Check back soon for more history!
Contraindications to Vaccination in the Russian Federation – The Journal of Infectious Diseases 2000; 181(Suppl 1):S228–31
See: Table 1. Contraindications to diphtheria-tetanus toxoids–pertussis vaccine (DTP) in Russia
Allergies (anaphylaxis, serum sickness, bronchial asthma, eczema, edema)
1980 – Contraindicated
1988 – Contraindicated (Severe only)
1994 – Contraindicated (Severe only)
Family or personal history of allergies was a contraindication to vaccination
“In England during the 1950s and 1960s, a personal or family history of allergies was a contraindication. The Dow Chemical Company’s DPT product insert in the 1960’s urged fractional doses of vaccine in infants with “a strong family history of allergy.” More recently, the government of what was formerly East Germany advised that “persons with manifest allergic disease symptoms” should not be given a DPT shot less than four weeks following recovery.” – Page 126 – A Shot in the Dark by Harris L. Coulter and Barbara Loe Fisher
DTP-Associated Reactions: An Analysis by Injection Site, Manufacturer, Prior Reactions, and Dose – Pediatrics 1984
“In a subset of 772 children, in whom data regarding sequential reactions were available, it was noted that all three reactions investigated—local redness, temperature ≥39°C, and persistent crying longer than one-half hour—were two to three times more frequent on a subsequent immunization when present on a prior vaccination than if not present on a prior vaccination than if not present previously. One hundred children received a half dose of DTP vaccine because of a less serious reaction associated with prior immunization. In all instances, they had significantly less serious local reactions as well as notable differences in temperature, drowsiness, and persistent crying.”
Vaccine Safety History
Federal Register / Vol. 49, No. 107 / Friday, June 1. 1984 / Rules and Regulations
DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES – Food and Drug Administration
Additional Standards for Viral Vaccines; Poliovirus Vaccine, Live, Oral
“However, although the continued availability of the vaccine may not be in immediate jeopardy, any possible doubts, whether or not well founded, about the safety of the vaccine cannot be allowed to exist in view of the need to assure that the vaccine will continue to be used to the maximum extent consistent with the nation’s public health objectives.”
Adverse reactions to measles immunisation – 1994 British Medical Journal
“Our data emphasise the potential of measles vaccine to cause appreciable adverse reactions in children with a history of severe multiple allergies, including allergy to egg. … As the measles vaccine in our study was not grown in chick embryo fibroblast culture, reactions may have been due to cross reactivity between constituents of the vaccine and either egg or cows’ milk proteins. We agree that ‘measles immunisation should be performed in a setting where any adverse reactions can be dealt with appropriately.’ Our results suggest, however, that this practice should be restricted in children with severe food allergy.”
CSACI (Canadian Society of Allergy and Clinical Immunology) correspondence – Dear colleagues, Vaccination with Arepanrix has led to far more reports of anaphylaxis or significant allergic reactions than is normally expected for a flu vaccine. (PDF)
“The chief of Vaccine Safety at Health Canada would like to have the cases evaluated uniformly across Canada, to help understand the mechanisms underlying such reactions, which may not be IgE mediated. The final details are not finalized but would include a standardized questionnaire to identify risk factors, and a common approach for testing. GSK, the company that manufactured the vaccine, might also be able to supply individual components for skin testing. We would ask, if possible, that you delay testing the cases that may have been referred to you, so that patients will not need to be evaluated or tested twice. It is important from the point of view of vaccine safety, that we are able to assess as many patients as possible, and some may not be willing to go through testing twice.”
Smallpox vaccination: should our policy be changed? – video – “This film shows a debate between Dr. John Neff, who is against the continuation of smallpox vaccination use, and Dr. Samuel Katz, who is in support of it. The debate is mediated by Dr. Paul Wehrle. The host welcomes the audience and Dr. Wehrle gives a brief background of smallpox in America, and then shows a world map that indicates where smallpox has been a problem and during what periods of time. Dr. Neff notes that the vaccine has eradicated smallpox, but argues that it is no longer necessary, the duration of immunity is too short, and there are too many complications and deaths as a result of it.”
The Blog, Vaccines and Christianity, pulls some quotes from the video:
“It’s obvious: don’t vaccinate a child with eczema
Vaccines cause eczema. While today vaccines are considered to be virtually infallible, and medical exemptions are rabidly under attack, in this debate it was considered obvious that those with eczema should not be vaccinated. How many of those with eczema today are told this? Note that Dr. Katz is very clear that this applies to “any live virus vaccine” (not just for smallpox).
A child with eczema or the sibling of a child with eczema; a patient with a malignancy involving the immune mechanism; a patient on immunosuppressant drugs; these are patients we know will have trouble with smallpox vaccine — these latter ones — or any live virus vaccine. (around the 16:40 mark)
It’s been known a long time that you shouldn’t vaccinate a child with eczema, or a family contact with eczema.
(around the 18:20 mark)
Dr. Wehrle (moderator):
Everyone knows you shouldn’t vaccinate a child with eczema.
(around the 19:50 mark)