation. This area needs further scientific study. Some people claim that there is a link between vaccines and autism, However, the early, poorly run and unethical study that first proposed this ides has been disproved by subsequent research.
    Even if a tiny minority of people where shown to exhibit bad responses to vaccines, this does not mean they should not be used. In a small minority of traffic accidents seat belts can cause terrible injuries even death. This does not mean that we should remove seatbelts from cars because that would create and even greater numbers of injuries or lose of life.
    Many opponents to vaccines often default to claims of a conspiracy involving drug companies and the medical and scientific community. This I reject completely. I have worked with many scientists and I know that the majority have chosen science because they want to make the world a better place. I find these attacks, which are often highly personal, offensive.

    As scientists, medical personnel and well informed parents move to counter the ill informed arguments of anti-vaccine groups around the world I hope that common sense will prevail. Otherwise the proof of the the effectiveness of vaccines may come in the form of increased numbers of disease outbreaks and deaths around the world as immunisation levels drop. I hope we never reach that stage.

  11. erwinalber

    Agreed Peter.

    Here is my closing statement:

    First of all thank you for allowing me to defend my stance on vaccinations!

    I doubt that the information I have presented has made my protagonists change their minds in any way, but neither have I changed mine, but I hope that other readers who have remained in the background may have picked up some information here and there which may them cause to question the claim that vaccines are a safe and effective way of preventing diseases and provide them with the incentive to do some further research, before deciding whether to vaccinate or not.

    I’ll close with the words:

    May our children grow up vaccine-free!

    Love them and protect them, but NEVER inject them!

  12. erwinalber

    Renee, the statement that “there is no proof that any approved vaccine causes autism or anything else, because this proof doesn’t exist” is illogical. Once upon a time, it was believed that the was flat, and there seemed to be no reason to believe, nor was there proof, that the earth was round, but that didn’t stop the earth from being round.

    Similarly, just because your vaccinated child seems okay doesn’t automatically mean that vaccines are safe, or even that your child escaped unscathed, or that others parents and their children got off as lightly as you did. Ian’s parents e.g. lost their son to a hepatitis B vaccination at the age of 47 days. .


    As for the autism controversy, consider this statement by Dr. Peter Fletcher, who was Chief Scientific Officer at the Department of Health. He said that if it is proven that the jab causes autism, “the refusal by governments to evaluate the risks properly will make this one of the greatest scandals in medical history”. He added that after agreeing to be an expert witness on drug-safety trials for parents’ lawyers, he had received and studied thousands of documents relating to the case which he believed the public had a right to see.

    He said he has seen a “steady accumulation of evidence” from scientists worldwide that the measles, mumps and rubella jab is causing brain damage in certain children, but that “There are very powerful people in positions of great authority in Britain and elsewhere who have staked their reputations and careers on the safety of MMR and they are willing to do almost anything to protect themselves.”


    In the USA, Hannah Poling’s parents have just been awarded compensation for their child’s autism, which it seems was triggered by vaccinations due to an underlying mitochondrial disorder. Hannah may reportedly end up being paid compensation amounting to $20 million over her lifetime.

    Since 1988, up until 2008, nearly $2 billion have been paid out to parents of children who have suffered severe vaccine injuries and disabilities under the US Vaccine Injury Compensation Act, yet two out of every three parents who apply for compensation are turned away empty-handed. People who claim that vaccines are safe obviously haven’t done their homework.

    So, while you may consider vaccination as the only sensible options, there are a growing number of parents who no longer subscribe to the belief in vaccinations. Studies have shown that the more highly educated parents are, the less likely they are to vaccinate their child, while parents from a lower socio-economic background are more likely to blindly follow what their doctor or the authorities tell them to do. Interesting.


  13. Peter Griffin

    Erwin, I think its almost time to wrap this thread up, we are going around in circles on vaccination again. How about some (civil) closing comments…?

  14. erwinalber

    I suspect that’s because you seem to be yet someone else sharing the same blinkered attitude, making it a trio, Alison. I’ll explain shortly.

  15. drmike

    I do hope Renee isn’t offended by erwinalber’s rudeness. I’m not. Given his name calling and irrational arguments remind me of a toddler throwing at tantrum, I give his insults the same level of credence.

  16. Alison Campbell

    I fail to see anything in Renee’s post, or that of Dr Mike that follows, that could constitute a gross insult to anyone’s intelligence.

  17. Alison Campbell

    Erwin, I’ve held off saying this, but I really can’t put it off after your last post: your outright rudeness & personal insults do absolutely nothing to further your argument. You really can’t expect to be treated with any sort of respect if you show none to others.

  18. erwinalber

    As Dr Herbert Shelton once pointed out:

    “Belief in immunization is a form of delusional insanity.”

    It shows. Someone ought to write a paper about the above two textbook cases.

  19. renee

    I am not a scientist. I am not a doctor or a pharmacist. I am, however, an intelligent, curious, literate person who likes to research a topic widely before formulating a firm(ish) opinion. I am also a mother, and my child is fully vaccinated.

    Everything that I have read convinces me that vaccination is the only sensible option – there is no proof that any approved vaccine causes autism or anything else, because this proof doesn’t exist. Just because one thing follows another doesn’t mean it caused it. If I eat eggs for breakfast and three months later I sneeze, does that mean I’m allergic to eggs? I don’t think so.

    My grandmother had polio as a chile and I saw what it had done to her, physically and mentally. I’ve read accounts of the devasting effects of whooping cough, measles, meningitis – why on earth would anyone risk having to watch their child go through that on the basis of hystertical, unproven, overblown pseudo-science which has been disproven time and time again?

    Get real people, there is no ‘Big Pharma’ conspiracy! I personally believe that my doctor wants me to get well (shocking I know) and I would much rather trust my health to someone with at least 5 years of solid scientific training, founded on decades of sound scientifc research, than to someone with a woo-diploma offering me a drop of water on a sugar pill and whining that their remedy can’t be tested by conventional science!

    May have gotten a bit off topic there, sorry. Rant over and out.

  20. Grant Jacobs

    Continuing the clarifications…

    The thiomersal in vaccines was supposed to have been removed some years ago, but existing stocks continued to be used.

    The ‘existing stock’ he refers to expired seven years ago:

    “ With the exception of some influenza vaccines and tetanus-diphtheria (Td) vaccines (given to children aged 7 and older), the last lots of recommended vaccines which contained thimerosal as a preservative expired by early 2003. If providers have such expired vaccines, they should discard them.”


    (The influenza vaccine is available in non-thimerosal form, as explained on the same page. Autism typically is identified by parents at around age 3 or so. [It’s beginnings are much earlier.])

    The Poling case is just a continued Gish Gallop. (Note how he’s swung off topic yet again, avoiding issues and admitting what he has gotten wrong, etc.)

    The legal cases he refers to do not and cannot “prove” a case to be caused by the medical issue at hand. (These courts say so themselves.) In fact, as I understand it, in the H.P. case the judge explicitly pointed out in his ruling that H.P. has a distinct disorder – a mitochrondrial metabolism disorder that shows some symptoms similar to what autistics have. The Poling case doesn’t support ‘vaccines cause autism’ and is unable to.

    For one of many starting points to understand this, with links, see:


    In any case, thiomersal is only ONE of a number of neurotoxins in vaccines,

    This line is to be expected, to self-justify keeping going. Thimerosal as a justification is very obviously failing — even those that promote anti-vaccine views can see that — and they have over the past few years being moving over to “discover” (read: invent) other things that might be “wrong.”

    Dr Tinus Smits has successfully alleviated and even reversed autism in about 300 children with the homeopathic treatment he’s developed,

    This is simple nonsense most parents concerned about vaccines wouldn’t have a bar of. Note how it very obviously exploits that some children’s delayed speech development will recover later. (It’s a classic natural health remedy pitch: offer a ‘treatment’ to something that will commonly resolve and hold this up as success.)

    This may be a bit too technical for you to understand, but the point is that it works.

    Still favouring put-downs and pot-shots…

    On a more scientific note, there have been ample studies to show it is most unlikely that there is a link between (any) vaccines and autism. Autism is a strongly genetic disorder, in fact one of the (if not the) most genetic of the more common neurological disorders. There is good work over the past few years revealing initial leads to the genetics underlying autism. Another large study just came out a few days ago, which I may write about if I find time and it proves suitable for a more general audience. These positive studies, that is looking for the cause rather than trying to apportion “blame”, should be the focus of those with interests in autism.

  21. drmike

    erwinalber claims:
    “thiomersal is only ONE of a number of neurotoxins in vaccines, which means that vaccines will continue to cause neurological disorders (including autism), regardless of whether they contain mercury or not.”
    Again, if vaccines are filled with these neurotoxins, then why do the majority of people suffer no ill effects?

    “If the child e.g. lost his speech following MMR, once the vaccine had been cleared from the organism by anti-doting it with homeopathic MMR, the child would regain its speech.”
    I would be interested to know what is in this homeopathic MMR that you mentioned.

  22. erwinalber

    Grant, you say that “autism levels are as high as ever, with no thiomersal in vaccines.”

    The thiomersal in vaccines was supposed to have been removed some years ago, but existing stocks continued to be used. As Hannah Poling’s father, a neurologist who has thoroughly researched this issue for his daughter’s compensation case for vaccine-induced autism (which he has now won), explains, if thiomersal was responsible for autism, we therefore couldn’t expect a drop in autism until about 2010 (now).

    The fact that autism rates haven’t dropped is also due to the fact that some vaccines which have the thiomersal removed after the manufacturing process still have traces of mercury in them. As if this wasn’t bad enough, the yearly flu shot mandated for children (and adults – including pregnant women!!!) still has thiomersal in it!

    In any case, thiomersal is only ONE of a number of neurotoxins in vaccines, which means that vaccines will continue to cause neurological disorders (including autism), regardless of whether they contain mercury or not.

    Dr Tinus Smits has successfully alleviated and even reversed autism in about 300 children with the homeopathic treatment he’s developed, which involves anti-doting each vaccine with the homeopathic form of the vaccine. If the child e.g. lost his speech following MMR, once the vaccine had been cleared from the organism by anti-doting it with homeopathic MMR, the child would regain its speech. This clearly shows that autism is caused by toxins in vaccines, although other pharmaceutical drugs such as antibiotics, and even drugs and anesthetics the mother was given during pregnancy and childbirth, also play a part and also need to be cleared from the body for the child to recover. This may be a bit too technical for you to understand, but the point is that it works.

    At least people like Dr Smits and Dr Wakefield and his colleagues have taken effective steps to help these unfortunate children, unlike the medical establishment in general, which has been busy covering up its involvement in the harm caused by vaccines, and obstructing parents’ search for answers and demands for proper investigation and effective treatment.

  23. Grant Jacobs

    Hi Alison,

    But at the same time, you’ve [Alber] moved a bit from the topic we’re discussing.

    Well, that was predictable! 🙂 (Hence my earlier forecast…)

    I’m not going to look into the “references”, as I’ve seen this anti-vaccine silliness for a few years now (as you have I’m sure) and, as you say, a page starting with the “toxins in vaccines” gambit tells you that you can stop right there.

    His trying to make everyone else do the work is a ruse I’ve seen too many times to want to follow. It’s his claim to prove. He’ll have to do more than lazily point at references he clearly hasn’t read, or at least understood.

    The page he points at isn’t on 123. The page is from the creationist pathlights.com website which hosts an “encyclopedia” — scratch that — misinformation site. It’s widely panned for how intellectually dishonest it is. It may be worth asking him if part of his anti-vaccine stance is from religion? It might explain how he reacted to my pointing out his ideological approach is similar to religious groups’ and why he readily accepted the end-times rant on his site that I mentioned earlier.

    Oh, what I wanted to say. (And slightly off-topic.) Orac has reviewed yet another study just out showing in even more detail a lack of association between thimerosal in vaccines and autism, or autism spectrum disorders, or regressive autism. Besides, as he points out, even under a several times extended ‘deadline’ of when a drop in autism levels should occur as a consequence of removing thimerosal in the vaccines, it hasn’t happened. Autism levels are as high as ever with no thimerosal in the vaccines.

  24. drmike


    It’s a pity that all of the 188 references are at least 15 years old, some at least 50 years old.
    I have picked and read one of the more recent ones at random (“Acute Hepatitis B Infection after Vaccination,” Lancet Vol. 345 Jan. 1995) and find there is nothing to support your contention that vaccines are ineffectual or harmful. It is the usual misinterpretation of a medical paper – sigh, why do I fall for this each time.

  25. Alison Campbell

    And in response to your last comment, Erwin: since the site you refer us to has on its front page the usual untruths about what’s found in vaccines, why on earth should one believe anything else it has to say? Thimerosal was removed from pediatric vaccines (other than for influenza, & even then a thimerosal-free version is available) in 2002. Aluminium is the 3rd most common element on earth & is found in nearly all rocks & soil – your daily intake from normal dietary sources would far exceed (by several orders of magnitude) the tiny fraction used as an adjuvant in vaccines. And so on…

    With regard to your references: the titles don’t actually tell us much & since the authors of ‘123 people’ haven’t given hot-links, I’d be extremely surprised if you (or possibly even the site’s authors) have actually read many of the documents. You’ve already shown a tendency to cherry-pick titles or quotes that serve your purposes & I doubt these are any different.

    For example, the JAMA paper cited by ‘123 people’ on uptake of rubella vaccination among medical personnel looked at a total of 197 hospital staff – not just physicians. The authors found that the uptake rate was patchy but noted that many in the sample weren’t aware that adults also benefit from vaccination. The authors do not provide any evidence of widespread physician reluctance to vaccinate. They do, however, provide data from another study which found that, rather than the outright refusal implied by the 123 site, medical workers surveyed had a range of reasons for not taking an offered MMR vaccine. Reasons included pregnancy, medical contraindications, age, & unconfirmed histories of prior vaccination.

    I’m pretty sure that if I had the time & energy to check those other references out, a fair proportion of them wouldn’t say what you believe them to say. But I’ve got a lecture to prepare & in any case, I’ve had enough of your Gish gallop techniques for the evening. Tomorrow… is another day 🙂

  26. Alison Campbell

    Erwin, I’m truly sorry to hear of your cousin’s loss. But at the same time, you’ve moved a bit from the topic we’re discussing.

    For every 200 people infected by polio,1 person (& it’s usually a child under the age of 5) will develop some degree irreversible paralysis (usually affecting their legs – hence the prevalence of kids wearing leg braces when my mother was growing up). Of those paralysed, between 5 & 10% die due to paralysis of the breathing muscles. These are not trivial figures. And the fact that ‘only a small percentage of the population was affected’ doesn’t somehow make it all better for those who were affected! Just how many polio cases would it take before they would become important in your eyes?

    20 years ago there were around 350,000 cases of polio world-wide; in 2007 that was down to about 1650. As for the ‘story’ about how polio (& other diseases) were in decline prior to the introduction of vaccination – I’ve responded to this one before, but let’s just take the US as an example. Cases of polio in the US peaked in 1952. Inactivated polio vaccines have been used there since 1955. Polio is now effectively eliminated from the States.

  27. erwinalber

    Alison, Grant and Dr Mike may (or may possibly not) be interested in these MEDICAL JOURNAL ARTICLES.

    Here are 188 authoritative medical research articles in professional journals, which verify in detail the dangers and ineffectiveness of vaccines. Think not that this ongoing tragedy is unknown to medical science. Hundreds of research reports have been made on the subject. The titles of the research reports have been placed in bold print. Just scan down through them and see for yourself.


  28. erwinalber

    Nobody disputes that polio was a terrible disease, but only a small percentage of the population got polio, and only a small percentage of these suffered permanent damage. My cousin who was hospitalised as a child recovered fully.

    Polio was however already on the decline when vaccination was introduced and declined equally in countries where few or no vaccinations were carried out. Vaccinations are falsely credited with the eradication of smallpox and the decline of polio and other diseases.

    My cousin’s wife bled to death in her doctor’s surgery when her doctor severed an artery while scraping out her uterus. Elizabeth was in her early fifties.

  29. Alison Campbell

    I suspect that one of the reasons that Erwin’s propaganda finds a ready audience in some people is that, for the most part, people living in the Western world today simply have very little experience of the consequences of having the actual disease. So I’m going to share a couple of examples. Both involve polio.

    My mother contracted polio prior to the development & widespread use of the vaccine. She was ‘lucky’: ill for a time, she was left with withered muscles in the calf of her right leg & the base of her right thumb. Withered, because they were paralysed & she could no longer use them. She told us how swimming pools & other public places were closed, whenever there was a polio epidemic.

    My friend Dot, the same age as my mother, also contracted polio in those pre-vaccine years. She spent 9 months in an iron lung, because the virus caused almost complete paralysis & this included the intercostal muscles & diaphragm – without them she couldn’t breathe. Her recuperation took years & she was never in robust health from then on.

    The iron lung, & robust physiotherapy, were & still are the only treatment for polio patients. This is a viral disease: there are no antibiotics for it. In the absence of these physical treatments patients die. This is the terrible reality of a disease that is so easily prevented by a robust vaccination system.

  30. drmike

    Why pseudoscientists really annoy scientists:

    Most scientists have spend decades researching their area of expertise and planning careful experiments. They try to remove bias from their experiments, aim for repeatability and take care to note down the assumptions, parameters and limitations of their experiments. They run duplicates, double blind experiments, and when things go wrong, they may have to discard all current results and start all over again.
    When they have some results, they carefully write them up, trying to make sense of their results relative to their field and science in general. Their papers are submitted to journals for peer review, often modified and then published.

    Pseudoscientists are happy to make sweeping observations based on simple and sometime inaccurate observations, typically don’t eliminate bias from any experiments they carry out. Some don’t even carry out experiments but instead develop a “theory” and then search out evidence which supports their theory while ignoring the often substantial evidence which disproves their theory. Some seem to revel in their notoriety and often claim they are misunderstood geniuses (wrong on both counts).
    They typically publish their “results” in self funded books or on websites because their ideas are so unscientific no journal will touch them. Some earn huge amounts of money through odd ball “therapies”, unproven treatments etc, much more than your average scientist earns.
    Some, by pushing unproven treatments, risk the lives of often already sick people, e.g. homeopaths flogging cures for AIDS.
    They rely on the fact that most people, when ill, will do anything for a cure, particularly when science does not yet have the answers. So confident tricksters can sell them “magical” treatments. This is exploitation at it’s darkest.

    Erwin, I have no doubt that your motives are good, but your choice of information sources are just awful.

  31. drmike

    erwinalber, you really do come up with the most fascinating “experts”. Here’s what I could find on Yves DeLatte:

    “DOZENS of British patients suffering from AIDS and HIV infection are being sold a costly, untested and potentially dangerous medicinal product whose allegedly active ingredients are bacteria cultured from human excrement. The ‘treatment’, called Delta Te Immune Support Therapy, costs more than Pounds sterling 1000 a year. Patients who follow the regimen have to take daily doses of a white powder whose precise composition Yves Delatte, the salesman of the product, has persistently refused to reveal.” New Statesman 1989

    And Eva Snead seems to have some “unusual” ideas around AIDS and vaccines with a few conspiracy theories thrown in for good measure.
    Her comments on AIDS are demonstrate ignorance of the first degree.

  32. Grant Jacobs


    Please consider this an isolated note, as I am not interested in conversing with you.

    It is good to hear that Morris he is still around, assuming this is accurate. Unlike you I am readily able to accept when I err. More importantly my and Alison’s key point regards him remains, which I note you have avoided, instead preferring an opportunistic (and rather poor) pot-shot.

    That you avoid science is not an opinion, nor an ‘accusation’, it is a statement. You have amply demonstrated this here and elsewhere. You may contest that statement, even dislike it, but accusing me of calling the kettle black is silly rhetoric.

    You are also putting words in my mouth. I did not ‘accuse’, that’s just you adding a loaded word. I did not write “being a cult follower”, either, that misrepresents what I wrote. I wrote that what you present is not “argument”, but “assertion presented with the empty self-justifications characteristic of religions and cults.” I didn’t say the anti-vaccine movement exists as a cult (although maybe some do), I wrote that the stances and assertions you and that “movement” present have the same characteristic as of those in religions and cults, i.e. that these assertions are ideological, rather than evidence-based, and backed with similar empty self-justifications as to that seen in religions and the like.

    (To be clear: I have sympathy for those that are innocently unaware of this and caught up in the exciting conspiracy thinking these things encourage. I have less sympathy for someone like you who actively, and irresponsibly, promote it. Irresponsibly because it is self-evident that you do not check your claims, yet push them around.)

    Then you conclude this with another empty quote, ironically re-enforcing a point I made in the comment you are replying to, that you “rely on presenting quotes (which are not evidence)”.

    Your latest scare-mongering re SV40 is well-explained elsewhere and quite out of context as all your “examples” have been. It shows, again, that you ignore science. You only selectively misrepresent it.

  33. erwinalber

    drmike, to come back to an earlier point, here is a quote from the book ‘Vaccinations; The Untold Truth’ by Yves DeLatte PhD, edited by Dr Eva Snead MD:

    Genetic Disturbances:

    “Even when no visible effects are detected, the cell is genetically altered, the chromosomes are modified, and these changes are transmitted to other generations. Body fluids that carry cells (sperm, milk, blood ) may transmit these viruses.”

    page 25

    It is interesting to note in this context that the potentially carcinogenic monkey virus SV40, which was found to contaminate the polio vaccine after having been injected into millions of people in various countries, has not only been found in brain tumours, but also in unvaccinated children of parents who had been given the polio vaccine.

    Scary? I think so. On the other hand one has to concede that vaccines are perfectly safe as long as they are not used. This is definitely the option I go for.

  34. erwinalber

    Grant, you say that Dr Morris is long dead. This news unfortunately hasn’t reached Dr Morris yet, so he’s completely oblivious to the fact that he’s supposed to be pushing up daisies or have been reduced to ashes. I suggest you contact him so that he can make arrangements for his funeral, but I suspect he would tell you to clam down and that news of his death have been greatly exaggerated.

    Grant also accuses me of ignoring science and being a cult follower. Talk about the pot calling the kettle black! may I remind him that in his book ‘Confessions of a Medical Heretic’, Dr Robert S Mendelsohn MD states that medicine is neither an art nor a science, but a religion based on faith, and in which doctors are the priests and vaccinations the holy water. Indeed.

  35. Grant Jacobs

    Sigh. Just as I thought. Alber will continue to spew misinformation in an attempt to drown out corrections. (Notice how he isn’t engaging with anything offered; but only throwing up more “stuff”, an attempt to continue to bluff to himself (he’s not kidding anyone else) by finding more straws to clutch.)

    Beaten to the punch again, but further clarifications:

    Anthony Morris is long dead. His publications date from years ago. Even if the quote given is accurate and in context (neither may be true, Alber will need to supply the original source to justify that & that’s not my job to do), monitoring strains of influenza viruses mean that reasonable estimates what strains are likely to be present in an up-coming “influenza season” can be made. (It’s not perfect of course.)

    because vaccines don’t work, full stop.

    There is good evidence vaccines work. It would seem Alber wishes to pretend none of the double-blind controlled clinical trials exist, nor basic research studies. A Tui billboard answer would be appropriate.

    Vaccines simply don’t work […]

    He’s now starting to repeat the disturbed illogic defence I referred to earlier. It makes no sense whatsoever. I imagine he takes himself around the internet repeating himself, and that a genuine understanding of vaccines doesn’t interest him — his unwillingness to look at anything of substance offered to him is good evidence of that.

    Alber will no doubt continue to rehash random un-sourced quotes from anti-vaccine sources that he thinks support his cause without checking them. That I & others can source corrections as quickly as we do, suggests how little effort would needed for him to check his claims before making them.

    His latest comment, written after I wrote the above, is straight-forward scaremongering with no substantiation. Of course there lies a rub: there is nothing to substantiate the claims he is making. All he can rely on presenting quotes (which are not evidence), misrepresenting evidence out of context, or just plain getting it wrong (as he has demonstrated in his comments here), avoiding what is presented to him, and then keep shifting to present more silliness that leads to more corrections, which he will then not acknowledge and… so on in a loop.

    None of this has anything to do with medical science needing to look at anything.

    There are not two sides in this argument, please note the emphasis on the word ‘argument’. The anti-vaccine “movement” desires to push a mythology by convincing itself in a self-justifying ideological manner. That is not an argument, it is a ideological stance. It is an assertion presented with the empty self-justifications characteristic of religions and cults.

  36. drmike


    You have not answered the question. If, as you claim, vaccines are harmful and full of toxins and other harmful agents, then why do the majority of people show no ill effects? What is the mechanism by which these toxins can, in your view, cause devastating disease in some people but leave the majority of people unharmed?
    It’s not like I could line up a group of people and inject them with cyanide and only a few “broken eggs” would keel over.

    Suggesting that vaccines can cause havoc with our immune systems and our DNA, when there is no evidence to support this viewpoint is unscientific.

    You state “there is in most cases no way of determining … whether a death was vaccine-related or not, let alone whether a person has suffered any ill-effects from a vaccination unless they are obvious.”
    Essentially what you are saying is there is no evidence to show that vaccines can cause ill effects, so let’s just assume that they do.

    In fact most of the opinions that you quote are just that, opinions. They certainly do not appear to have any science to back them up.

    We certainly are in two very different camps.

  37. Alison Campbell

    The homepage of AEGIS tells us that Vaccinations are proven dangerous and do not protect us from disease. No citations to research to support this claim. That’s a fairly good indication of how much credence to place in the other claims referred to in Erwin’s latest post – i.e. very little.

  38. erwinalber

    “If vaccines are so dangerous then why do the majority of people have no ill effects after receiving vaccines?”

    drmike, there is in most cases no way of determining whether a cot death was vaccine-related or not, let alone whether a person has suffered any ill-effects from a vaccination unless they are obvious.

    However, all vaccinations obviously cause changes in recipients
    – which is after all the aim of vaccination. However, unlike you, I consider ALL the changes caused by vaccinations detrimental, that is to say that the changes are for the worse. These range from subtle physiological changes (including changes of the immunological and neurological kind) to all kinds of illnesses, disorders and disabilities, including severe brain damage and death at the other end of the spectrum. It is indeed a spectrum, which also includes autistic spectrum disorders.

    If one vaccinates a large number of people, one would end up with one person at one end who suffer little or no ill-effects, while at the other there would be a death. In between, there would be varying shades of vaccine-related ill-health. A French professor whose name I forget compared vaccinated people to a tray of eggs being dropped, meaning that a few eggs may still be whole, while some would be broken, and many more would be cracked.

    The whole eggs are those of us who function well in society, even though we are likely to be damaged in various ways as well. The cracked eggs are those with vaccine-induced asthma, allergies, ear infections, learning difficulties, ADHD etc., while those who have been crippled/disabled or suffer vaccine-related brain damage, are obviously the broken eggs.

    Anita Petek of the Swiss vaccine information organisation AEGIS warns that new vaccine production methods which resort to genetic engineering (as with the Hep B vaccine and HPV vaccines) are of particular concern. She says that most of the damage people sustain will only become evident in the next generation, and the generations after that, and that by the time this damage is really becoming obvious it will be so great that as a species, we will be faced with a biological disaster of such dimensions that we will have reached a point of no return.

    Edda West of the Canadian Vaccination Risk Awareness Network (VRAN) similarly warns that these vaccines cause havoc with our immune systems and our DNA we can’t even begin to imagine.

    You and me are obviously indifferent camps. I your reality, vaccination is a wonderful medical invention. I used to to believe that as well, but what I have found out since I have changed my mind frankly makes my hair stand on end.

  39. Alison Campbell

    Dr.J.Anthony Morris is not exactly a ‘distinguished virologist’. A Scirus search of the science databases yields a total of 17 papers where his name appears – many of these are papers where he’s mentioned, rather than papers that he’s authored. All of them date from the 1960s & 1970s, & our understanding of vaccination & immunology has moved on since then. For someone to be described as ‘distinguished’ I would expect him to be the lead author on a fairly large number of significant publications. In addition, at least some of those papers refer to work in bacteriology, not virology. And one refers to instances where premature babies have died of infection – these children would not have been vaccinated at all & so this citation is irrelevant to your ‘argument’.

    Choose your ‘supporting information’ more carefully.

  40. drmike

    Erwinalber, you have twice failed to answer the following question, so I will ask it again:

    If vaccines are so dangerous then why do the majority of people have no ill effects after receiving vaccines?

    And blaming vaccine failures on non-matching strains is not a red herring, it is basic science. What you’re are saying is the equivalent of saying that vitamin D is not useful because it doesn’t prevent scurvy.

  41. erwinalber

    Alison, if the vaccine virus strain didn’t match the circulating strain, it obviously means that vaccination is a hit and miss affair similar to a lottery. This is as it is well known particularly the case with flu vaccines, where vaccine developers resort to crystal ball gazing to try to predict which virus strains will be circulating in the coming flu season, as the vaccine has to be produced in advance.

    That they mostly get it wrong is clearly evident by the fact that the flu vaccines are (like the mumps vaccine, it seems) notoriously useless. Not that flu vaccines “work”, even if by some miracle the vaccine virus strains happens to match the circulating strains.

    “There is no evidence that any influenza vaccine thus far developed is effective in preventing or mitigating any attack of influenza. The producers of these vaccines know that they are worthless, but they go on selling them anyway.”

    ~Dr. J. Anthony Morris.

    As a distinguished virologist and former Chief Vaccine Control Officer at the U.S. Food and Drug Administration who was involved in the development of flu vaccines, Dr. Morris knows what he is talking about. Dr Morris incidentally also said:

    “There is a great deal of evidence to prove that immunisation of children does more harm than good.” (this is IMO not entirely correct, as immunisations don’t do ANY good).

    Blaming vaccine failure on non-matching strains is however a red herring, because vaccines don’t work, full stop. The theory sounds good in theory; the problem is that it is just a theory, and an unproven one at that. To be accurate, it is not only an un-proven theory, but a dis-proven theory.

    Vaccines simply don’t work – at least not in the way we are told they do. The absence of infection/disease in vaccinated people which is assumed to be vaccine-induced immunity is in fact the consequence of the immune system having been disturbed by repeated injections to the point where it is no longer capable of mounting a normal and healthy response via a fever and (in the case of measles, rubella and chicken pox) a rash, disease symptoms the medical profession tries very hard to suppress and eradicate, seemingly oblivious that these processes are the organism’s way of dealing with an immune challenge.

    So we have the ludicrous spectacle of clueless doctors trying to suppress nature’s normal and healthy functioning by poisoning people’s organisms with highly toxic injections, thereby impairing these processes. Or they lower a fever, thereby sabotaging the immune system’s prime line of defense. It makes one wonder how many of the very few people who still die from “vaccine-preventable” diseases in developed countries are actually victims of inappropriate medical treatment, or lack of appropriate treatment, with Vitamin A, C and D.

    Goethe once said. “There is nothing more frightful than ignorance in action.” This is certainly true as far as the medical approach to infectious diseases is concerned, particularly the medical superstition Edward Jenner so foolishly started over 200 years ago.

  42. Grant Jacobs


    I think the production of bacterial meningitis vaccines is another counter argument to eliminatevariables suggestion that:
    “The vaccine boom is alive and well when vaccines are being created for simple bacteria that are only around due to poor sanitation and exposure to fecal waste.”

    I recall reading an argument for vaccines for diseases that might otherwise mainly be associated with sanitation on the grounds that vaccines are immediate and effective regardless of wider circumstances. There seems to be a case for this once you consider the wider circumstances; the argument eliminatevariables puts forward works only if you ignore them (i.e. it is perhaps too idealistic/simplistic for the real world).

    For example, I think most people would agree that fixing sanitation issues in poor or war-torn countries are socio-political efforts as well as “just” public health-related ones. Vaccination can provide some relief despite wider issues, which may take some time to resolve. Obviously you’d ideally prefer to fix the wider issues, given (an easy) choice, but that’s not always easy, nor quick. There’s also the strain on (often limited) medical facilities to consider. Vaccines also potentially avoid the problem of bacterial resistance to antibiotics. (I write ‘potentially’ as I’m a little wary of the notion that vaccines are a ‘bullet-proof’ solution to this issue.) And so on. When you look at the wider picture vaccines may have a justifiable role for these diseases, too.

  43. Grant Jacobs

    Continuing my side-line commentary, a few further corrections to misinformation from Alber.

    He wrote earlier:

    unvaccinated children don’t get sick and become disabled or die because of a presumed lack of protection against infectious diseases

    then tries to justify this with examples of individual cases where — in his mistaken reading — unvaccinated children have not become infected.

    Leaving looking at the specific claims for later in this reply, the argument itself is a false argument. For his claim to be true children there would have to be no examples anywhere of people becoming ill subsequent to vaccination levels lowering or ceasing. Technically you would only have to show a single case of children becoming ill subsequent to ceasing or reducing vaccination to rebut his claim. In practice there are many examples to choose from. It follows that his claim is false, even without looking at “evidence” he offers.

    (You could argue his citations are red-herring when looked at this way, distracting from the fact that the argument itself is false. Some examples of disease returning when vaccination levels dropped were given earlier. There are plenty of others.)

    Since I wrote this (on Sunday), Alison has dealt with the Swiss example Alber puts forward, so let me deal with the other.

    Alber cites a German case with a selective use of statistics from a book ‘Vaccination -A Business Based on Fear’ (such an unbiased source, that), using a graph that presents only mortality statistics. This was very ably explained to him at the time by Stephen Loeffelholz, who pointed out that the rate of pertussis infection in fact rose substantially on the vaccine being withdrawn and was substantially higher than in neighbouring countries with the vaccine, and gives a references that explain this. You are best to read his full reply, but to quote one paragraph:

    “These are two similar populations [East and West Germany] in similar climates. Despite the better living conditions in West Germany, their incident rate for pertussis was ~200x greater than those in East Germany, where the vaccine was being given. These numbers tell a much different, and more pertinent, story than the mortality graph above.”

    I would like to think that readers recognise, that Alber would re-present this somewhere else (i.e. here) as if he has not be corrected illustrates that he is unwilling to look at what evidence he presents really shows. (Alber’s reply to Stephen’s explanation was to try dismiss the reality as Stephen presented it by having the vaccines cause the disease with some inside-out and disturbing illogic.)

    A focus only on mortality invariably distorts the picture and it is one that over the years I have repeatedly seen presented by those with anti-vaccine views.

    Infection matters too. (People presenting mortality-only arguments seem want to ignore ill children in their desire to self-justify their anti-vaccine views, which is doubly bizarre as it conflicts with their own claim to be wanting to help children.)

    Use of hospital and wider medical resources matter, too. In wealthy countries the death rate from some of these illnesses are low in part because of intensive care when someone is very ill. To suggest that it is ‘alright’ to load more cases into the medical system on this basis is, to be excessively polite about it, short-sighted. You could straight-forwardly argue that one way to assist limited hospital and doctor resources is to prevent infection from occurring, and measure and justify the costs of vaccination against this.

    I could continue but I have other things to do. One of the problems with people like Alber is that by throwing false claim after false claim they can try drown out corrections simply because it takes less effort to present false statements than it takes for false statements to be corrected. (A slightly more formal elaboration of this the ‘Gish Gallop’ – there should be a wikipedia entry for those not familiar with this term.)

  44. drmike


    Sorry, I didn’t realise that your understanding of science was so limited that you didn’t understand what I meant by “apparent failure.” If I had, I would have explained what I meant more thoroughly. However, Alison has done an excellent job of doing so, so no point repeating it.
    Or perhaps you didn’t understand what I meant because you are so used to cherry picking phrases that you think support your point of view, you are incapable of reading and understanding an abstract (let alone a scientific paper) in its entirety?
    I have to agree with Matty, it seems to me you are a well meaning person. But your interpretation of the science is just so flawed, it’s depressing. And I think the insults and slurs you throw around when people disagree with you is just plain rude.

  45. Alison Campbell

    @ Erwin:
    From the PubMed paper’s abstract: 3. Despite its reported Swiss origin, the Rubini strain does not belong to the mumps virus lineages recently circulating in this area but is closely related to American mumps virus strains. In other words, in retrospect the vaccine used would have been unlikely to offer full protection against the strain of the mumps virus then circulating in Switzerland. The fact that this is clearly stated in the abstract suggests that you either didn’t read the abstract properly, let alone the paper, or that you don’t understand the science involved.

    Given that the vaccine strain was not optimal then it is not surprising that of those who developed mumps, 80% were vaccinated. (There is also the point – which I wrote about in a previous post – that individuals vary in the strength of their response to the vaccine. This is an observed fact, however much you chose to ignore it.)

    However, what needs to be taken into consideration is the proportion of the vaccinated & unvaccinated cohorts who developed mumps ie of the total vaccinated population, what was the proportion who became ill? And similarly, of the total unvaccinated population, what % developed mumps?

    The maths for this has been done already, for outbreaks in other countries. The outcome of one study was that the unvaccinated were 23x more likely to develop the disease than those in the fully-vaccinated group.

  46. erwinalber

    drmike – are you a real doctor? I ask because it would explain a lot.

    You told me that “it is obvious you don’t understand the content as the apparent “failure” of the mumps vaccine is quite clearly explained.”

    “Apparent” failure??? You must be kidding, right?

    Some 15000 children got mumps, 80% of them vaccinated!!

    What part of this don’t YOU understand?

    Of course the researchers were scrambling for explanations for this embarrassing fiasco, but they themselves stated – I quote their exact words:

    “…we investigated the complex problem of large scale vaccine failure in Switzerland.”

    Please note, drmike: LARGE SCALE FAILURE – and NOT “apparent” failure!

    Can you read?

    Do you understand?

    Do you understand that this is from PubMed?

    Now go and stand in the corner!

  47. drmike

    Erwinalber – I find it quite hypocritical of you to suggest that I would engage in scaremongering when the facebook link you included in your last posting is blatant scaremongering.
    Your criticisms of vaccines continue to centre around conspiracy theories and cherry picking of sections of research papers that taken out of content appear to lend tentative support to your arguments.
    With regards to the ncbi link you posted in your previous link it is obvious you don’t understand the content as the apparent “failure” of the mumps vaccine is quite clearly explained.

    Again I will ask you – if vaccines are so dangerous then why do the majority of people have no ill effects after receiving vaccines?

  48. erwinalber

    dr mike, vaccination status makes little if any difference to disease susceptibiltiy and while there may be examples of disease outbreaks among unvaccinated childen, there are also many examples of disease outbreaks affecting vaccinated children, as per this example: .

    [Mumps epidemic in vaccinated children in West Switzerland]
    [Article in German]
    Ströhle A, Eggenberger K, Steiner CA, Matter L, Germann D.
    Institut fr Medizinische Mikrobiologie, Universität Bern.
    Comment in:
    Schweiz Med Wochenschr. 1997 Nov 22;127(47):1970-1.

    Since 1991, 6 years after the recommendation of universal childhood vaccination against measles, mumps, and rubella (MMR triple vaccine), Switzerland is confronted with a large number of mumps cases affecting both vaccinated and unvaccinated children. Up to 80% of the children suffering from mumps between 1991 and 1995 had previously been vaccinated…


    Germany suspended pertussis vaccination for 16 years (1975 – 1991), yet resulting deadly whooping cough epidemics some had predicted did not eventuate. There was a slight increase in mortality in 1980 when there was an outbreak of pertussis, but overall, the declining trend in pertussis mortality continued unaffected.


    It therefore seems to me that you have fallen prey to – and engage in – the kind of scaremongering used to motivate parents to allow their children to be poisoned with these vile injections dressed up as “disease prevention” or “immunisation.” .

  49. Grant Jacobs


    I’ve cut’n’pasted part of a comment I wrote in another thread (Peter‘s “Sins of omission…” thread) about Alber that might help inform you. We don’t have blockquotes in comments here, so consider up to “illnesses or death” to be a blockquote:

    Regards Alber, let me share with you a thread on his Facebook site that convinced me to stop conversing with him on an earlier vaccine thread on sciblogs. I would express my personal opinions, but I feel as if I’d be damned for it even though it’s a sincerely held concern. Instead I’ll present this as neutrally as I can and let you form your own ideas. (You can see the full thread referred to in the link I’ve supplied.)
    In this thread, a commenter posted onto Alber’s Facebook site a rambling “fear of god” sermon the commenter found elsewhere on the ‘net, which runs along the lines of:

    “Here, God spoke to me saying ‘my son, every person will be asked to compulsorily take immunization against the swine flu in the next few days. This is a disguise. They will in the process be infected with demons from the abyss […]”


    This “pastor” (assuming he exists and is real – this is the internet) links biblical references to “swine” with swine flu, and recounts (paraphrasing) ‘receiving a vision’ that makes out those giving vaccines as “the enemy”, and works it’s way to end-times religious ideas.

    Alber replies, broadly agreeing, and writes “It seesm fairly clear what the vision is referring to”, pointing his readers an internet bullet-list flyer, which he has placed on his Facebook pages, drawing his readers attention to an — in Alber’s words — “key point”:

    “Liquid crystals and nano-sized microchips may have been included into the vaccines to facilitate mind control at a distance.”

    then adds himself “I understand that that the chips can also be used to induce illness or death.”

    Alber’s reply to my comment above ended:

    Regarding micro-chips: I suggest you don’t concern your pretty little head about it, Grant. It would be a waste of time, as it appears that like Alison and some others, you are already remote-controlled.

    I would give you my opinion on this, but as I wrote I feel as if I’d be damned for it even though a sincerely-held opinion. Bottom line is that I prefer instead to address any readers, correcting misconceptions he is making.

  50. Matty Smith

    How does one engage with you, Erwin? You must be a well-meaning person. You clearly think you have a wealth of information supporting your views. You do have a wealth information at your fingertips, but you clearly don’t know how to interpret any of it. You’re even right to be wary of the profit motives in the pharmaceutical and medical industries.

    At the same time, you show a complete reluctance to actually confront uncomfortable truths: “unvaccinated children don’t get sick and become disabled or die because of a presumed lack of protection against infectious diseases”

    This simply is a half-truth. Unvaccinated children don’t often become sick so long as everybody else is getting their vaccines. When vaccine levels in general drop they do get very sick, hence the outbreaks of measles around the world in recent years. Unvaccinated children are at much greater risk, and they are a health risk to everybody everywhere. But even to say this seems pointless. You disagree. I know.

    How do we engage with you Erwin?

    How do we engage with you when everything you believe about medicine actually is a “a hodge-podge of half truth and lies”? When you’re busy supporting a massive conglomerate of liars and cheats promoting ineffective and sometimes harmful substances for billions and billions and dollars collectively?
    You’re everything you hate and you don’t even know it. You’re a shill for well-intentioned killers. I wish I could help you. I wish I could stop you harming others.

    How do we engage with you Erwin?

    Not like this perhaps, but I have to ask, even if it just to know what you might possibly say. Is there any way to engage with you that’s more respectful that mockery, but that isn’t a waste of everyone’s time?

  51. drmike

    Hi Grant

    Thanks for the point about vaccines now being able to treat some bacterial infections.
    I think the production of bacterial meningitis vaccines is another counter argument to eliminatevariables suggestion that:
    “The vaccine boom is alive and well when vaccines are being created for simple bacteria that are only around due to poor sanitation and exposure to fecal waste.”

  52. drmike


    It seems to me that value of vaccines is in preventing millions of people from suffering from debilitating diseases as the result of infections. In my opinion you ignore the majority of scientific evidence and focus on “fringe” beliefs and conspiracy theories.

    You ignore the fact that the majority of scientists support vaccines effectiveness have chosen to be scientists because they want to make the world a better place. Most scientists do not work for pharmaceutical companies so repeated claims that they are ignorant or in the pockets of drug companies is insulting.

    If vaccines are so bad and cause so much harm, then why do the majority of people, like myself, who have received multiple vaccinations in their lives remain healthy after every vacccination?

    Why are their examples around the world of unvaccinated children who suffer debilitating injuries when they do become infected with these diseases?

    Why does disease break out where ever the number of immunised children started dropping?

  53. erwinalber

    drmike, it seems to me that the value of vaccines is entirely from the perspective of the medical-pharmaceutical establishment, in the form or tax-payer dollars flowing into its bank accounts.

  54. erwinalber

    Smallpox vaccination never protected anyone, but sickened, maimed and killed countless people. It’s therefore not surprising that people in some places as e.g. in Britain and in Canada rioted in the streets when vaccination was made compulsory, as they were already familiar with the brain damage, deaths and general mayhem this barbarous vaccine was causing.

    Edward Jenner later in his life apparently feared that he had unleashed something terrible on humankind. He indeed had.

    The myth that smallpox vaccination eradicated smallpox is a white-washed version of history promoted to justify this ongoing crime against humankind.

    To find out the truth about smallpox vaccination, download/view this free e-book:

    ‘Horrors of Vaccination Exposed and Illustrated’ by Chas Higgins (1920).

  55. Grant Jacobs

    Just to clarify in case anyone reading this is mislead by Alber’s claims:

    that unvaccinated children don’t get sick and become disabled or die because of a presumed lack of protection against infectious diseases

    I wrote earlier that I feel one of the simpler ways of understanding the effectiveness of vaccines is to look to where they were stopped and note the return of the disease the vaccine aims to prevent. Alison & I pointed to a couple of examples, there are many others.

    that unvaccinated children are not a dwindling but a growing minority consisting of boys and girls who are happy, healthy and thriving.

    I haven’t time to track them down, but I have seen reports that the number of flu vaccinations, for example, rose this year. Likewise, once the silliness from the Wakefield MMR fuss was cleared up, vaccination rose. And so on. It’s more a case of dips downward of lower vaccination levels with misleading reports, followed by rises when people realise the value of the vaccines.

  56. Grant Jacobs


    comparing them with out a proper control … A placebo would have sufficed using actual saline.

    The trial was controlled, as it says in both the abstract you give and the clinical trial registry entry linked in that abstract. (The abstract directly refers to a placebo. I haven’t read the paper itself, but the abstract and the clinical trial entry make this clear enough.)

    Also, why is SP vaccine no longer used yet other vaccines are still recommended

    For most infections other animals are natural hosts so even if you eliminated it in humans, those infections would still be “out there” to infect people if given an opportunity. Stop vaccination and the infection still “out there” will be able infect susceptible people.

    Smallpox is different because we are the only known host and smallpox cannot survive outside the host body for long (only a few days in normal conditions). Once smallpox is (& was!) eliminated from humans, it has no host to live on and is gone.


    You can develop vaccines for bacteria infections, a few are under development and use, e.g. for bacterial meningitis or pneumococcus. (The MeNZB vaccine is an example.) These are more recent developments; previously vaccines were only against viruses.

  57. erwinalber

    Thanks for blotting out the children’s faces Peter.

    You say: “I think you and the parents of those children really need to reflect on what you doing in using these children to make an ideological point and putting their images in the public domain on a public website.”

    The “ideological” point the parents of these children and I are making is

    1. that it’s parents’ right and privilege NOT to vaccinate their children

    2. that unvaccinated children don’t get sick and become disabled or die because of a presumed lack of protection against infectious diseases

    3. that unvaccinated children are not a dwindling but a growing minority consisting of boys and girls who are happy, healthy and thriving.


  58. drmike

    eliminatevariables quoted:
    “Occasionally, a fulminant form of hepatitis develops, with overall patient population mortality rates ranging between 0.5% – 4.0%. Fulminate hepatitis occurs more frequently in pregnancy and regularly induces a mortality rate of 20% among pregnant women in the 3rd trimester.”

    What a terrible toll, 20% of pregnant women and up to 4% in the general population. I hope this vaccine turns out to be effective long term.

    Eliminatevariables also states that:
    “The vaccine boom is alive and well when vaccines are being created for simple bacteria that are only around due to poor sanitation and exposure to fecal waste.”

    Ummm, I thought vaccines treated viruses not simple bacteria?
    If you read the information sheet at the link quoted by eliminate variables you will find the following statement:
    “Hepatitis E is a viral disease, and as such, antibiotics are of no value in the treatment of the infection. “

  59. eliminatevariables

    “It appears a new vaccine is performing rather well




    The first link only shows that those vaccinated did not get sick 30 days after the 3rd dose…while that seems encouraging, 30 days is nothing to celebrate.

    A follow up of a year may prove to be more logical.

    Also comparing one vaccine to another for safety concerns and comparing them with out a proper control is hardly a safety study.
    A placebo would have sufficed using actual saline.

    WHO website states:

    “The period of communicability is unknown. There are no chronic infections reported.

    Hepatitis E virus causes acute sporadic and epidemic viral hepatitis. Symptomatic HEV infection is most common in young adults aged 15-40 years. Although HEV infection is frequent in children, it is mostly asymptomatic or causes a very mild illness without jaundice (anicteric) that goes undiagnosed. ”

    How severe is Hep E????

    WHO states:

    “In general, hepatitis E is a self-limiting viral infection followed by recovery. Prolonged viraemia or faecal shedding are unusual and chronic infection does not occur.

    Occasionally, a fulminant form of hepatitis develops, with overall patient population mortality rates ranging between 0.5% – 4.0%. Fulminate hepatitis occurs more frequently in pregnancy and regularly induces a mortality rate of 20% among pregnant women in the 3rd trimester.”


    The vaccine boom is alive and well when vaccines are being created for simple bacteria that are only around due to poor sanitation and exposure to fecal waste.

  60. eliminatevariables


    The SP CDC link list no references for SP eradication, only an opinionated piece. The jstor link wont work….do you have references for SP eradication such as number vaccinated, vaccine components used, local health number validations of those infected vs those benefitting from the vaccine. I am doing a report and unable thus far to find references, citations or any evidence at all that the vaccine eradicated SP.

    Also, why is SP vaccine no longer used yet other vaccines are still recommended in combo shots despite their obvious low numbers of infection or infected even before vaccination like Diptheria for example, which was at the time a rare disease with less that 140,000 cases one year before the vaccines was developed.

    I know your busy but I have searched high and dry and unable to find any relavent, platform proof of SP being eradicated by Vaccination.


  61. Peter Griffin

    Thought I’d point out that the picture I used above has been modified to black out the faces of the children portrayed in them…

    here’s why…

    From Erwin Alber:

    Dear SciBlogs people,
    Peter Griffin posted a screenshot of my ‘Vaccination Information Network’ (VINE) in his article about same.

    The 3 teenagers featured on the bottom photo of th screenshot have complained to me that their photo was posted on Sciblogs without their permission and have asked that it be removed. They were quite upset that this was posted in this manner and have asked me to remove the photo from my collection, as well.

    I would therefore appreciate it if this photo could be deleted from the screenshot, or blooted out.

    Thank you in advance for your cooperation.

    And my response to him…

    Hi Erwin,

    When I’m back near a computer I will block out their faces as they have requested.

    However, I think you and the parents of those children really need to reflect on what you doing in using these children to make an ideological point and putting their images in the public domain on a public website.

    It was you doing that that compelled me to write the piece in the first place. If you and your VINE friends won’t vaccinate your children that’s one thing.
    Using their stories to manipulate others into doing the same is another thing entirely.

  62. Alison Campbell

    Have you actually read what ERV is saying?
    As for vaccines not having any protective effect: smallpox! SMALLPOX!!

  63. erwinalber

    Vaccinations don’t have ANY protective effect Alison, so what on earth are you rambling on about now? A less protective effect is not possible if there is none in the first place.

    This kind of flawed logic is also evident in the concept of “booster” vaccinations. The rationale (if one can call it that) seems to be that if something is useless, more of it may be better – or if not better, at least more profitable! .

    The concept of “herd immunity” is an interesting one as well. It means that vaccination is basically something for people afflicted by a herd mentality, which makes them believe that if enough people are injected with vaccines which are obviously useless, everyone will magically become immune when a certain percentage is reached and the disease will be eradicated.

    Oh my God – I can’t stand it!!!

  64. guerillasurgeon

    ‘It works for me’ is meaningless when applied to medicine. Or other scientific stuff for that matter.

  65. Alison Campbell

    Ah yes, Malawi – where we’re told that homeopathy & homoepathic ‘vaccines’ can cure all that ails you (especially AIDS & malaria): http://www.arhf.nl/pc-technology.php (if this stuff’s so good, you have to wonder why the author can’t provide any actual data, only anecdotes).

  66. Grant Jacobs

    It would, I’ve followed that story. I wish I’d kept the sources, but there are other examples I think are clearer, several from Western nations. (I can recall most of them, but it’d take time to track down decent sources again.) I prefer some of those that haven’t been in the news as much as people seem less inclined to make “us v. them” arguments about them.

    Malawi is another country with a more recent religion-related drop in vaccination and subsequent increase in disease. (Measles this time.)

  67. Alison Campbell

    The resurgence of polio in Nigeria, following some rather hysterical claims by religious leaders that led to a drop in vaccination rates, would be a case in point.

  68. Grant Jacobs

    the fact that most doctors believe that vaccines prevent diseases doesn’t make it true either.

    Anecdotes may not count for much but the very large number of research studies demonstrating that vaccines clearly do prevent disease do.

    One of the simplest and clearest ways of seeing it for those who do not or will not look at the science and prefer anecdote (as you seem to) is simply to look to where a particular vaccines have been stopped: the particular disease targeted by the vaccine recurs very quickly because the infectious cause of the disease is still out there. (The sole exception to this is smallpox, as humans are the only natural host to the variola virus that causes smallpox.)

    There are several types of examples of this. If I find time I may write an article presenting some of them. An advantage I find with these examples is that those that don’t understand the science don’t need to explore the detailed of the diseases or know much stats, the outcome is quite clear: stop the vaccine, the disease returns, ergo what stopped the disease was the vaccine. (Scientists prefer direct causative studies to these examples, as they establish cause and effect directly.)

  69. drmike

    Thanks for your reply erwinalber. So to summarise your beliefs you:
    1) believe that vaccines have no benefits and are harmful
    2) do not believe in evolution
    3) believe “evil” pharma are behind vaccines
    4) believe homeopathy is a valid therapy

    Let me know if I have any of the above wrong, I would hate to have misunderstood your position.

    I think your comment regarding sciblogs is incorrect. Sciblogs is a forum for scientists and those interested in science to discuss what is happening in science and communicate the same things to the public.
    In my opinion your arguments demonstrate the very need for blogs such as sciblogs which focus on fact and research rather than using arguments which misrepresent scientific research and scientists, use fear and other emotive arguments and rely on anecdotes and cherry picked data. And of course you always throw in the various insults such as “anyone who is not yet completely brain dead”.
    Fortunately, such arguments do not work here. I my self have explored the “theories” put forward by a range of pseudoscientific causes including the antivaccine compaigners, the homeopaths and AIDS denialists and always find them to be confused, ill informed and irrational.

  70. erwinalber

    Thanks for your reply, drmike, but the fact that most doctors believe that vaccines prevent diseases doesn’t make it true either.

    Your opinion about homoeopathy may be relevant to you, but it isn’t to me because it works for me and other people I know.

    Evolution theory is IMO like vaccination theory a hodge-podge of half truth and lies. Both rely on a twisted way of looking at reality,

    I admit to having made an untruthful statement when I claimed that vaccines are of no benefit, because they are quite obviously of enormous benefit – to the mafia that runs this ugly and brutal racket for profit. Unfortunately, many parents mistakenly believe that when they are told that the benefits of vaccines far outweigh the risks, the benefits referred to cooncern protection against diseases. This is however at best wishful thinking.

    As for “children who have been harmed by the very diseases vaccines are designed to prevent” : vaccines may have been designed to prevent diseases, but have never succeeded in doing so. This is however largely irrelevant, because as long as a majority of people can be persuaded that vaccines protect against diseases, the profits earned from this government-promoted and financed child abuse will keep rolling into the pockets of the government’s partner-in-crime, the medical-pHARMarmaceutical establishment.

    It seems very obvious to me why anti-vaxers are attacked: it’s not even so much that their belief that vaccination is a public health menace makes a dent into profits, but more so the threat of their belief spreading to other parents and creating anxiety and dissent in their ranks that is considered a problem.

    Websites like Sciblogs and Quackwatch are attempts to neutralise this threat. It after all won’t do to have a control group of healthy and triving unvaccinated children which shows that asthma allergies, eczema, ear inflammation, neurological, behavioural and immunological disorders are far more prevalent in vaccinated children, as happens to be the case.

    It is quite obvious to anyone who is not yet completely brain-dead, why NO studies comparing the health of vaccinated with that of unvaccinated children are being undertaken. I’ll let you try to figure it out.

  71. drmike


    Just because you can name a few medicos who oppose vaccines doesn’t make it true. There are a number of medicos who use homeopathy, a “therapy” which has demonstrated no effect beyond placebo. There are also no doubt a few medicos who don’t believe in evolution, a view I think you have expressed, if I remember your previous posts correctly.
    I’m sure you honestly believe that vaccines are harmful, but your arguments don’t seem to hold up when I research them further, and I find your aggressive comments against those who disagree with you very off putting. Are you sure that in all of your research you there are no benefits of vaccines and have never come across children who have been harmed by the very diseases vaccines are designed to prevent?

  72. erwinalber

    Thank you for honouring me by writing this article about VINE!
    🙂 The fact that you did shows that I must be doing something right!

    I want to point out that I used to believe in vaccinations for the best part of my life – until I came across infectious disease mortality graphs which clearly showed that vaccines have never prevented any diseases.

    Here is a link to some of the graphs (click on each ‘Read more..’ to view graphs):

    Soon after, I came across a severely vaccine-brain-damaged girl, which made me realise that vaccines are not only ineffective, but also harmful.

    Check out this site to view a horrendous vaccine reaction:

    Ian’s Voice Home Page – This site is dedicated to giving voice to our son Ian Larsen Gromowski. Our child died of an adverse reaction to the hepatitis B vaccine. …

    Next, I found out that not even doctors are unanymously in favour of vaccinations, as these quotes show:

    “Belief in immunization is a form of delusional insanity.”
    Dr Herbert Shelton

    “Wen I looked into it further, I found that this whole vaccine business was indeed a gigantic hoax. Most doctors believe that vaccines are useful, but if one looks at the proper statistics, one finds that this is not so.”
    Dr A Kalokerinos MD, Australia

    “Our society is littered with millions of children who have been harmed in one way or another by vaccines. Also, let us not forget the millions of parents who had to watch helplessly as their children’s lives have been destroyed by devastating vaccination programmes.”
    Dr Russell Blaylock MD, US neurosurgeon

    “We are slowly but surely destroying the health and the intelligence of our coming generations with vaccination. Vaccination is child abuse and a crime against humanity.”
    Dr med Gerhard Buchwald, Germany

    I’ll end off with these two quotes:

    “Whenever you find yourself on the side of the majority, it is time to pause and reflect.”
    Mark Twain

    “Men, it has been well said, think in herds; it will be seen that they go mad in herds, while they only recover their senses slowly, and one by one.”
    Charles Mackay

    VINE is a place where parents can share ideas and information which helps them and others recover their senses from the insidious brain-washing that would have us believe that “Vaccination is a safe and effective way of preventing diseases”. As far as i am concerned, it isn’t.

    My conclusion after 20 years of researching the vaccination issue is that vaccination is an organised criminal enterprise dressed up as disease prevention.

    My aim is to promote an idea whose time has not only come, but is over 200 years overdue – a vaccine-free world! 🙂

  73. diaz

    If you show pictures of sick kids then that’s ‘scaremongering’ (never mind that they’ll make the most lurid claims themselves). I don’t believe the claims like of children “never getting sick”, that’s not how it works. I suppose that is part of the delusion – that it won’t happen to them, that those diseases are harmless.

    This shows the power of anecdotes though, the counter-message needs to get out that vaccine preventable illnesses can and do cause harm.

Comments are closed.