Extraits de sites "pro-vaccination"

This brings us to the other major slogan of the rally, namely “Too Many, Too Soon.” This, too, is a conveniently vague but oh-so-reasonable-sounding slogan. It, like “Green Our Vaccines,” is also another strategy to move the goalposts. The concept is based on the expansion of the number of recommended vaccines since 1983. Confusing correlation with causation yet again, anti-vaccine activists make the observation that the prevalence of autism has increased markedly since 1983, when the number of vaccines recommended for infants and small children was ten, to now, when the recommended number is 36. Indeed, this was a huge component of Generation Rescue’s deceptive full-page advertisement in USA Today that appeared back in February. The concept is simple. It is postulated that the increasing number of vaccines somehow “overwhelms” the immune system or causes some sort of “aggregate” toxicity that is responsible not just for autism, but a variety of chronic diseases, such as obesity and type II diabetes, asthma, and autoimmune diseases. That there is no even mildly compelling scientific or epidemiological evidence to support these claims doesn’t matter. Antivaccinationists have thus far successfully wrapped themselves in the mantle of caution that to most parents without a background in science or epidemiology seems eminently reasonable. It also sounds, on the surface at least, eminently reasonable when antivaccination activists claim that it’s the combination of vaccines that cause all these neurodevelopmental problems like autism. It’s also a conveniently difficult to falsify claim. Clearly activists have learned from their mistake with mercury never to make a hypothesis that makes a relatively easily testable prediction. The thimerosal hypothesis made the prediction that if thimerosal in vaccines were removed autism prevalence should fall rather rapidly within 5-7 years, given that the age range when most autism is diagnosed is from 3 to 5. Autism prevalence hasn’t fallen; it’s still rising. Even those who claimed that “it’s the mercury, stupid” and that “autism is a misdiagnosis for mercury poisoning” now realize that neither of these statements is true. The most that can be said from current data is that maybe, just maybe, a very small number of susceptible children could have a reaction that might manifest itself as autistic symptoms–hence the moving on to other “toxins.” In contrast, the “Too Many, Too Soon” hypothesis is much vaguer and difficult to extract easily testable hypotheses from, which is the whole point of it.

Of course, no scientific evidence is ever presented that rises above the level of Dr. Laura Hewitson’s badly designed monkey study, Generation Rescue’s even more poorly designed “telephone survey” of vaccinated and unvaccinated children, or Dan Olmsted’s easily falsified claim that the Amish do not vaccinate and do not get autism to support their contention that the current vaccine schedule is harmful. Moreover, when the GOV movement claims that current vaccines haven’t been tested in combinations, it’s just plain wrong. All new vaccines are tested in clinical trials against the background of the current vaccine schedule. In other words, if it’s a new vaccine not currently recommended, in clinical trials it’s merely added to the current schedule. If the vaccine is for the same disease as a currently used vaccine, then the trial looks at the new vaccine versus the old vaccine, all other vaccines in the schedule remaining the same. The reason we don’t do serial “one-at-a-time” trials is simple, but nonetheless antivaccinationists never seem able to grasp the concept: It would be extremely unethical to withhold protective vaccines from children in order to test them against no vaccines because it would leave the no vaccine group of children vulnerable to vaccine-preventable diseases. In reality, this is yet another thinly-disguised attempt to move the goalposts. More savvy antivaccinationists know that the kind of testing they demand is unethical, prohibitively expensive, and impractical, but demanding it allows them to claim (falsely) that there is no science supporting the safety of the current vaccine schedule and provide a complaint that sounds as though it has merit to those without a background in medicine and clinical trials. Moreover, contrary to the claims that the current vaccine schedule “overloads the immune system,” there are actually fewer antigens now in more vaccines, thanks to better vaccine design. Like the “Green Our Vaccines” slogan, the “Too many, too soon” slogan is also nothing more than a fairly clever strategy of preemptively moving the goalposts. Conveniently, the GOV folks never quite tell us which vaccines should be delayed and why or what the tradeoff would be in terms of exposing children to vaccine-preventable disease for a longer period of time before they are vaccinated. That’s not the point. Casting doubt on the safety and efficacy of vaccines is.


In addition, Generation Rescue released a phone survey in 2007 which, they claimed, demonstrated that vaccinated children were more than 2.5 times as likely to develop autism and attention deficit hyperactivity disorder than were unvaccinated children;[22] however, this study was not published in a peer-reviewed journal and its methodology has been sharply criticized.[23]


Moreover, the CDC study produced estimates of autism prevalence that were consistent with previous studies. In contrast, J. B.’s survey produced estimates of autism and ASDs of 3% in the aggregated data. That’s 1 in 33, approximately 5 times more prevalent than the usually cited estimate of 1 in 166 or 1 in 150. This, too, suggests reporting bias, where parents who have a child with autism or an ASD will be more likely to complete this survey.

Actually, when coupled with all the other problems in the alleged “statistical analysis,” it likely does. Any major interaction between the two main sets of questions that might produce different biases in the different groups would, unless carefully controlled for, invalidate the study. There’s no evidence that SurveyUSA did any of that. Moreover, SurveyUSA is known for asking very concise questions that have been known in the past to produce divergent results using automated telephone polls, which have a number of problems, not the least of which is a much lower response rate than traditional polls. Again, the issue of reporting bias comes up. That’s not to say that it’s not possible to do accurate polls with automated technology, but asking about health problems is difficult, leading me to take any such poll done looking for correlations between vaccines and anything with a huge grain of salt. Moreover, no evidence about response rates or how many parents responded “not sure” for each question is presented, nor is any evidence to show that the sample chosen is representative. I also can’t help but note that the introduction, in which it is stated that “we’ve been hired by a private organization to study the relationship between vaccines and the health of Sonoma County children.” and it is denied that SurveyUSA is “working for the government,” a school system, or a public agency. That sets up an association right there that could lead to bias.


I’ve heard people talk about “simultaneous” and “combination” vaccines. What does this mean? Why are vaccines administered this way?

A combination vaccine consists of two or more different vaccines that have been combined into a single shot. Combination vaccines have been in use in the United States since the mid-1940's. Examples of combination vaccines in current use are: DTaP (diphtheria-tetanus-pertussis), trivalent IPV (three strains of inactivated polio vaccine), MMR (measles-mumps-rubella), DTaP-Hib, and Hib-Hep B (hepatitis B). Simultaneous vaccination is when more than one vaccine shot is administered during the same doctor's visit, usually in separate limbs (e.g. one in each arm). An example of simultaneous vaccination might be administering DTap in one arm or leg and IPV in another arm or leg during the same visit.

Giving a child several vaccinations during the same visit offers two practical advantages. First, we want to immunize children as quickly as possible to give them protection during the vulnerable early months of their lives. Second, giving several vaccinations at the same time means fewer office visits. This saves parents both time and money, and may be less traumatic for the child.

Is simultaneous vaccination with multiple vaccinations safe? Wouldn't it be safer to separate vaccines and spread them out, vaccinating against just one disease at a time?

The available scientific data show that simultaneous vaccination with multiple vaccines has no adverse effect on the normal childhood immune system. A number of studies have been conducted to examine the effects of giving various combinations of vaccines simultaneously. These studies have shown that the recommended vaccines are as effective in combination as they are individually, and that such combinations carry no greater risk for adverse side effects. Consequently, both the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices and the American Academy of Pediatrics recommend simultaneous administration of all routine childhood vaccines when appropriate. Research is underway to find methods to combine more antigens in a single vaccine injection (for example, MMR and chickenpox).

Can so many vaccines, given so early in life, overwhelm a child's immune system, suppressing it so it does not function correctly?

No evidence suggests that the recommended childhood vaccines can “overload” the immune system. In contrast, from the moment babies are born, they are exposed to numerous bacteria and viruses on a daily basis. Eating food introduces new bacteria into the body; numerous bacteria live in the mouth and nose; and an infant places his or her hands or other objects in his or her mouth hundreds of times every hour, exposing the immune system to still more antigens. When a child has a cold they are exposed to at least 4 to 10 antigens and exposure to “strep throat” is about 25 to 50 antigens.

Adverse Events Associated with Childhood Vaccines, a 1994 report from the Institute of Medicine, states: “In the face of these normal events, it seems unlikely that the number of separate antigens contained in childhood vaccines ...would represent an appreciable added burden on the immune system that would be immunosuppressive.”




Before the introduction of measles vaccines, measles virus infected 95%–98% of children by age 18 years [14], and measles was considered an inevitable rite of passage. Exposure was often actively sought for children in early school years because of the greater severity of measles in adults.



Complications with measles are relatively common, ranging from mild and less serious complications such as diarrhea to more serious ones such as pneumonia (either direct viral pneumonia or secondary bacterial pneumonia),[10] otitis media,[11] acute encephalitis (and very rarely SSPE—subacute sclerosing panencephalitis),[12] and corneal ulceration (leading to corneal scarring).[13] Complications are usually more severe in adults who catch the virus.[14] The death rate in the 1920s was around 30% for measles pneumonia.[15]

Between 1987 and 2000, the case fatality rate across the United States was 3 measles-attributable deaths per 1000 cases, or 0.3%.[16] In underdeveloped nations with high rates of malnutrition and poor healthcare, fatality rates have been as high as 28%.[16] In immunocompromised persons (e.g., people with AIDS) the fatality rate is approximately 30%.[17]


Consequences of Failure to Vaccinate

A recent study44 in Colorado demonstrated that children who were exempted from immunization were 22 times more likely to develop measles and almost six times more likely to acquire pertussis than vaccinated children. School was the site of infection in more than 20 percent of the children who developed measles or pertussis. In this study, each 1 percent increase in children exempted from immunization increased the risk of a pertussis outbreak by 12 percent.44 Because immunizations against measles and pertussis are not 100 percent effective, there was a 60 percent and a 90 percent annual increased risk of measles and pertussis among vaccinated children three to 18 years of age for each 1 percent increase in the proportion of unimmunized children (exemptors) by county.44,45 Consequently, the choice of some parents not to immunize their children increases the risk for children who are immunized. These parents may not realize that the individual choice not to vaccinate a child has public health consequences.



In 1900, for every 1,000 babies born in the United States, 100 would die before their first birthday, often due to infectious diseases. Today, vaccines exist for many viral and bacterial diseases. The National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act, passed in 1986, was intended to bolster vaccine research and development through the federal coordination of vaccine initiatives and to provide relief to vaccine manufacturers facing financial burdens. The legislation also intended to address concerns about the safety of vaccines by instituting a compensation program, setting up a passive surveillance system for vaccine adverse events, and by providing information to consumers. A key component of the legislation required the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services to collaborate with the Institute of Medicine to assess concerns about the safety of vaccines and potential adverse events, especially in children.

Adverse Effects of Vaccines reviews the epidemiological, clinical, and biological evidence regarding adverse health events associated with specific vaccines covered by the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program (VICP), including the varicella zoster vaccine, influenza vaccines, the hepatitis B vaccine, and the human papillomavirus vaccine, among others. For each possible adverse event, the report reviews peer-reviewed primary studies, summarizes their findings, and evaluates the epidemiological, clinical, and biological evidence. It finds that while no vaccine is 100 percent safe, very few adverse events are shown to be caused by vaccines. In addition, the evidence shows that vaccines do not cause several conditions. For example, the MMR vaccine is not associated with autism or childhood diabetes. Also, the DTaP vaccine is not associated with diabetes and the influenza vaccine given as a shot does not exacerbate asthma.


Rare vaccine side effects

A far less common but serious vaccine side effect is an immediate allergic reaction, also known as an anaphylactic reaction. These are dramatic and potentially life-threatening; however, it should be noted that they occur very rarely (fewer than one in a million) and are completely reversible if treated promptly by healthcare staff.

To have a balanced view, potential side effects have to be weighed against the expected benefits of vaccination in preventing the serious complications of disease.

Read more about the benefits and risks of vaccination.

Not all illnesses that occur following vaccination will be a side effect. Because millions of people every year are vaccinated, it's inevitable that some will go on to develop a coincidental infection or illness shortly afterwards.


Vaccination Info | Puisque l'enfant développe naturellement ...


Un enfant est prêt à passer aux aliments solides vers six mois car:

L’immunité de bébé

Quand bébé naît, est-il vraiment prêt à se défendre contre les bactéries ? Comment booster son système immunitaire ? Toutes les réponses à vos questions.

Dès sa 14ème semaine de vie in-utéro, bébé possède déjà un système immunitaire. Les deux principaux acteurs qui le composent sont les lymphocytes T qui détruisent toutes cellules inconnues et les lymphocytes B qui produisent des anticorps spécifiques aux cellules rencontrées.

Nourrisson : un système immunitaire immature

Quand bébé naît, il possède des anticorps qui lui ont été transmis par sa maman. Le nouveau-né doit rapidement s’adapter à l’environnement bactérien qui l’entoure. Pas d’inquiétude, bébé est plus que prêt. D’ailleurs, il possède beaucoup plus de lymphocytes qu’un adulte. La nature est bien faite, l’organisme comprend vite qu’il va devoir se défendre. Malgré tout, Bébé possède un système immunitaire immature. « C’est comme s’il avait une voiture, mais qu’il ne savait pas conduire ! » commente Georges Picherot, chef de service de pédiatrie au CHU de Nantes. Il lui faudra rencontrer des bactéries pour qu’il sache y répondre correctement. Son système immunitaire peut parfois être trop réceptif à certaines bactéries. C’est pour cette raison qu’un nourrisson a souvent des épisodes de fièvre. Cela veut dire que son système immunitaire marche correctement. A contrario, un déficit immunitaire peut provoquer des infections sévères.

Système immunitaire : comment le renforcer ?

L’allaitement favorise le transfert d’IGa qui permet à bébé de se protéger des infections digestives et respiratoires. Georges Picherot conseil de suivre les recommandations de L’OMS et d’allaiter son bébé pendant au moins six mois. Si vous ne souhaitez pas allaiter (ou que vous ne pouvez pas), une bonne alimentation permettra à votre bébé d’être en forme. Le pédiatre conseille aussi de vacciner son bébé : « la vaccination n’atténue pas le système immunitaire. Au contraire, elle a pour but de le stimuler. » Georges Picherot donne l’exemple du vaccin contre l’hépatite B : « c’est à l’âge du nourrisson qu’il est le plus efficace ! »


Why do normal newborns and infants have higher white blood cells than adults ?

Babies are less protected than adults. They need more white blood cells than adults.

Le nombre de lymphocytes B et T chez le nouveau-né est de 3 à 4 fois supérieur à

celui observé chez l’adulte

Les réponses mettant en jeu les TLR sont diminuée chez le nouveau-né

Les réponses proinflammatoires sont également diminuées chez les nouveau-nés

Les immunoglobluines G maternelles transmises par voie placentaire protègent le

nouveau-né et leur effet est renforcé par les IgA du lait maternel

Le déficit de réponse immunitaire des nouveau-nés aux antigènes polysaccharidiques

est majeur et les réponses aux antigènes protéiques sont également peu efficaces

Les lymphocytes CD4 néonataux ont un déficit intrinsèque de réponse cytokinique

Les réponses Treg sont sont importantes pendant la vie foetale et donc à la


L’exposition à des éléments microbiens semble jouer un rôle majeur dans la

prévention du dévelophttp://www.assim.refer.org/colleges/colleges/styled/files/page80-l3.9a.de0301veloppement-du-syste0300me-immunitaire-a0300-la-naissance.pdfpement d’allergies (théorie hygiéniste)


In vitro investigations established that the capacity of neonatal CD4 T cells to produce IFN-γ and of neonatal DCs to promote Th1 responses is lower in infants as compared to adults. In vivo, Th1 responses to a number of vaccines and infectious pathogens are poor during early life. However, mature Th1 responses can develop in certain conditions such as neonatal BCG vaccination and Bordetella pertussis infection, probably in relation with a more efficient activation of DCs. In vitro studies as well as clinical investigations also suggest that the priming of neonatal CD8 T cell responses may require a lower threshold of DC activation than that required for Th1 responses. Other features of neonatal T lymphocytes include homeostatic proliferation and increased susceptibility to apoptosis, but the impact of this high cell turn-over on the establishment of memory responses remains to be clarified.

The classical paradigm that newborns have incompetent T lymphocytes developing only weak or even tolerogenic responses should clearly be reconsidered. The observation that mature cellular immune responses can be developed in early life suggests that under appropriate conditions of stimulation neonatal T lymphocytes can be instructed to fight intracellular pathogens (Fig. 1). We can therefore hope that the identification of molecular pathways leading to DC and T cell activation in human neonates will lead to the development of new vaccines eliciting efficient and safe protective responses against these agents early after birth.


Because of better hygiene and sanitation, hadn’t diseases already begun to disappear before vaccines were introduced?

No, they had not begun to disappear. In the 20th century, infectious diseases began to be better controlled because of improvements in hygiene and sanitation (clean water and pest control). However, the incidence of vaccine-preventable diseases only began to drop dramatically after the vaccines for those diseases were licensed and began to be used in large numbers of children.


Didn't diseases decline before vaccinations began due to better sanitation and clean water?

Better living conditions have been important in controlling some kinds of infectious diseases, such as diseases spread by dirty water and certainly better hygiene and sanitation has helped reduce the spread of disease and mortality rate from many diseases.  However, it wasn’t until vaccines became available there was significant change in the number of cases of diphtheria, tetanus, pertussis, polio, measles, mumps, rubella, Hib, hepatitis B, meningococcal disease, pneumococcal disease and chickenpox. Here are a of couple examples:


Didn't diseases decline before vaccinations began due to better sanitation and clean water?

NO. The diseases were just as prevalent until widespread immunization began. What was changing was the death rate from some of these infections.

That shouldn't be a big surprise; we know that improvements in social and economic conditions mean a general improvement in health. And thanks to cleaner drinking water and generally higher standards of living, even though just as many people were getting sick, more of them were recovering (or at least not dying).

But once immunization started, the number of infections dropped sharply — as did the severity of the illnesses of those who did get those diseases.

Did you know? Until recently, Haemophilus influenzae type b (Hib) was a leading cause of meningitis, epiglottitis and other invasive infections in children, affecting about one child in 250 by five years of age.


Distribution à l'échelle mondiale

Cette maladie sévit partout dans le monde. Les cas sont sporadiques et relativement rares dans les pays industrialisés. Dans bien des pays en développement, notamment en Asie, en Afrique et en Amérique du Sud, la maladie demeure une importante cause de décès.

Épidémiologie du tétanos au Canada

Le tétanos est rare au Canada. Durant les années 1920 et 1930, on enregistrait chaque année de 40 à 50 décès attribuables au tétanos. Après l'introduction de l'anatoxine tétanique au Canada, en 1940, la morbidité et la mortalité ont décliné rapidement (voir la figure 1). De 1980 à 2008, le nombre de cas signalés annuellement variait de 1 à 10, et la moyenne s'établissait à 4 par année. Durant cette période, les personnes de ≥ 60 ans représentaient 48 % des cas. Aucun cas n'a été répertorié chez les nouveau-nés. Le statut vaccinal de la plupart des cas déclarés était inconnu. Cinq décès seulement ont été déclarés depuis 1980, et le dernier est survenu en 1997.




Au cours de la période de 7 ans visée par l'étude, 7 227 hospitalisations pour une méningite bactérienne ont été recensées. Le nombre annuel d'hospitalisations variait de 1 072 à 940 (tableau 1). L'incidence annuelle de la méningite bactérienne variait entre 3,66 et 3,37 pour 100 000 habitants. Aucun changement significatif dans l'incidence générale n'a été observé avec le temps.

Tableau 1. La méningite bactérienne au Canada de 1994-1995 à 2000-2001











Nombre de cas








Incidence pour
100 000








Nombre de décès








Rapport de létalité








Âge (ans)
























Durant toute la période de l'étude, la plus forte proportion (37 %) de cas de méningite bactérienne était due à une cause non précisée (figure 1). Le pneumocoque, le streptocoque et le staphylocoque étaient les trois principaux agents responsables, ayant causé ensemble 49 % des cas de méningite bactérienne et 80 % des cas où un micro-organisme a été identifié.


La méningite méningococcique est présente partout dans le monde (500 000 cas par an selon l'OMS). C'est la seule forme de méningite bactérienne qui provoque des épidémies. Les souches A,B,C,Y et W135 sont à l'origine de 99 % des cas de méningites cérébro-spinales. Le sérogroupe A est à l'origine d'épidémies touchant de centaines de milliers de personnes dans "la ceinture africaine de la méningite" allant de l'Ethiopie jusqu'au Sénégal.
En France, en 2000, sur les 497 cas recensés par le Centre National de Référence, 19 % des infections à méningocoques étaient dues au sérogroupe C (contre 66 % dues au sérogroupe B et 10 % au sérogroupe W135).

Le taux de létalité est compris entre 5 et 10 % et peut dépasser 50 % en l'absence de traitement. Outre la mortalité associée à cette infection, 15 à 20 % de ceux qui survivent souffrent de séquelles neurologiques.


Pourquoi se faire vacciner contre certaines maladies

qui ont presque disparu en France ?

Tout d’abord, ces maladies (comme le tétanos, la poliomyélite, la diphtérie...)

sont encore présentes dans d’autres pays.

Ensuite, même si le risque est faible de contracter ces maladies en France, il

existe. Il est donc important de se faire vacciner pour être protégé.

La quasi disparition en France de la plupart de ces maladies est d’ailleurs

liée à la vaccination. Leur réapparition pourrait avoir lieu si l’on arrêtait

de vacciner.

Pourquoi compte-t-on encore chaque année

des décès par tétanos ?

Après avoir été vaccinée contre le tétanos, une personne est protégée

pour une période d’environ dix ans. Après cette échéance, un rappel est

donc nécessaire pour la protéger à nouveau pendant dix années supplémentaires.

Parmi les adultes, beaucoup n’ont pas fait ce rappel et ne sont plus

protégés, courant alors le risque de contracter la maladie. C’est pourquoi

il existe toujours des cas de tétanos dans notre pays.


Pourquoi devrais je faire vacciner mon enfant contre des maladies aussi rares ?

Les maladies contre lesquelles les vaccins protègent votre enfant sont en effet plutôt rares au Québec, mais elles sont toujours présentes.

Le tétanos, par exemple, continuera toujours d’exister parce que cette maladie est causée par une bactérie présente dans le sol.

De plus, certaines maladies plutôt rares au Québec sont très fréquentes ailleurs dans le monde. Votre enfant peut donc attraper ces maladies

par un contact avec des personnes en provenance de ces pays ou au cours d’un voyage. C’est pourquoi il est important d’être vacciné contre

ces maladies.

Les vaccins représentent ils un risque pour mon enfant ?

Les vaccins sont très sécuritaires. Dans la grande majorité des cas, ils ne causent aucune réaction indésirable. Les réactions indésirables

les plus fréquentes (fièvre légère ou inconfort à la cuisse ou au bras) sont sans gravité et de courte durée. Des millions de doses de vaccins

sont administrées dans le monde entier chaque année et très peu de réactions graves sont observées. Dans tous les cas, mieux vaut


un vaccin qu’attraper une des maladies graves contre lesquelles les vaccins protègent.

Les vaccins peuvent ils affaiblir le système immunitaire de mon enfant ?

Non. De façon naturelle, le corps humain se défend dès la naissance contre des milliers de microbes différents présents dans les aliments,

dans l’air, dans l’eau, sur les objets. Le vaccin n’affaiblit pas le système immunitaire ; au contraire, il le stimule à fabriquer des défenses

contre des maladies.

Mon enfant a une bonne alimentation et une bonne santé. Cela est il suffisant

pour le protéger contre les maladies infectieuses ?

Non. Une bonne alimentation et une bonne santé ne suffisent pas à combattre les maladies contre lesquelles les vaccins protègent votre enfant.

Elles peuvent grandement aider les vaccins à combattre les microbes, mais elles ne les remplacent pas. Il est à noter que l’enfant allaité doit

aussi être vacciné aux âges recommandés.

Pour toute question, vous pouvez :

• vous adresser à la personne qui donne le vaccin ;

• téléphoner à Info Santé au numéro 8-1-1 ;

• discuter avec votre médecin ;

• consulter les questions et réponses au www.msss.gouv.qc.ca/vaccination.



augmentation de la vaccination

augmentation de l'autisme

De 1979 à 1999



De 1988 à 1994



No correlation for the MMR vaccine, but what about other vaccines ?


No difference in autism rates between the 82 % who are vaccinated and the 18 % who aren't.

But may the difference be lost in the « noise » of the increase of diagnosis ?


1992 The thimerosal vaccines were stopped, but the number of cases of autism kept on rising steadily...

From 2007 to 2013, parent-reported autism prevalence increased significantly in all age groups in the 6-17 range and increased for boys from 1.8% to 3.23%.

Sharp rises in the frequency with which Autism is diagnosed has become a concern and debating point in many countries. Members of the medical and scientific community are generally quite skeptical about characterization of the increasing numbers as indicators of an ‘epidemic’. These scientists attribute the dramatic rise in Autism rates to increased awareness of Autism, more effective and inclusive diagnostic criteria and detection tools, noting that the diagnosis of Autism was only created in the 1940s and that the concept of an autism spectrum only entered the mainstream in the 1990s.


"Our review revealed no evidence of harm caused by doses of thimerosal found in vaccines, except for local hypersensitivity reactions. At the time of our review, vaccines containing thimerosal as a preservative could expose infants to cumulative mercury at levels that exceed EPA recommendations during the first 6 months of life.


"Thus, based on this body of evidence, the committee concludes that the evidence favors rejection of a causal relationship between thimerosal-containing vaccines and autism."[22] [bold in original]

This committee felt so strongly about this conclusion that they state:

"The committee concludes that much more research must be conducted on autism. However, research should be directed towards those lines of inquiry most supported by the current state of knowledge. The vaccine hypotheses are not currently supported by the evidence."[22]

Three large-scale controlled observational studies have been reported on this issue; none have found an association between thiomersal-containing vaccines (TCVs) and autism.[11] A study from Denmark noted no decrease in autism rates despite cessation of TCVs[23] and a UK study found that TCVs actually had a protective effect with respect to autism.[24] Because the Danish and UK studies involved only diphtheria-tetanus-pertussis (DTP) or diphtheria-tetanus (DT) vaccines, they are less relevant for the higher thiomersal exposure levels that occurred in the U.S.[11] For the U.S., a study based on the Vaccine Safety Datalink found no association between TCVs and autism.[25] Some smaller studies have also found no association between TCVs and autism[26][27] and a study found no association between thimerosal and the neurological signs of autism.[28] Another smaller study also found a protective effect: it reported a significantly lower prevalence of Autism Spectrum Disorders among children exposed to thimerosal (5.95 per 1,000 versus 8.27 per 1,000).[29]

The research of Mark Geier, the main source of epidemiologic data used by supporters of a link between thiomersal and autism, has received considerable criticism, including charges of not presenting methods and statistical analyses to others for verification,[30] improperly analyzing data taken from Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System,[30][22] as well as either mislabelling or confusing fundamental statistical terms in his papers.[22]

"A kid labeled autistic today could have been labeled mentally retarded 10 years ago in the same school system," Shattuck says. It wasn't until 1992 that schools began to include autism as a special education classification.


Another toxin to the brain is mercury in its organic form. But according to a report published in Pediatrics, there is no evidence that children with autism in the U.S. have increased mercury concentrations or environmental exposures. Though many parents of children with ASD believe their child's condition was caused by vaccines that used to contain thimerosal (a mercury-containing preservative), the Institute of Medicine concludes there is no causal association.


Even so, many autism organizations remain convinced there is a link. The vaccine-autism debate reignited in early March 2008, after federal officials conceded to award compensation to the family of a 9-year-old Georgia girl who developed autism-like symptoms as a toddler after getting routine childhood vaccinations. Officials said the childhood vaccines given to the girl in 2000, before thimerosal was phased out, aggravated a pre-existing condition that then manifested as autism-like symptoms. The pre-existing condition was a disorder of the mitochondria, the "power sources" of the cell, according to the family.


Reports of autism cases per 1,000 children grew dramatically in the U.S. from 1996 to 2007. It is unknown how much, if any, growth came from changes in autism's prevalence.[24]


In the 1990′s the diagnosis of autism was changed to autism spectrum disorder (ASD) – the new name reflecting the changing concept of autism to include a broader spectrum of symptoms, including much more subtle manifestations. In particular a diagnostic entity known as Aspergers syndrome, which is essentially a subtle manifestation of autism features, was classified as part of ASD. Any time you broaden a category the number of individuals that fit into that category is likely to increase.

If the broadened diagnosis hypothesis is true than it must also be true that as other diagnoses shifted over to autism they would decrease as autism numbers increased. This is exactly what Jick et al found when they reviewed a cohort of boys with and without autism. What was previously diagnosed as language disorder is now being diagnosed as autism, with a corresponding decrease in non-specific language disorders. Shattuck found the exact same effect, so called “diagnostic substitution,” when he studied the prevalence of disabilities among children in US special education from 1984 to 2003. He found that in locations where the prevalence of autism had increased there was a corresponding decrease in the prevalence of other disabilities. (Shattuck 2006)

It should also be noted that all of this research, while supporting the hypothesis that the rise in autism diagnoses is not due to a true increase in the incidence but rather is due to a broadening of the definition and increased surveillance, does not rule out a small genuine increase in the true incidence. A small real increase can be hiding in the data. There is no evidence upon which we can conclude, however, that true autism rates are increasing.

Of course the implications of this are profound. If there is no autism epidemic, if there is a “stable incidence” of autism over recent decades, then this alone is powerful evidence against the vaccine hypothesis – and in fact removes the primary piece of evidence for a vaccine-autism connection. Just as a true increase in incidence would have called out for an environmental factor causing autism, the lack of any increase argues strongly against any environment factor – especially when this is combined with the copious evidence for multiple genetic factors as the ultimate cause(s) of ASD.



Main article: Thiomersal controversy

In 1999, the Centers for Disease Control (CDC) and the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) asked vaccine makers to remove the organomercury compound thiomersal (spelled "thimerosal" in the US) from vaccines as quickly as possible, and thiomersal has been phased out of US and European vaccines, except for some preparations of influenza vaccine.[48] The CDC and the AAP followed the precautionary principle, which assumes that there is no harm in exercising caution even if it later turns out to be unwarranted, but their 1999 action sparked confusion and controversy that has diverted attention and resources away from efforts to determine the causes of autism.[48] Since 2000, the thiomersal in child vaccines has been alleged to contribute to autism, and thousands of parents in the United States have pursued legal compensation from a federal fund.[49] A 2004 Institute of Medicine (IOM) committee favored rejecting any causal relationship between thiomersal-containing vaccines and autism.[50] Autism incidence rates increased steadily even after thiomersal was removed from childhood vaccines.[51] Currently there is no accepted scientific evidence that exposure to thiomersal is a factor in causing autism.[52]

MMR vaccine

Main article: MMR vaccine controversy

In the UK, the MMR vaccine was the subject of controversy after publication in The Lancet of a 1998 paper by Andrew Wakefield and others, reporting a study of 12 children mostly with autism spectrum disorders with onset soon after administration of the vaccine.[53] During a 1998 press conference, Wakefield suggested that giving children the vaccines in three separate doses would be safer than a single vaccination. This suggestion was not supported by the paper, and several subsequent peer-reviewed studies have failed to show any association between the vaccine and autism.[54] It later emerged that Wakefield had received funding from litigants against vaccine manufacturers and that Wakefield had not informed colleagues or medical authorities of his conflict of interest;[55] had this been known, publication in The Lancet would not have taken place in the way that it did.[56] Wakefield has been heavily criticized on scientific grounds and for triggering a decline in vaccination rates[57] (vaccination rates in the UK dropped to 80% in the years following the study),[58] as well as on ethical grounds for the way the research was conducted.[59] In 2004 the MMR-and-autism interpretation of the paper was formally retracted by 10 of Wakefield's 12 co-authors,[60] and in 2010 The Lancet's editors fully retracted the paper.[61]

The CDC,[62] the IOM of the National Academy of Sciences,[50] and the UK National Health Service[63] have all concluded that there is no evidence of a link between the MMR vaccine and autism. A systematic review by the Cochrane Library concluded that there is no credible link between the MMR vaccine and autism, that MMR has prevented diseases that still carry a heavy burden of death and complications, that the lack of confidence in MMR has damaged public health, and that design and reporting of safety outcomes in MMR vaccine studies are largely inadequate.[64]

In 2009, The Sunday Times reported that Wakefield had manipulated patient data and misreported results in his 1998 paper, creating the appearance of a link with autism.[65] A 2011 article in the British Medical Journal described how the data in the study had been falsified by Wakefield so it would arrive at a predetermined conclusion.[66] An accompanying editorial in the same journal described Wakefield's work as an "elaborate fraud" which led to lower vaccination rates, putting hundreds of thousands of children at risk and diverting energy and money away from research into the true cause of autism.[67]

A special court convened in the United States to review claims under the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program ruled on 12 February 2009 that parents of autistic children are not entitled to compensation in their contention that certain vaccines caused autism in their children.[68]

Vaccine overload

Vaccine overload is the notion that giving many vaccines at once may overwhelm or weaken a child's immature immune system and lead to adverse effects.[69] Although the scientific evidence strongly contradicts this idea,[51] some parents of autistic children believe that vaccine overload causes autism.[70] The resulting controversy has caused many parents to delay or avoid immunizing their children.[69] Such parental misperceptions are major obstacles towards immunization of children.[71]

The concept of vaccine overload is flawed on several levels.[51] Despite the increase in the number of vaccines over recent decades, improvements in vaccine design have reduced the immunologic load from vaccines; the total number of immunological components in the 14 vaccines administered to US children in 2009 is less than 10% of what it was in the 7 vaccines given in 1980.[51] A study published on 2013 found no correlation between autism and the antigen number in the vaccines the children were administered up to the age of two. Of the 1008 children in this study, a quarter of them were diagnosed with autism were born between 1994 and 1999, when the routine vaccine schedule could contain more than 3000 antigens (in a single shot of DTP vaccine). The vaccine schedule in 2012 contains several more vaccines but the number of antigens the child is exposed to by the age of two is 315.[72][73] Vaccines pose a minuscule immunologic load compared to the pathogens naturally encountered by a child in a typical year;[51] common childhood conditions such as fevers and middle-ear infections pose a much greater challenge to the immune system than vaccines,[74] and studies have shown that vaccinations, and even multiple concurrent vaccinations, do not weaken the immune system[51] or compromise overall immunity.[75] The lack of evidence supporting the vaccine overload hypothesis, combined with these findings directly contradicting it, have led to the conclusion that currently recommended vaccine programs do not "overload" or weaken the immune system.[1][76][77]

Any experiment based on withholding vaccines from children has been considered unethical,[78] and observational studies would likely be confounded by differences in health-care-seeking behaviours of under-vaccinated children. Thus, no study directly comparing rates of autism in vaccinated vs. un-vaccinated children has been done. However, the concept of vaccine overload is biologically implausible, vaccinated and unvaccinated children have the same immune response to non-vaccine related infections, and autism is not an immune-mediated disease, so claims that vaccines could cause it by overloading the immune system goes against current knowledge of the pathogenesis of autism. As such, the idea that vaccines cause autism has been effectively dismissed by the weight of current evidence.[51] A 2011 journal article described the vaccine-autism connection as "the most damaging medical hoax of the last 100 years".[79]

Prenatal infection

There is evidence that schizophrenia is associated with prenatal exposure to rubella, influenza, and toxoplasmosis infection. For example, one study found a sevenfold increased risk of schizophrenia when mothers were exposed to influenza in the first trimester of gestation. This may have public health implications, as strategies for preventing infection include vaccination, antibiotics, and simple hygiene.[80] Based on studies in animal models, theoretical concerns have been raised about a possible link between schizophrenia and maternal immune response activated by virus antigens; a 2009 review concluded that there was insufficient evidence to recommend routine use of trivalent influenza vaccine during the first trimester of pregnancy, but that the vaccine was still recommended outside the first trimester and in special circumstances such as pandemics or in women with certain other conditions.[81] The CDC's Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices, the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, and the American Academy of Family Physicians all recommend routine flu shots for pregnant women, for several reasons:[82]

Despite this recommendation, only 16% of healthy pregnant US women surveyed in 2005 had been vaccinated against the flu.[82]


Aluminium compounds are used as immunologic adjuvants to increase the effectiveness of many vaccines.[83] In some cases these compounds have been associated with redness, itching, and low-grade fever,[83] but its use in vaccines has not been associated with serious adverse events.[84] In some cases aluminum-containing vaccines are associated with macrophagic myofasciitis (MMF), localized microscopic lesions containing aluminium salts that persist up to 8 years. However, recent case-controlled studies have found no specific clinical symptoms in individuals with biopsies showing MMF, and there is no evidence that aluminium-containing vaccines are a serious health risk or justify changes to immunization practice.[84] Over the first six months of its life, an infant ingests more aluminium from dietary sources such as breast milk and infant formula than it does from vaccinations.[85][86]

Other safety concerns

Other safety concerns about vaccines have been published on the Internet, in informal meetings, in books, and at symposia. These include hypotheses that vaccination can cause sudden infant death syndrome, epileptic seizures, allergies, multiple sclerosis, and autoimmune diseases such as type 1 diabetes, as well as hypotheses that vaccinations can transmit bovine spongiform encephalopathy, Hepatitis C virus, and HIV. These hypotheses have been investigated, with the conclusion that currently used vaccines meet high safety standards, and that criticism of vaccine safety in the popular press is not justified.[77]

Verstraeten offered no possible cause for this correlation, but held that the statistical evidence linking vaccines and neurological disorders was strong. Dr. Bill Weil, a consultant for the American Academy of Pediatrics, and Dr. Richard Johnston, an immunologist and pediatrician from the University of Colorado, presented similar concerns to the group. However, given no causal relationship, the CDC and industry representatives were quick to discredit the evidence.
Consequently, the CDC paid the Institute of Medicine (IOM) to conduct another study on thimerosal. According to Robert F. Kennedy Jr., this study was fixed in order to "whitewash" previous findings. In its 2001 report, the IOM's Immunization Safety Review Committee did conclude that the link between thimerosal and neurodevelopmental disorders was biologically plausible, though the evidence neither proved nor negated it. The Committee stated that phasing out thimerosal from vaccines was "a prudent measure in support of the public health goal to reduce mercury exposure of infants and children as much as possible."
However, these findings offered no imperative. The data presented at the 2000 meeting was withheld from publication and the link between thimerosal and autism remained "inconclusive."

While officials at the Center for Disease Control claim evidence is lacking to support the possible risks of thimerosal, Dr. Mark Geier, a Maryland geneticist and vaccinologist, along with his son and research partner David Geier, says the CDC has chosen to ignore the science. According to Dr. Geier, more than 5,000 articles have been published that question the safety of thimerosal in vaccines.
The Geiers analyzed the data and determined that the more thimerosal a child receives, the greater his or her chances are of being autistic. The CDC says the Geiers misused information from a CDC database that was not intended to help prove theories. Given no real causal mechanism linking thimerosal and autism, the game seems to have become one of slanting the data to suit the needs of government and industrial interests. Even Verstraeten has admitted that these "inconclusive" findings certainly don't rule out the possibility of finding a link in the future.


Still, Sanders shows why the debate is not likely to end any time soon. Even though he's firmly in favor of vaccines, he doesn't dismiss concerns about them outright.

"We're going to continue to do the research to look for unknown side effects," he says. "We're not going to stop looking."

However, a German study published in 2011 compared the health outcomes of 94 unvaccinated children versus 13,359 vaccinated children (Dtsch Arztebl Int. 2011 February; 108(7): 99–104.”Vaccination Status and Health in Children and Adolescents; Findings of the German Health Interview and Examination Survey for Children and Adolescents (KiGGS).” (pdf of articlepdf of replies). Because the number of unvaccinated children included in the analysis is so small, statistical evaluation is nearly impossible. However, the study did show that unvaccinated human children in two of the three age groups under investigation showed fewer infections and atopic disorders than those who were vaccinated, and none of the unvaccinated children younger than 10 had developed asthma.


A growing number of scientists believe that the increase in America, Europe, Australia and Japan in allergic and auto-immune diseases (which stimulate the humoral or Th2 branch of the immune system) is caused by the lack of stimulation of the cellular or the Th1 branch of the immune system from the lack of acute inflammatory responses and discharges in childhood. 2 3 4 5 We need to identify the factors which cause this shift in the function of the immune system or which cause allergies and auto-immune diseases in childhood to increase!

If we now return to the original question of the mechanism of action of vaccinations, we find what I believe is the key to the puzzle. A vaccination consists of introducing a disease agent or disease antigen into an individual’s body without causing the disease. If the disease agent provoked the whole immune system into action it would cause all the symptoms of the disease! The symptoms of a disease are primarily the symptoms (fever, pain, malaise, loss of function) of the acute inflammatory response to the disease.

So the trick of a vaccination is to stimulate the immune system just enough so that it makes antibodies and "remembers" the disease antigen but not so much that it provokes an acute inflammatory response by the cellular immune system and makes us sick with the disease we’re trying to prevent! Thus a vaccination works by stimulating very much the antibody production (Th2) and by stimulating very little or not at all the digesting and discharging function of the cellular immune system (Th1).

What in reality is prevented is not the disease but the ability of our cellular immune system to manifest, to respond to and to overcome the disease!

There is no system of the human being, from mind to muscles to immune system, which gets stronger through avoiding challenges, but only through overcoming challenges. The wise use of vaccinations would be to use them selectively, and not on a mass scale. In order for vaccinations to be helpful and not harmful, we must know beforehand in each individual to be vaccinated whether the Th1 function or the Th2 function of the immune system predominates.

Vaccinations are usually effective in preventing an individual from manifesting a particular illness, but they do not improve the overall strength or health of the individual nor of the immune system. Instead, vaccinations modify the reactivity of the immune system, decreasing acute discharging inflammatory reactions and increasing the tendency to chronic allergic and auto-immune reactions.

The current use of vaccinations in medicine today is essentially a "shotgun" approach which ignores differences among individuals. In such an approach some individuals may be helped and others may be harmed.

Epidemiologic studies 7 8 9 have shown that as families improve their living conditions, hygiene, nutrition, literacy and education, the risk of life-threatening acute infectious , inflammatory diseases very much decreases. Families with poor living conditions, hygiene, nutrition and literacy would generally be most likely to benefit from vaccinations. Families with good living conditions, hygiene, nutrition and education probably would benefit from vaccinations very little or not at all. Individuals with a tendency to allergic or auto-immune diseases are likely to be harmed by vaccinations.

Vaccinating pigs may prevent them from having illness from one particular strain of virus but will not improve their overall resistance to other illnesses nor even to other strains of the same virus.



acute inflammtory response

Vers 1880, l'amélioration de l'hygiène conduit à réduire les infections immunisantes naturelles au poliovirus chez le jeune enfant. Les premiers cas cliniques apparaissent dans le nord de l'Europe.


plus d'hygiène = moins de maladies...

… mais cela tend aussi à réduire la possibilité de développer son immunité naturelle !...

Se pourrait-il donc que la question, en bout ligne, n'en soit une que de déterminer quels risques nous sommes prêts à prendre et affronter, et de quels risques nous ne voulons tout simplement rien savoir ?


Since 1988, Polio cases worldwide have decreased by over 99%, from an estimated 350,000 cases in more than 125 endemic countries, to 1997 reported cases in 2006. Globally, only four countries remain polio endemic, namely Afghanistan, India, Nigeria and Pakistan. In the African Region, Nigeria presents the biggest challenge to polio eradication.

Our Accomplishments


anti-vaccination movement (AVM)
Fewer youngsters worldwide are dying of childhood diseases now than at any other time in history. About 80% of children today are vaccinated against such deadly illnesses as measles and polio, compared with 20% in the early 1980s.*
There were an estimated 30 to 40 million cases of measles in 2000, causing some 777,000 deaths.*
...immunization can be credited with saving approximately 9 million lives a year worldwide. A further 16 million deaths a year could be prevented if effective vaccines were deployed against all potentially vaccine-preventable diseases.*
"Health officials say aggressive efforts to vaccinate young children against measles have resulted in a 74 percent global decline in the number of deaths due to the illness [between 2000 and 2007]. Experts say the biggest decline, 90 percent, occurred in the Eastern Mediterranean region."*
In England and Wales, measles cases increased 36% in 2008.* Measles cases more than doubled from the year before during the first half of 2008 in the United States.*
"Before smallpox was eradicated with a vaccine, it killed an estimated 500 million people. And just 60 years ago, polio paralyzed 16,000 Americans every year, while rubella caused birth defects and mental retardation in as many as 20,000 newborns. Measles infected 4 million children, killing 3,000 annually, and a bacterium called Haemophilus influenzae type b caused Hib meningitis in more than 15,000 children, leaving many with permanent brain damage. Infant mortality and abbreviated life spans — now regarded as a third world problem — were a first world reality." Amy Wallace

The anti-vaccination movement (AVM) is at least two-pronged: one prong denies a causal connection between vaccines and the eradication or significant reduction of diseases like smallpox, polio, measles, and rubella; the other prong perceives vaccines as causing diseases, e.g., it claims that the MMR (mumps-measles-rubella) vaccine causes autism. Either way, the AVM proponents oppose vaccination against disease.

Robert Mendelsohn, M.D. is one of the leading opponents of vaccination. He claims that there is "no convincing scientific evidence that mass inoculations can be credited with eliminating any childhood disease." He thinks nobody knows why diseases such as polio have almost been eliminated, though improved living conditions might have something to do with it. Quackwatch calls this misconception #1 about immunization. Mendelsohn reasons that inoculations are ineffective because the diseases diminished not only in the U.S. when vaccinations were widespread but also in Europe even though no mass immunizations took place there. I don't know if this is true, but it should be. In isolated populations with little immunity to a disease, one would expect an infectious disease to either kill people or make them immune to further infection. In any case, whether infectious diseases diminished without inoculation is irrelevant to the causal effectiveness of vaccines. What is relevant, for example, is that the incidence of measles certainly went down due to vaccination programs in the U.S. and the U.K. (Now that a significant number of parents do not have their children vaccinated, measles outbreaks have occurred in both the U.S. and the U.K.)

(what a weird argument !- COBT)


“At this point, the evidence is so utterly overwhelming that there is not a whiff of a hint of a whisper of a correlation between vaccines and autism that it has become irritating that antivaccine activists keep pressuring scientists to do the same study over and over again, coming up with the same results over and over again, and then seeing antivaccinationists fail to believe those same results over and over again. Apparently, antivaccine activists think that if the same sorts of studies are done enough times, there will be a positive result implicating vaccines as a risk factor for or contributing cause to autism.”


No one realizes that at the same time polio cases began to wane, the first world was improving sewage and water systems. I would liken the reduction in cases to improved potent water supplies and to improved sewage treatment. I remember in the early 1950's the city of Yonkers, NY came to the suburb of Yonkers, Sherwood Park, east yonkers and actually required us to hook up to the sewer system. At that time our home was using a cess pool and well water. Many homes, mostly older, in my area used the cess pool and well water systems.  
Polio is actually spread via feces/oral route. I would wager that President Roosevelt got his polio swimming in the Hudson river which is where many of my neighbors got their polio. I remember seeing signs which read "No Swimming due to Polio" in Alpine NJ along beaches on the Hudson River. The Hudson was notorious for having raw sewage enter it.   
If polio vaccine is the sole reason for ending the spread of polio in the first world, then why hasn't polio ended in India, the Congo and other countries? There have been countless polio vaccine campaigns year after year in Africa, India etc yet we keep hearing about outbreaks, currently, India and Africa have polio outbreaks. The answer is not vaccine but sanitation. In countries that have raw sewage entering the rivers, lakes etc where people use these same waterways for drinking and cooking the disease will never die away. The money spent on vaccine is only a fraction of what it would cost to put in decent sanitation which would include sewers and sewage treatment along with providing potable safe drinking water in the third world, so, consequently, the pharma industry with a lot to lose talks about the reduction of polio via vaccine. Ergo, the myth is perpertrated.


Do you know how much doctors learn about vaccines in medical school? When we participate in pediatrics training, we learn that vaccines need to be given on schedule.  We learn that smallpox and polio were eliminated by vaccines.  We learn that there’s no need to know how to treat diphtheria, because we won’t see it again anyway.  We are indoctrinated with the mantra that “vaccines are safe and effective” – neither of which is true.

Doctors today are given extensive training on how to talk to “hesitant” parents – how to frighten them by vastly inflating the risks during natural infection.  They are trained on the necessity of twisting parents’ arms to conform, or fire them from their practices.  Doctors are trained that NOTHING bad should be said about any vaccine, period.


Poliomyelitis eradication

The global eradication of poliomyelitis is a public health effort to eliminate all cases of poliomyelitis (polio) infection around the world. The global effort, begun in 1988 and led by the World Health Organization (WHO), UNICEF and the Rotary Foundation, has reduced the number of annual diagnosed cases from the hundreds of thousands to 291 in 2012 - a 99.9% reduction. Of the 3 types of polio, the last recorded wild case of type 2 was in 1999. The last recorded case of type 3 was on 11 November 2012. All reported cases since 11 November 2012 have been of type 1. If polio is the next disease to be successfully eradicated, this will represent only the third time this has ever been achieved, after smallpox[1] and rinderpest.[2] The goal of eradicating worldwide polio has attracted international and media attention, but since 2001 progress has been erratic in reducing the number of cases, which has led to getting rid of the last 1% being described as "like trying to squeeze Jell-O to death".[3] However, in 2011 incidence rates of the disease were dramatically reduced, and with large reduction again in 2012, hopes for eliminating polio have been rekindled. India is the latest country to successfully stop transmission of polio.[4]


Because there is no long term carrier state for poliovirus in immunocompetent individuals, polioviruses have no non-primate reservoir in nature, and survival of the virus in the environment for an extended period of time appears to be remote. Therefore, interruption of person to person transmission of the virus by vaccination is the critical step in global polio eradication.[3] The two vaccines have eradicated polio from most countries in the world,[4][5] and reduced the worldwide incidence from an estimated 350,000 cases in 1988 to just 223 cases in 2012.[6][7]



Vaccin et autisme: The Lancet se rétracte

Coup de théâtre: 12 ans après avoir publié un article hautement controversé qui suggérait un lien entre le vaccin contre la rougeole et l'autisme, la prestigieuse revue The Lancet se rétracte.

«Nous retirons cet article de nos archives», a déclaré le journal scientifique hier. C'est la deuxième fois en 10 ans que la revue reconnaît ainsi qu'elle n'aurait pas dû publier cette recherche.

Réalisée par 13 chercheurs, dont le gastroentérologue britannique Andrew Wakefield, la recherche en question, publiée en 1998, affirmait avoir trouvé des traces du virus de la rougeole (administré dans les vaccins de routine) dans des biopsies intestinales réalisées auprès de huit enfants autistes.

Aussitôt publiés, ces résultats ont suscité un véritable vent de panique dans le monde anglo-saxon. Les taux de vaccination ont chuté radicalement, à 81% en Angleterre et à 76% en Irlande. Alors que, en 1999, seules 148 personnes ont eu la rougeole en Irlande, en 2000, le chiffre a grimpé à 1603. La même année, trois enfants sont morts de la maladie, jusque-là quasi éradiquée.

En 2004, 10 des 13 chercheurs qui avaient participé à l'étude (par ailleurs hautement contestée puisque ses résultats n'ont jamais été reproduits scientifiquement), se sont rétractés, toujours dans la revue The Lancet: «Nos travaux n'ont jamais fait de lien entre le vaccin ROR (rougeole, oreillons, rubéole) et l'autisme (...). Toutefois, nous avons évoqué la possibilité qu'un tel lien puisse exister.»