80 Reasons to Amazon Smile and Donate to Autism Age!
Asking ABC 10 California Reporter About the Vaccine Exemption Loophole

Letter by Veteran Vaccine Researchers Warns of Multiple Vaccine Risks

Risk choice"So far the results have been consistent in indicating that it is better to receive a live vaccine after a non-live vaccine than a non-live after a live vaccine ... Hence, it could have major effects on mortality and morbidity and health care costs if immunisation programmes implemented a “live-vaccine-last” policy."

A letter in BMJ Rapid Responses yesterday co-authored by veteran Danish vaccine researchers Christine Benn, Peter Aaby and their colleague Signe Sorup warns of the risk to morbidity and mortality if non-live vaccines are administered after live virus vaccines, rather than in the opposite sequence. The authors are writing about the non-specific effects of vaccines on health. The flagging up of adverse consequences after decades of administration indicates the chaotic, and unrecorded effects of vaccine programs across the globe. The letter talks about the sequence of administration when of course live and and non-live vaccines are often administered together.

While the authors talk about modifying practice, what continues to be troubling is the random recklessness and negligence with which programs are assembled and the failure to monitor the long term consequences for health of vaccination. For all those who have had to bear the consequences looking at it decades later is of course only slightly better than nothing. 





Live virus vaccines first and then dead virus, or just dead cell vaccines next is bad? Am I understanding that right?

Is that because of the studies that show that microbes period - can incorporate, and use other microbes' genetic material into their own workings?

So instead they should do all the dead microbes and then later all the live microbes?

But is all inside the same little body?


On the marquee outside my daughter's school it says, "replace anxiety with gratitude". I am so incredibly anxious that it's taken this long to specifically highlight exactly what we inject into children at exactly what age, I am grateful that at least we're doing so.

Thank you sir, may I have another.....


What in God's name are they saying? Admitting that simultaneously admistered vaccines (too many too soon) are unsafe? What time between live, non-live vaccines are they meaning? They know MMR administered before 24 months is not efficacious yet I'm sure they do it, even recommend it somewhere.

cia parker

So they're saying it's better to give the DTaP to infants, as is currently done, and later the live MMR. Well, look what a disaster THAT has been in millions of cases. We have speculated that the live vaccine might cause increased adverse reactions because of stored mercury from previous vaccines.

This is all crazy. The very first thing to do is not to give any pertussis vaccine to anyone. Ever. It's dangerous and ineffective, while the disease is relatively mild (meaning not dangerous, not that it isn't a pain to cough ten coughs per breath for two months, as we did) except for a small percentage of the youngest newborns. The next is not to give the MMR to anyone. Ever. Give natural rubella to schoolgirls at the end of the school year so they get natural and permanent immunity before having babies. Be good to give natural measles and mumps to them as well. And chickenpox. As Dr. Moskowitz recommended be done in a Mothering article he wrote many years ago.

They have no idea what they're doing. Just say no. I'd say get the DT series after two years old, the Hib only if a baby between six and eighteen months has to be in daycare, and the polio series only if it comes back here.

Angus Files

Alex hitting on vaccines


Pharma for Prison


Grace Green

John, I think you're touching on the fact that they don't say HOW long after. Ever? The letter is quite silent on that question.

Han Litten


Del Big Tree is the REAL deal .
Proper organised protests at last .

John Stone

Hi Bob

I don't think these change around. Live vaccines include single measles (in "low income" countries), MMR, MMRV but the others would be non-live. There isn't of course any context now in which children would not be given routinely non-live vaccines after they had received the MMR.

bob moffit

Admittedly .. I read the following five times .. and .. still could not comprehend exactly what I was reading:

"So far the results have been consistent in indicating that it is better to receive a live vaccine after a non-live vaccine than a non-live after a live vaccine ... Hence, it could have major effects on mortality and morbidity and health care costs if immunisation programmes implemented a “live-vaccine-last” policy."

Perhaps an example of a particular "live vaccine" given decades .. that has been replaced by a "non-live" vaccine NOW given as a "booster" would have helped?

Verify your Comment

Previewing your Comment

This is only a preview. Your comment has not yet been posted.

Your comment could not be posted. Error type:
Your comment has been saved. Comments are moderated and will not appear until approved by the author. Post another comment

The letters and numbers you entered did not match the image. Please try again.

As a final step before posting your comment, enter the letters and numbers you see in the image below. This prevents automated programs from posting comments.

Having trouble reading this image? View an alternate.


Post a comment

Comments are moderated, and will not appear until the author has approved them.

Your Information

(Name and email address are required. Email address will not be displayed with the comment.)