This is a common statement by vaccine opponents. In making these statements they use a subtle ruse and show graphs that appear to show that the death rate from diseases was decreasing long before immunizations were developed. There are several things to know about this. One is that they are referring to death rate not the incidence of the disease–more on this below. Second, the graphs–which were taken from government statistics–date back to the early 1900s and were not all that accurate. For the most part the numbers are just a guess at what was happening. There was not the mass communication or information in the 1920s that we have now. Hence it would be difficult to separate out whether a person dying from fever and a rash died from scarlet fever or measles. In fact, some common causes of death were not well known at that time–sickle cell anemia and myocardial infarction (heart attacks) for example. Finally, some of the graphs which are said to show declines really do not suggest that at all. Deaths from polio were fairly stable over the 20 year span immediately before polio vaccines were introduced and then plunged dramatically once it was used.

There is some truth to the statement that mortality was decreasing before vaccines were introduced. Better and more widespread medical care, intravenous fluids, and iron lungs for polio victims all decreased the mortality. But mortality rates are not the same as incidence rates. As an analogy, if one looked at the mortality rate from riding horses the paralyzing injury to Christopher Reeve (Superman) would not show up, yet no one would deny that his injury was severe. Rubella or 3 days measles is a very mild disease in children and adults without any mortality unless a pregnant mother passes it on to her baby where it causes deafness, blindness (at one time it was the leading cause of blindness), mental retardation and other birth defects. In 1968, 28,000 babies suffered blindness from congenital rubella—but no mortality rate would capture that handicap.

If, as some antivaccination opponents allege, disease were decreasing before immunizations, why is there still chickenpox? Why did we see a fall in the incidence once immunization against it was started? Why was HIB disease present until the 1990s? Why did we see resurgences of measles in the 1980s when it should have been long gone?

Like most anti-vaccination claims there is some truth to this. When live polio vaccine was used there was a small chance of contracting polio and have vaccine associated paralysis. It was 1 in 2,400,000. For a long time it was felt the benefit outweighed that small risk. Now we no longer use that vaccine and there is no longer that risk.

There was some concern that Hepatitis B vaccine could cause multiple sclerosis and years ago a similar concern about measles. In fact, France briefly interrupted use of hepatitis B vaccine. Further studies have shown that there is no association.

This is a common statement or claim and it would be nice if it were true but it just isn’t. If the natural immune system was enough we wouldn’t have any diseases at all.

This is very ridiculous and false claim used by many vaccine opponents that requires a careful answer. First of all, the corollary–i.e. that there is no evidence who are immunized are any less healthier that those who are not is a true statement. Being immunized does not make someone less healthy. But returning to the original statement "There is no evidence that people who are immunized are any healthier than those who are not." There are several considerations:

Another way of saying this:  I was immunized against polio. My three cousins were not. Two of my cousins did not get polio and they are as healthy as I am. My third cousin got polio before the vaccine was available and was partially paralyzed. For a long time she used crutches now she is in a wheel chair. This unimmunized person is not as healthy as the immunized me.

This also is partly true. Newborns do inherit some antibodies from their mother and breast feeding is partially protective. Unfortunately, the maternal antibodies are not completely protective. Some newborns are infected with Group B Strep disease at birth and die. Maternal antibodies wane in the first few months and around 6-8 weeks of age we start to see HIB disease, pneumococcal disease etc.

This is an option but while waiting your child is at one of his most vulnerable times and you are not protecting him as much as you could. Many of the diseases that we vaccinate with are more common and perhaps more serious in the first 2 years of life.

These two are grouped together. If you are reading a book and you see either one of these statements then it should be a red flag as to how far the author will go to distort the truth.

HIB vaccine has evolved over the years from a PRP-HIB vaccine in the early 80s to a much more effective conjugated HIB vaccine. When PRP-HIB came out in the 80s there was a brief concern that in the first two weeks after giving the vaccine any antibodies that a child had would go towards the vaccine thereby decreasing the amount of antibody in his blood stream and temporarily rendering him more susceptible. This was a theory and a concern but it was shown not to be true. PRP-HIB was not a very immunogenic vaccine–i.e. the body did not react to it very much. Initially, it was not given to kids under age 2, then eventually 18 months.

Some races and ethnic groups have higher incidence of HIB disease than others. Native Americans have terrible problems with HIB disease. They can get it repeatedly (unlike most other people who get lifetime immunity if they get it once and live through it). Guess what? Native Americans did not react to the PRP-HIB vaccine just like they do not react well to the natural disease. Hence there is a study on native Americans showing that PRP-HIB was only 48% protective. This is where the statement that HIB vaccine doesn’t work is derived.

Nowadays we use one of several conjugated HIB vaccines. These vaccines can start to protect 2 month old infants. Prior to the introduction of HIB vaccine there was about 20,000 cases of HIB disease per year. The first year conjugate HIB was given to 2 month old infants the number dropped to 60 cases. Nowadays the only children who get HIB disease are ones with immune deficiencies or less than 2 doses of HIB.

There is no scientific evidence that shows this. In fact, children who are vaccinated are less likely to die from SIDS.

Some vaccines are grown in animal tissue cultures. The original cell line to grow MMR vaccine did come from an aborted fetus. This cell line is still used.

Most often the suggestion is that vaccines overwhelm the immune system from so many shots. In fact, the number of antigen the body has to process from shots is minuscule. Babies in the womb begin reacting to antigens and once born are exposed to thousands per minute. There is no evidence that vaccine break down the immune system.

This is not a true statement. In fact, a person can visit a web site and see how many claims have been made yearly against vaccines. It has been as low as 60 a year. 60 claims out of 20,000,000 shots given. The total number of claims fluctuates depending who anti-vaccination claim is in vogue.

Furthermore, think about this for a second if an alternative healthcare provider or a physician is recommending that you don’t immunize your child. If a child is immunized and the child is injured by the vaccine then is a fund that will provide compensation to the damaged child. If you listen to a vaccine opponent and your child suffers harm from a vaccine preventable disease, will that opponent provide for the child’s care? Will he assume liability?