3 articles, page 2 of 3

Review article

Vaccination Safety Update

Dtsch Arztebl Int 2008; 105(34-35): 590-5; DOI: 10.3238/arztebl.2008.0590

Schneeweiß, B; Pfleiderer, M; Keller-Stanislawski, B

Arzneimittelkommission der deutschen Ärzteschaft, Berlin: Prof. Dr. med. habil. Schneeweiß Paul-Ehrlich-Institut, Langen: Dr. rer. nat. Pleiderer, Dr. med. Keller-Stanislawski
Introduction: In Germany, a large number of biased reports against vaccination have recently been published in all of the news media, and particularly on the internet. This paper discusses the safety profile of modern vaccines and their continuous surveillance and shows why the current criticism of vaccination on safety grounds is unjustified.
Methods: The authors have performed a selective literature search to enable a proper distinction to be drawn between scientifically justified and unjustified reports on the potential adverse effects of vaccination.
Results: At present, the safety of a new vaccine must be demonstrated in large-scale clinical trials before the product is licensed. After licensing, the safety of new vaccines is constantly monitored, and the results of monitoring are published.
Discussion: An examination of these data reveals that the expressed doubts about the safety of vaccines are unjustified.
Dtsch Arztebl Int 2008; 105(34–35): 590–5
DOI: 10.3238/arztebl.2008.0590
Key words: vaccination, side effects, safety, surveillance, unjustified scepticism about vaccines
Vaccination is the most effective medical primary prevention measure. The efficacy and utility of vaccination in controlling widely feared infectious diseases is convincingly demonstrated by the eradication of smallpox and the successful combating of poliomyelitis and diphtheria. In 1930s Germany around 6000 people, most of them children, died annually of diphtheria and a further 500 succumbed to poliomyelitis. Thanks to vaccination, these diseases have now disappeared from Germany. The risks of vaccination must be seen alongside its benefits. It goes without saying that the adverse effects of a vaccine must not exceed acceptable limits, i.e., a vaccine may not inflict lasting damage on the vaccinee's health.

Licensing and batch testing
A new vaccine is licensed for use only after exhaustive testing. Only when its efficacy and safety have been demonstrated in a multi-stage test procedure (table 1 gif ppt) a national license is granted by the German Federal Agency for Sera and Vaccines – the Paul-Ehrlich-Institut.

At European Union (EU) level the European Medicines Agency in London (EMEA; http://www.emea.europa.eu) is responsible for licensing new vaccines. Details of the EU legal framework for regulation of pharmaceutical products can be found on the internet (http://ec.europa/eu/enterprise/pharmaceuticals/index_en.htm).
Licensing alone does not mean that a vaccine can be distributed in Germany. Batch testing and batch release by the Paul-Ehrlich-Institut is required. The same is true at EU level: the EMEA is responsible for licensing procedures, while the provisions for batch testing and release are regulated by a central institution in Strasbourg, the European Directorate for the Quality of Medicines and Health Care (EDQM; http://www.edqm.eu/site/page_628.php).

Monitoring of side effects and complications
Despite painstaking clinical testing, at the time of licensing of a vaccine the clinical experience is limited. Even if the tests involve several thousand probands, very rare side effects (<1:10 000) and long-term effects may emerge only after the product has been licensed. Thus, the safety of vaccines must be monitored after licensing.

German law (§ 6 Abs. 1 Nr. 3 IfSG) requires specific reporting of all after-effects of vaccination that go beyond the usual vaccine reaction. Definitions of usual and unusual reactions to vaccines were published by the German Standing Vaccination Committee in 2004 and updated in 2007 (1) (table 2 gif ppt).

Whenever such a reaction is suspected, the physician is obliged to report it immediately to the local Health Office on the standard preprinted form (www.pei.de/cln_047/nn_158140/DE/infos/fachkreise/meldeformulare-fach/meldeformulare-fachnode.html?__ nnn=true, accessed 23.7.2007). The Health Office forwards the pseudonymized registration form to the Paul-Ehrlich-Institut. The collection and evaluation of these reports at the Paul-Ehrlich-Institut (e1e4) is crucial to the early recognition of danger signals. Potential risks are publicized (www.pei.de) and, if it is deemed advisable, investigated in clinical and epidemiological studies. If unacceptably severe side effects are established, the vaccine is removed from the market. An example of this is provided by the withdrawal of a vaccine against tickborne encephalitis in March 2001.

Apart from this legal duty to report suspicious cases, the physician has a professional obligation to report suspected vaccine side effects to the Drug Commission of the German Medical Association (www.akdae.de).

The existence of compulsory registration and the fact that German law provides for compensation for damage to health by an officially recommended vaccination (§ 60 IfSG) underline the high importance accorded by the state to protection of its population by vaccination and to the guarantee of safety to the individual vaccinee.

The objections of vaccination skeptics
On the internet, in books, in informal meetings and even at symposia, one can hear critical voices warning of the alleged risks of widespread administration of vaccines. This section presents the current state of knowledge with regard to various specific criticisms of vaccination.

Hypothesis: "Mercury contained in vaccines harms brain growth"
For many decades thimerosal has been added to vaccines as a decontaminant. It has been used millions of times in vaccinations all over the world. Thimerosal is an organic mercury compound and is degraded in the body to ethyl mercury. In the 20th century the human mercury burden increased threefold owing to the burning of fossil fuels and garbage incineration (e5). Prenatal exposure to high levels of mercury, particularly through maternal consumption of contaminated fish, is said to impair fetal neurological development (e6).

The fear that the brain development in young infants might be damaged by vaccines containing thimerosal was misplaced. Inadmissibly, the ethyl mercury burden was derived from guidelines for methyl mercury (2). Investigations in apes and in humans have shown that these two substances display notable differences in their pharmacokinetics. Ethyl mercury has a considerably shorter elimination half-life (e7). To date the only reported problems after administration of thimerosal-containing vaccines have been hypersensitivity reactions, which cannot be described in terms of an illness (e8).

Following the recommendation of the EMEA (3), all vaccines for use in children are now free of thimerosal.

Hypothesis: "Hepatitis B vaccine causes multiple sclerosis or triggers a flare"
Ever since the introduction of hepatitis B immunization, fears have been expressed that the vaccination causes multiple sclerosis (MS) or accelerates the progression of the disease. For this reason, several epidemiological studies have been carried out in recent years (5, e9e12). With the sole exception of one case-control study (4), none of these investigations has shown a significant risk of MS or any other demyelinating disease following hepatitis B virus (HBV) vaccination.

This case-control study (4) was criticized by the WHO (6) for methodological deficiencies, e.g., too small a sample. A detailed statement can be found on the homepage of the Paul-Ehrlich-Institut (e13). Another study with a very similar design (5) showed no significantly increased risk of MS in persons vaccinated with HBV (odds ratio 0.8, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.4 to 1.4).

Hypothesis: "Measles vaccination causes or favors autism"
A publication in The Lancet (e13) made a connection between measles vaccination and gastrointestinal symptoms and developmental disorders (7). This led to widespread anxiety in Great Britain regarding the safety of the measles-mumps-rubella (MMR) vaccines. The heated debate between critics and proponents of vaccination continues to the present day.

On February 20, 2004 The Lancet described this study as "flawed" by a "fatal conflict of interest" and stated that it should never have been published. In the meantime the British medical authorities are preparing to revoke the principal author's license to practice medicine, on suspicion of corruption.

According to an official statement from the Institute of Medicine, a causal link between MMR vaccination and autism can now be excluded, on the basis of a meta-analysis (8).

In Germany doubts over measles vaccination persist. "Measles parties" have even been organized (e15), with the intention that healthy children should be infected by a child with measles and acquire "natural immunity". Regional outbreaks of measles, sometimes with serious complications, are the result (e16).

Hypothesis: "Mumps vaccination, Haemophilus influenzae type b vaccination, and hepatitis B vaccination cause autoimmune diseases such as type 1 diabetes"
A link between diabetes mellitus type 1 and mumps vaccination has been postulated from time to time (10, e17e19), but it is now clear that the vaccination does not cause type 1 diabetes (11, e20). At one point Finnish investigators (9, e21) raised the same suspicion against Haemophilus influenzae type b (Hib) vaccination; however, a painstaking meta-analysis (12) demonstrated no causal connection.

It has also been discussed whether vaccinations might either directly cause or trigger other autoimmune diseases, such as rheumatic disorders and lupus erythematosus. To date, studies with level of evidence III have shown no unfavorable effect of vaccinations for influenza (e22), hepatitis B (e23), meningococci C (e24), or MMR (e25) on the course of idiopathic juvenile arthritis. Nevertheless, further studies should be conducted into the safety and immunogenicity of vaccinations in such diseases (e26).

Hypothesis: "Vaccinations can transmit pathogens"
It is sometimes conjectured that vaccines might transmit pathogens such as HCV or HIV (13). In the 1980s, for example, this accusation was made against hepatitis B vaccine, which was derived from the plasma of hepatitis B antigen carriers. However, the literature contains no single mention of such a case. Furthermore, hepatitis B vaccine is now produced solely by gene technological means.

Protein-containing adjuvants are present in culture media and thus are found in trace quantities in vaccines. They have been discussed as a possible risk factor, particularly with regard to bovine spongiform encephalitis (BSE), a few cases of which are still occurring in Europe (e27). Vaccines can be viewed as BSE-safe, however, and their BSE safety is rigorously controlled by the Paul-Ehrlich-Institut (14). All protein-containing vaccine additives are tested accordingly.

Hypothesis: "Multiple vaccinations overload/weaken the immune system"
A question frequently raised by vaccination skeptics is whether a child's immune system might not be overburdened (15), particularly by combined vaccines comprising up to 25 different antigens (e28). In humans, however, the T-cell receptors responsible for the recognition of microbial antigens are present in quantities on the order of 1018 even in childhood (16). On today's knowledge of the immune system, the antigens in combined vaccines occupy only a minute fraction of the available receptors.

Hypothesis: "Vaccines promote allergies"
In the early 1990s the incidence of atopic diseases and infections in children was significantly higher in Western Germany than in the eastern part of the country, the previous GDR (17, e29). This is explained by the "hygiene hypothesis". In simplified form, this states that microbial stimulus of the Th1 immune system results in reduction of the Th2 system, responsible for atopy (e30). The prevention of infectious diseases could lead to upgrading of the Th2 system and thus to an increase in allergies (e19).

If this hypothesis were valid, however, the frequency of atopy in the old GDR, with its high vaccination rate, should have been much higher. Both the process of postnatal immune maturation and the findings of recent clinical studies speak against the hypothesis. Plainly vaccines, like infections, act as Th1 stimuli.

The most important impetus for postnatal immune maturation is provided not by infections or vaccinations, however, but by the natural bacterial colonization in the first few days of life. This takes place primarily in the gut (e31).

Investigators specifically seeking an influence of infections and vaccinations on the frequency of atopy have found a moderate (e32) or marked (e33e35) reduction in the risk of atopy, but never an increase.

Hypothesis: "Vaccines can trigger fits (epilepsy)"
This criticism of vaccination arose in the 1960s and 1970s. In the wake of the postvaccinal encephalitis (e38, e39) that had followed vaccination against smallpox, there was widespread fear of an equally serious wave of postvaccinal encephalopathy after whole-cell pertussis vaccination (18, e36, e37, e39).

Wide-ranging epidemiological studies (19, 20, e40) and detailed differential diagnostic investigations (21) show that modern vaccines can cause high febrile reactions with febrile convulsions (e41, e42). These occur relatively infrequently with the acellular vaccines used in Germany, but are fairly common with the whole-cell pertussis vaccine used around the world. However, a large study on more than 600 000 children (22) has excluded any possibility of a febrile convulsion progressing to fits or triggering epilepsy. Retrospectively investigated children suffering from fits showed a lower frequency of previous pertussis vaccination than healthy children without fits.

In this regard, a mutation was found of the SCN1A gene, which is normally responsible for neuronal sodium transport. The demonstration of this mutation in 11 of 14 children with severe myoclonic epilepsy who were suspected of having vaccinal encephalopathy suggests a genetic disorder rather than an adverse effect of vaccination (e43).

Hypothesis: "Sudden infant death syndrome is connected with vaccinations, particularly with hexavalent vaccines"
In recent years deaths in the first and second years of life soon after vaccination with hexavalent vaccines have attracted much publicity (23). With regard to deaths in the first year of life, there was no sign of an increased risk of sudden infant death syndrome (SIDS). An association was found between one of the two hexavalent vaccines and sudden unexpected death (SUD) in the second year of life, in that the number of deaths reported was higher than would normally have been anticipated.

However, this connection was based on only four cases. In the meantime the vaccine has been withdrawn from the market for other reasons. Its hepatitis B antigen content is apparently being reconsidered and may be raised if deemed necessary.

In the industrialized nations, SIDS is known to be the most frequent cause of death in infants after the end of the neonatal period. One of the defining characteristics of SIDS, besides the sudden death of a healthy child in his/her sleep, is age between six weeks and four months. This is the period when every infant receives the standard vaccinations, so an incidental association is preprogrammed. Several studies, recently also in Germany, have looked into the possibility of increased risk. Venemann et al. (24) showed in repeated investigations, culminating in a meta-analysis (25), that the odds ratio for sudden infant death in a univariate analysis was 0.54 (95% CI 0.39 to 0.76). Although the heterogeneity of the studies demands caution in interpreting the findings, one has to ask whether vaccinations might not actually protect against SIDS.

Since August 2005 the Robert Koch Institute (Berlin) has been running the TOKEN Study, examining deaths in children aged 2 to 24 months. The aim of this study is to identify previously unknown risk factors for early death. These may include certain living conditions, problems during pregnancy or birth, illnesses, and medical or medicinal treatment, including vaccinations. Further information on this wide-reaching three-year study can be found on the internet (http://www.rki.de/nn_201180/DE/Content/GBE/Erhebungen/WeitereEpiStudien/TOKEN__Studie/token__node.html?__nnn=true, accessed on 23.07.2007).

The currently marketed vaccines meet high standards of safety.

Numerous new vaccines have recently been licensed for use. A few examples are:

- Rotavirus vaccines
- Vaccines to protect against cervical cancer (human papillomavirus vaccines)
- Measles-mumps-rubella-varicella combined vaccines
- Vaccine to protect against herpes zoster and postherpetic neuralgia
- Influenza vaccine from tissue culture and many more

Further novel vaccines are undergoing clinical testing:

- Improved conjugate vaccines to protect against pneumococcal and meningococcal infections
- Live attenuated influenza vaccines
- Malaria vaccines
- Japanese encephalitis vaccines

All these vaccines have to be proved safe as well as effective, not only before but also after they are licensed for use.

The most important instrument for early recognition of danger signals is passive monitoring. All physicians are called on to report every suspicion of complications following vaccination without delay, to further strengthen the foundations for scientific evaluation of the safety of modern vaccines.

Conflict of interest statement
The authors declare that no conflict of interest exists according to the guidelines of the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors.
Manuscript received on 1 October 2007, revised version accepted on
18 March 2008.

Translated from the original German by David Roseveare.

Corresponding author
Prof. Dr. med. habil. Burkhard Schneeweiss
Karolinenhofweg 20
12527 Berlin, Germany
Ständige Impfkommission STIKO: Aktualisierte Hinweise für Ärzte zum Aufklärungsbedarf über mögliche unerwünschte Wirkungen bei Schutzimpfungen. Epidemiol Bull 2007; 25.
Stajich GV, Lopez GJ, Harry WW, Sexson WR: Iatrogenic exposure to mercury after hepatitis B vaccination in preterm infants. J Pediatr 2000; 136: 679–81. MEDLINE
The European Agency for the Evaluation of Medicinal Products – Evaluation of Medicines for Human Use. CPMP position paper on thiomersal – implementation of the warning statement relating to sensitisation. CPMP/2612/99. www.eudra.org/emea.html
Hernán MA, Jick SS, Olek MJ, Jick H: Recombinant hepatitis B vaccine and the risk of multiple sclerosis. Neurology 2005; 63: 838–42. MEDLINE
DeStefano F, Weintraub ES, Chen RT: Determining risk of multiple sclerosis after hepatitis B vaccine: time since vaccination and source of data. Pharmacoepidemiol Drug Saf 2004; 13:143.
WHO Global Advisory Committee on Vaccine Safety: Response to the paper by MA Hernán and others in Neurology 14 Sept 2004. http://www.who.int/vaccine_safety/topics/hepatitisb/multiple_sclerosis/sep_04/en/
Wakefield AJ: Autism, inflammatory bowel disease, and MMR vaccine. Lancet 1998; 351: 1356. MEDLINE
Board on population health and public health practice. Immunization safety review: Vaccines and autism. Institute of Medicine of the National Academies http://www.iom.edu/
Classen JB, Classen DC: Association between type 1 diabetes and Hib vaccine. Brit Med J 1999; 319: 1133. MEDLINE
Otten A, Helmke K, Stief T, Mueller-Eckhard G, Willems WR, Federlin K: Mumps, mumps vaccination, islet cell antibodies and the first manifestation of Diabetes mellitus type I. Behring Inst Mitt 1984; 7: 83–8. MEDLINE
ACIP: Recommendations of the Immunization Practices Advisory Committee: Mumps prevention. Am J Dis Child 1989; 143: 1141–2.
von Kries R, Schmitt HJ: Diabetes mellitus nach Hib-Impfung? Kinderärztl Praxis 1999; 8: 589–90.
Buchwald G: Impfen – Das Geschäft mit der Angst. Verlag Knaur 1997.
Fiddike M: Praxisinformationen – Kritische Betrachtung der Impffrage. www.dr-marc-fiddike.de
Baenkler H-W: Faszination Immunologie. Stuttgart: Hippokrates Verlag 1992.
Mutius E von, Fritzsch C, Weiland SK, Roell G, Magnussen H: Prevalence of asthma and allergic disorders among children in united Germany: a descriptive comparison. BMJ 1992; 305: 1395–9. MEDLINE
Ehrengut W: Die Pertussis-Impfenzephalopathie, eine Legende? Der Kinderarzt 1992; 23: 222.
Pollock T, Miller E, Mortimer J: Symptoms after primary immunization with DTP and DT vaccine. Lancet 1995; 274: 1518–28. MEDLINE
Ray P, Hayward J, Michelson D et al.: Encephalopathy after whole-cell pertussis or measles vaccination: lack of evidence for a causal association in a retrospective study. Pediatr Infect Dis J 2006; 25: 768–73. MEDLINE
Stehr K, Heininger U, Beer E, Wenzel D: Rehabilitation der Pertussisimpfung – postvakzinale Dauerschäden: ein Mythos! Pädiatr Praxis 1994; 47: 175–83.
Barlow WE, Davis RL, Glasser JW et al.: Center for Health Studies, Group Health cooperation, Seattle. The risk of seizures after receipt of whole-cell pertussis or measles, mumps, and rubella vaccine. N Engl J Med 2001; 345: 656–61. MEDLINE
von Kries R, Toschke AM, Strassburger K et al.: Sudden and unexspected deaths after the administration of hexavalent vaccines (diphtheria, tetanus, pertussis, poliomyelitis, hepatitis B, haemophilus influenzae type b): is there a signal? Eur J Pediatr 2005; 164: 61. MEDLINE
Vennemann MMT, Butterfaß-Bahloul T, Jorch G et al.: Sudden infant death syndrome: No increased risk after immunisation. Vaccine 2007; 25: 336–40. MEDLINE
Vennemann MMT, Höffgen M, Bajanowski T, Hense HW, Mitchell EA: Do immunizations reduce the risk for SIDS? A meta-analysis. Vaccine 2007; 25: 4875–9. MEDLINE
Keller-Stanislawski B, Hartmann K: Auswertung der Meldungen von Verdachtsfällen auf Impfkomplikationen nach dem Infektionsschutzgesetz. Bundesgesundheitsbl 2002; 45: 344–54.
Hartmann K, Keller-Stanislawski B: Rekombinante Hepatitis B-Impfstoffe und Verdachtsfälle unerwünschter Reaktionen. Bundesgesundheitsbl 2002; 45: 355–63.
Keller-Stanislawski B, Heuß N, Meyer C: Verdachtsfälle von Impfkomplikationen nach dem Infektionsschutzgesetz und Verdachtsfälle von Nebenwirkungen nach dem Arzneimittelgesetz vom 1. 1. 2001 bis zum 31. 12. 2003. Bundesgesundheitsbl 2004; 47: 1151–64. MEDLINE
Keller-Stanislawski B, Weber G: Nebenwirkungen und Komplikationen nach Impfungen. Kinderärztl Praxis 2005; Sonderheft „Impfnebenwirkungen“: 17–24.
Bender MT, Williams JM: A real plan of action on mercury. Publ Health Rep 1999; 114: 416–20. MEDLINE
Grandjean P, Budtz-Jorgensen E, White RF et al.: Methylmercury exposure biomarkers as indicators of neurotoxicity in children aged 7 years. Am J Epidemiol 1999; 150: 301–5. MEDLINE
Pichichero ME, Cernichiari E, Loreiato J, Treanor J: Mercury concentrations and metabolism in infants receiving vaccines containing thiomersal: a descriptive study. Lancet 2002; 360: 1737–41.
Weisser K, Bauer K, Volkers P, Keller-Stanislawski B: Thiomersal und Impfungen. Bundesgesundheitsbl 2004; 47: 1165–74.
Ascherio A, Zhang SM, Hernán ME et al.: Hepatitis B vaccination and the risk of multiple sclerosis. N Engl J Med 2001; 344: 327–32.
Confavreux C, Suissa S, Saddier P et al.: Vaccinations and the risk of relapse in multiple sclerosis. Vaccines in multiple sclerosis study group. N Engl J Med 2001; 344: 319–26.
Touze E, Fourrier A, Rue-Fenouche C et al.: Hepatitis B vaccination and first central nervous system demyelinating event: a case control study. Neuroepidemiology 2002; 21: 180–6.
Zipp F, Weil JG, Einhäupl KL: No increase in demyeliniating disease after hepatitis B vaccine. Nat Med 1999; 5: 964–5.
http://www.pei.de/cln_049/nn_158154/DE/infos/fachkreise/am-infos-ablage/sik/2004-10-27-ms-hbv-studien.html, Stand 15. 10. 2007. (Studienübersicht und Diskussion zur Frage „Multiple Sklerose und Hepatitis B-Impfung“).
Wakefield AJ, Murch SH, Anthony A et al.: Ileal-lymphoid-nodular hyperplasia, non-specific colitis, and pervasive developmental disorder in children. Lancet 1998; 351: 611–2.
Kinderreiche Mutter und ihre homöopathisch orientierte Ärztin ihrer Kinder: „Masern-Party statt Schutzimpfung“ Bild am Sonntag 19. 3. 2000. www.efi.de
Tischer A, Siedler A, Rasch G: Masernüberwachung in Deutschland. Gesundheitswesen 2001; 63: 703–9.
Helmke K, Otten A, Willems WR et al.: Islet cell antibodies and the development of diabetes mellitus in relation to mumps infection and mumps vaccination. Diabetologia 1986; 29: 30–3.
Sinaniotis C: Diabetes mellitus after mumps vaccination. Archives of diseases of children. 1975; 50: 749–50.
Rabe St: Beiträge zu einer differenzierten Impfentscheidung. http://www.IMPF-INFO.de
DVV Deutschen Vereinigung zur Bekämpfung der Viruskrankheiten e. V.: Mumpsimpfung und Diabetes mellitus Typ1: Veröffentlichung der DVV. Bundesgesundhbl 1989; 32: 237–9.
Karvonen M, Henderson J, North K et al.: Association between type 1 diabetes and haemophilus influenzae typ b vaccination. In: birth cohort study. Brit Med J 1999; 318: 1169–72.
Kanakoudi-Tsakalidou F, Trachana M, Pratsidou-Gertsi P, Tsitsami E, Kyriazopoulou-Dalaina V: Influenza vaccination in children with chronic rheumatic diseases and long-term immunosuppressive therapy. Clin Exp Rheumatol 2001; 19: 589–94.
Kasapcopur Ö, Cullu F, Kamburoölu-Goksel A et al.: Hepatitis B vaccination in children with juvenile idiopathic arthritis. Ann Rheum Dis 2004; 63: 1128–30.
Zonnveld-Huijssoon EZ, Ronaghy A, van Rossum AJ et al.: Safety and efficacy of meningococcal C vaccination in juvenile idiopathic arthritis. Arthritis & Rheumatism 2007; 56: 639–46.
Heijstek MW, Pileggi C, Zonneveld-Huijssoon E: Safety of measles, mumps and rubella vaccination in juvenile idiopathic arthritis. Ann Rheum Dis 2007 http://ard.bmj.com/cgi/content/abstract/ ard.2006.063586v1
Minden K, Niewerth M, Borte M, Singendonk W, Haas JP: Impfungen bei rheumatischen Erkrankungen des Kindes- und Jugendalters. Z Rheumatol 2007; 66: 111–20.
Krautstein H: Umweltmedizin kommt zu kurz. Naturarzt 2002; 5: 51.
Hilton S, Petticrew M, Hunt K: Combined vaccines are like a sudden onslaught to the body´s immune system: parental concerns about vaccine „overload“ and „immune-vulnerability“.Vaccine 2006; 24: 4321–7.
Mutius E von, Martinez FD, Fritzsch C, Nicolai T, Roell G, Thiemann HH: Prevalence of asthma and atopy in two areas of West and East Germany. Am J Resp Crit Care Med 1994; 149: 358.
Bloomfield SF, Stanwell-Smith R, Crevel RW, Pickup J: Too clean, or not too clean: the hygiene hypothesis and home hygiene. Clin Exp Allergy 2006; 36: 402–25.
Heine W, Uhlemann M, Mohr C: Physiologische Besiedlung des Darmtrakts in der Kindheit. Mon schr Kinderheilk 1998; 146: 7–12.
Paunio M, Peltola H, Virtanen M et al.: Acute infection, infection pressure, and atopy. Clin Exp Allergy 2006; 36: 634–9.
Nakajima K, Dharmage SC, Carlin JB et al.: Is childhood immunisation associated with atopic disease from age 7 to 32 years ? Thorax 2006; Nov 7 zit. nach Bonhoeffer J, Heininger U: Adverse events following immunization: perception and evidence. Curr Opin Infect Dis 2007; 20: 237–46.
Bernsen RM, Koes BW, de Jongste JC, van der Wouden JC: Haemophilus influenzae type b vaccination and reported atopic disoders in 8–12- year-old children. Pediatr Pulmonol 2006; 41: 463–9.
Bernsen RM, de Jongste JC, Koes BW et al.: Diphtheria tetanus pertussis poliomyelitis vaccination and reported atopic disorders in 8–12-year-old children. Vaccine 2006; 24: 2035–42.
Bellman MH, Ross EM, Miller DL: Infantile spasms and pertussis immunization. Lancet 1983; I: 1031–4.
Doose H, Maurer A: Seizure risk in offspring of individuals with a history of febrile convulsions. Eur J Pediatr 1997; 156: 476–81.
Herrlich A: Handbuch der Schutzimpfungen. Berlin, Heidelberg, New York: Springer Verlag1965.
Doose H, Eckel U, Völzke E: Krampfanfälle nach der Pockenschutzimpfung. European J Pediatrics 1968; 103: 214–36.
Griffin M, Wayne A, Mortimer E: Risk of seizures and encephalopathy after immunization with der DTP vaccine. JAMA 1990; 263: 1641–5.
Howson CP, Howe CJ, Fineberg HV (eds): Adverse effects of pertussis and rubella vaccines. Washington, DC: National Academy Press 1991.
Peter G (ed) Red Book 1997: Report of the Committee on Infectious Diseases. Elk Grove Village: American Academy of Pediatrics 1997; 24: 394–408.
Berkovic SF, Harkin L, McMahon JM et al.: De-novo mutations of the sodium channel gene SCN1A in alleged vaccine encephalopathy: a retrospective study. Lancet Neurol 2006; 5: 488–92.

4 / 2014 8 1
3 / 2014 15 2
2 / 2014 15 2
1 / 2014 16 1
12 / 2013 12 2
11 / 2013 23 2
2014 54 6
2013 126 30
2012 35 18
2011 165 32
2010 82 33
2009 158 52
2008 460 108
Total 1.080 279

All Letters