Foreword: I do not use labels such as “pro-vaxxer” or “anti-vaxxer”. Labels can be powerful tools. In the vaccine debate, they’ve successfully pitted people against one another and forced out a middle-ground way of thinking. Furthermore, “anti-vaxxer” has taken on a derogatory meaning that can push parents into the “pro-vaxxer” category without being afforded an intellectual or objective conversation on the topic. The goal with this post is to provide information that is often censored but necessary in order to ensure true informed consent is provided.

Vaccination requires more consideration than it “eradicates” disease. If you’re someone who believes there’s no reason to be concerned about injecting your baby/child 54+ times before they’re 6 into the circulatory system with neurotoxins, carcinogens, foreign DNA, detergents, heavy metals, etc., (all of which are virtually untested for safety) or if you’re someone whose belief in science only extends as far as to believe what mainstream tells you about science, this post may not be for you. Followers of “science by proclamation” have little capacity to evaluate evidence objectively or grasp the complex nature of the regulatory and media environment that perpetuates propaganda.

Some people may be surprised to know that the decision to add a vaccine to the schedule often has less to do with saving lives than it does with lowering the amount of money spent on healthcare and the impact on the economy.[1]  In the United States where we have clean drinking water, adequate nutrition, and access to healthcare that excels in acute care, a lot of these diseases are only considered mild childhood diseases (not life-threatening) and almost all of them were on the decline before the vaccines were introduced thanks to increased sanitation and refrigeration practices (see graph).

The varicella (chickenpox) vaccine was estimated to save millions of dollars but has ended up costing more due to the increased rate of hospitalization from severe shingles cases among adults[2] and due to the requirement of additional boosters in order to improve the efficacy of the vaccine. Despite this, the CDC has not pulled the vaccine from the schedule causing controversy as some argue it’s unethical to increase severe shingles among adults in order to vaccinate children against mild childhood disease.[4] [5] The CDC’s response was to push the shingles vaccine for adults which is effective for about five years and has adverse side effects that increase with age. This leaves one to wonder what the priority truly is if saving lives and saving money spent on healthcare are not the main decision drivers. Furthermore, chicken pox is increasingly becoming a target for fearmongering. A once mild disease, is now often referred to as “life-threatening”. This is not surprising since the sale of a vaccine relies on the sale of the disease. Perhaps what’s more surprising is just how many people who had this mild disease as a child support this line of thinking.

It is also widely known among the scientific community that several of these diseases have oncolytic (anti-cancer) properties.[6] [7] Meaning simply that infections in early life protect against various cancers later in life. For example, women with prior mumps, measles, rubella, or chickenpox were significantly less likely to develop ovarian cancer.[8] Wild chickenpox infections protect against brain tumors.[9] Infectious diseases in general protect against cancer of the lymph system[10] and significantly reduce the risk of childhood leukemia.[11]Germ theory has been replaced with the Hygiene hypothesis. Simply put, more and more evidence is mounting that we are over sanitizing our environment and the bacteria and viruses actually play an important role in keeping us healthy.

Another commonly suppressed fact is that mass vaccination efforts often lead to strain replacement and sometimes virus mutations. In vaccines where only certain strains are targeted, such as Hib (Haemophilus influenzae type B) and pneumococcal, there has been an increase in infections caused by the non-targeted strains. An alarming situation of strain replacement is the proliferation of more virulent, deadly strains of Haemophilus influenzae.[12] [13] [14] [15] Similarly, competing pneumococcal strains rapidly replaced the vaccine targeted strains, thus a new vaccine, which targeted 13 strains, was introduced in 2010 and the cycle is repeating. Vaccine-induced life-threatening pneumococcal strains are now a worldwide problem.[16] [17] [18] Virus mutations of pertussis are discussed below.

As you can see, there is more to vaccinating than just disease eradication and despite common belief, there are many doctors and scientists who support alternative approaches to managing infectious disease. It’s also worth noting that not every vaccine protects against an infectious disease. Some vaccines are for personal protection only such as the Hep B vaccine.

What’s occurring today around the vaccine debate is really disturbing. People have lost their ability to have an intelligent, objective conversation about it. Instead, much of the nation has engaged in school yard-like bullying, defamation campaigns, censorship, and low-level manipulation tactics. A lot of this is fueled by an oversimplified understanding of vaccination, hubristic human tendencies, and extensive industry influence. In a published paper: Is vaccine dissent based on science? It wisely advises, “Before latching onto the Wakefield case as the holy grail to prove that vaccine opposition groups rely on fraudulent or weak data to advance their agenda, vaccine advocates need to examine their own science and those who are supplying it.”[19] Brian Martin, an Australian Professor published a different paper on the suppression of vaccination dissent where he stated the following, “According to the highest ideals of science, ideas should be judged on their merits and addressed through mustering evidence and logic. Suppression of dissent is a violation of these ideals.”[20]

It’s hard enough being a parent. There’s the silent judgement, looks of disapproval, and constant barrage of unsolicited advice. Parents don’t deserve the added pressure of making such an important health decision that will label and define them to at least some degree no matter what they decide. Parents should be provided informed consent without the ruthless pragmatism and with a more personalized approach based on their child’s unique genetic makeup or situation. Armed with the below arguments, some legislators are working hard to take away this important decision for parents and require mandatory vaccination according to the schedule set forth by the CDC.

1) The unvaccinated put others in danger by threatening herd immunity.

This argument is usually fed by news headlines featuring outbreaks of pertussis (whooping cough) and measles. Both measles and pertussis pose life threatening risks to infants under one and immunocompromised individuals. We’ll discuss these two in detail but what’s interesting about these incidences is that the largest percentage of victims are fully vaccinated. In some cases, 100% of the victims in these outbreaks were fully vaccinated. Instead people continue to spread the hate towards the unvaccinated without asking the important question: how effective are these vaccines? The answer depends on the vaccine but no vaccine provides lifetime immunity. Meaning, we all end up with the equivalent of an unvaccinated status at some point in our lives. For some individual diseases, it’s much earlier than you think. Our country’s largest age demographic – baby boomers – is likely the equivalent of unvaccinated (unless they had the disease before the vaccine was introduced since naturally derived immunity lasts a lifetime). Straight from the MMR vaccine insert:

The MMR vaccine is only effective for 11 to 13 years? Wait, how can herd immunity exist for measles when the vaccine has only been shown to prevent infection for 11 to 13 years? Do you see the propaganda and fear mongering now? Herd immunity is a theory that is continuously disproven. Yet, it’s how they spread hatred and fear towards the unvaccinated. There are so many headlines blaming vaccine refusers as the cause. They use it to pass bills imposing mandatory vaccinations, removing exemptions, and even going as far as to impose fines for noncompliance. It’s truly madness. We’ll always have measles outbreaks because the vaccine is not very effective not because a very small percentage of people decide not to vaccinate their children.

Aside from the clear efficacy issues, baby boomers also have not had the numerous vaccines added to the schedule since they were children. So, where are the major epidemics? Luckily, the Healthy People 2020 Initiative includes a required vaccine booster schedule for adults in order to combat the rampant disease outbreak occurring among our unvaccinated adult population today (sarcasm).

In order for the herd immunity theory to be viable, vaccinated people cannot be spreading or contracting the disease and, most importantly, vaccines have to provide lasting protection. So, let’s see how effective the pertussis and measles vaccine are in these regards.

Pertussis (whopping cough): An often under acknowledged fact about pertussis is that vaccination can spread the disease.[21] The study referenced specifically warns that vaccinated individuals, while often protected from severe symptoms, are not immune from infection. This could explain the resurgence in pertussis following the replacement of the DTP vaccine with the DTaP vaccine while vaccination rates still remained extremely high. With this in mind, it’s clearly not a good idea to “cocoon” a newborn with anybody vaccinated within the last six weeks. While DTP was more effective, it had dangerous side effects.[22] Because the DTaP vaccine still allows the host to become infected, it was inadvertently designed to encourage evolutionary adaptation. After the introduction of the DTaP vaccine, there has been a steady increase in cases of whooping cough caused by B parapertussis – a cousin of B. pertussis.[23] [24] [25] [26] The vaccine is not effective against either of these strains of pertussis which provides a secondary culprit for the rising rates in pertussis despite high vaccination rates. A third explanation is simply the ineffectiveness of the vaccine. [27] Protection from severe symptoms (not infection) lasts for approximately one year after vaccination. Immunity waned during the second year and little protection was afforded during the second and third year post vaccination.[28] This would mean that the vast majority of the population is essentially unvaccinated for pertussis. All of this considered leads us to the logical conclusion that vaccination efforts are equally (if not more) to blame for the recent outbreaks in whooping cough and they’re likely here to stay unless a more effective vaccine can be produced.

Measles: In 2015, two former Merck scientists hit the company with a law suit claiming Merck “fraudulently misled the government and omitted, concealed, and adulterated material information regarding the efficacy of its mumps vaccine in violation of the FCA [False Claims Act].”[29] There’s no shortage of malfeasance examples among pharmaceutical companies. Vaccine products are no exception. This particular example likely explains why the 2016 Harvard mumps outbreak consisted of 100% fully vaccinated students.

There is strong evidence that measles can be spread from fully vaccinated people to other fully vaccinated people. The original belief was that only unvaccinated people can spread measles to others.[30] The largest measles outbreak in North America occurred in Canada in 2011 with over 725 identified cases. Measles vaccination rates were extremely high at the time with only 3-5% being unvaccinated. The index patient (person who initiated the spread) was a fully vaccinated individual. No victims experienced serious complications. 49% of all cases were in children who had received 2 doses of the vaccine. Passive surveillance significantly underreported the number of measles cases that occurred in fully vaccinated people. All of this is summarized in this study which concludes that waning immunity in adolescents suggests that elimination of measles may not be possible even with a 100% vaccination rate.

Immunologist Tetyana Obukhanych also gives lectures on the topic in which she delivers some stark warnings. She explains why we saw a honeymoon period after the measles vaccine was introduced and why outbreaks are likely here to stay. When it comes to measles she argues we lose something very precious by vaccinating: passive infant immunity passed down from a mother (lasts for 6 months and continues to last as long as the mother is breastfeeding) who has had the disease (the vaccine is inadequate). She goes on to also state that due to low MMR efficacy, even with 100% vaccination rates, we will still have leaky “herd immunity”. This leaves the most vulnerable group (infants) completely defenseless to what was once a mild childhood disease.

The fact that some vaccines “shed” is usually only refuted by the most devote vaccine fanatics. If you want to visit an immunocompromised person in a hospital, be prepared to be asked about recent vaccinations and denied visitation rights if you’ve been recently vaccinated with any vaccine known to shed.

Note: when you see an effective rate for a vaccine listed, it’s referring to the probability that the body will produce antibodies after receiving the vaccine. It has nothing to do with how long those antibodies will remain present or whether they’re sufficient to prevent the infection. If you’re curious, there are many test options available today to test your titers (antibodies present). You’ll have to do some research or consult a health practitioner to determine whether the amount present is enough to prevent the disease if you were to come in contact with it. I tested my MMR titers about a year ago and was not surprised to find that I had no protection against measles, mumps, or rubell despite being vaccinated on time as a child (I was 28 at the time of testing). The result was exactly as the evidence suggested it would be.

2) There is no evidence that vaccination can be more harmful than beneficial. The science is conclusive.

Individuals with this belief are true testaments to the power of censorship. Mainstream media doesn’t exactly peddle fake news but it does peddle sponsored news. You’ll likely only get one consistent message through this channel. Most traditional media avenues still rely heavily on advertising income and Pharma happens to contribute billions of dollars annually to their bottom line (much more than they spend on research and development, actually). Next time you turn on the tube, count the number of drug or vaccine ads that come on.

So, what would an objective look at the science show us? A good portion of vaccine safety science is lacking basic criteria needed for quality science such as, true placebo-controlled studies, adequate testing time, and authors free from conflicts of interest. A large percentage of vaccine safety studies fail to report the placebo used which makes them impossible to replicate. Vaccines have never been tested for carcinogenicity (despite containing known carcinogenic ingredients) and are rarely tested on pregnant women despite the recommendation that pregnant women receive the flu shot and DTaP vaccine. The majority of ingredients used are vastly under-tested, completely untested, or were grandfathered in as safe before testing methods simulated today’s vaccine use (like aluminum). Long-term health outcomes are not adequately studied (understatement) nor are the synergistic or compounded effects of these ingredients. What’s more, safety studies often focus on a specific health outcome rather than overall health outcomes. If you understand that we’re all biologically different, you know that this is not an effective way to study adverse outcomes. The vast majority of studies used to prove vaccine safety and efficacy are epidemiological studies. These studies are notoriously unreliable due to ease of data manipulation to reach a desired outcome. Also, it is not refuted that there is a group of individuals out there who are genetically more susceptible to serious adverse reactions from vaccination.[31] It is also not refuted that there is a group of individuals who do not have an immune response to vaccination, thus rendering zero benefit from the vaccines but still assuming the risks. Neither of these groups should receive vaccines yet studies have not been done to identify these individuals. Studies reporting serious, long-term side effects are in the hundreds, if not thousands, and continue to mount. When you take all of this into consideration, vaccination more closely resembles experimentation than sound practiced science.

The science is definitely not conclusive or complete. It won’t ever be conclusive because the gold-standard, double-blind placebo test using the current vaccine schedule (or even individual vaccines) will never be conducted. Although the argument against such a study is usually made to insinuate vaccines are so great it’d be unconscionable not to let a child have them, I do agree that it’s immoral but for different reasons. Letting a group of researchers make a decision of this magnitude for the parents is not something any parent will likely agree to. Parents who choose not to vaccinate wouldn’t take the chance that their child may get the vaccines and vice versa. Without the gold-standard tests, all hypotheses we know today have come from studies which draw correlations. When considering the evidence against vaccination, vaccine advocates and the establishment will always argue that correlation does not equal causation and may even throw out words like “pseudoscience” in order to deflect the claims. Vaccine skeptics will say that enough evidence pointing out the same suspect in a line up is evidence enough and warrants an independent, transparent investigation.

Bias abounds in vaccine science which can produce false findings from a combination of factors including: authors’ choice of study design, data, manipulation in the analysis or selective reporting of findings. It’s as Dr. Richard Horton, the Editor in Chief of one of the most well respected medical journals in the world (The Lancet), describes by stating, “The case against science is straightforward: much of the scientific literature, perhaps half, may simply be untrue. Afflicted by studies with small sample sizes, tiny effects, invalid exploratory analysis, and flagrant conflicts of interest, science has taken a turn towards darkness.”[32]Furthermore, even with large randomized studies and accurate research designs, bias is a major problem with manipulated analyses, outcomes, and selective reporting. The peer-review process may be used to suppress the publication of findings that refute reviewers’ existing beliefs which can condemn an entire research field to false dogma.[33]

When looking at the science, it is important to know that different journals carry different weight. Unfortunately, when it comes to medical science the publication of credible studies in certain high-impact medical journals is not necessarily based on merit since many medical journals rely on revenue derived from the pharmaceutical industry. It’s even been reported recently that the Cochrane Collaboration accepts grants from industry players (once the gold standard of independent testing). The death of scientific integrity in the medical field is well under way. Researchers analyzed 398 studies published in the top two medical journals – New England Journal of Medicine and Journal of the American Medical Association – to determine their funding sources and any conflicts of interest. Private corporations funded 38% of the studies published in NEJM and 35% in JAMA. The top 5 sponsoring companies were all large vaccine/drug manufacturers. 39% of the studies investigated had authors with conflicts of interest. There was a statistically significant relationship between studies that were conducted by authors with conflicts of interest and positive research findings.[34]

The Institute of Medicine (IOM) is periodically called upon to review the science surrounding certain products or procedures when claims warrant an investigation. The IOM is generally in favor of vaccination due to the concrete evidence they are able to evaluate: the decreased rates of hospitalization due to the underlying disease following vaccination. However, throughout every vaccine review the common theme is that a conclusion cannot be reached given the quality and quantity of studies available. Many more studies are needed to rule out reported side effects like infant mortality, autism spectrum disorders, autoimmunity, etc. Despite this, these reviews are often quoted out of context by taking select statements. A CDC webpage boldly states the IOM review on autism as proof that vaccines do not cause autism. The 700+ page report does not exonerate vaccines from an autism link. The only vaccine with adequate studies on autism is MMR. For the MMR and autism link, the committee concluded: “The evidence favors rejection of a causal relationship between MMR vaccine and autism.”[35] The ingredient thimerosal has also been tested adequately for an autism link. The CDC’s claim that thimerosal is safe and that it does not cause autism is based on six studies that were coauthored and sponsored by the CDC. A seventh study was also sponsored by the CDC but not published. The seventh study showed infants who received thimerosal containing vaccines were 7.6 times more likely to develop autism than infants not exposed to thimerosal.[36] The CDC also does not acknowledge the 240+ studies that show damaging effects from thimerosal. 81 of those studies link thimerosal with autism. A link to most of those studies can be found here. Autism is a great example of how manipulative and powerful mainstream media can be. Autism has successfully been coined as a term that smears the credibility of any vaccine skeptic. Mainstream media finds it difficult not to get an autism jab into any vaccine-related article with lines such as “refusers persist even though the vaccine autism link has been thoroughly debunked by overwhelming science.” The CDC has stopped looking for a vaccine-autism link despite having only examined MMR and thimerosal. Meanwhile, science around the world and animal models continue to implicate vaccines as the etiology of ASD (and other neurological disorders). One example is a UK study published in just the last few months where the brain tissue of children with ASD was evaluated. The results would be shocking to anyone under the impression that vaccine ingredients do not pass the blood-brain barrier. The study observed “some of the highest values for aluminum in human brain tissue yet recorded.” What was most concerning to the authors was the young age at which such a high dose of aluminum was able to accumulate. Pediatric vaccines were the obvious culprit. Not surprisingly, the authors have been attacked visciously by industry bloggers and Pharma lap dogs labeling them as anti-vaccine quacks (eye roll). Ignoring the rhetoric can be difficult but asking the question “what’s in it for them” may help you weed out the real quackery.

If it’s not autism being debated, the focus is usually on the known neurotoxic ingredients such as aluminum or thimerosal. Those aside, there is growing concern by geneticists over the injection of foreign DNA due to the presence of gene mutations in children today not found in their parents. Additionally, concern is escalating among scientists over the prevalence of contaminates not declared in the product’s ingredient list. In a study by two Italian scientists it was discovered that, “Every human vaccine tested was contaminated by unsafe levels of metals and debris linked to cancer and autoimmune disease.”[37] The editor of the publishing journal faced massive pressure to retract the study but has remained strong due to the irrefutable quality of the study. The Mawson pilot study published last year of vaccinated versus unvaccinated homeschooled students faced the same level of attack but is published in the Journal of Translational Science despite some retraction claims. The Mawson study suggests that fully vaccinated children may be trading the prevention of certain acute illnesses (chicken pox, pertussis) for more chronic illnesses and neurodevelopmental disorders (NDDs) like ADHD and Autism. Vaccinated children were also significantly more likely to have bouts of pneumonia, ear infections, eczema, and allergies. Not surprisingly, many went into attack mode instead of a more rational approach: demanding follow-up studies be done to test the hypothesis this study has formed (especially when considering the findings are consistent with the testimonials of parents who have both vaccinated and unvaccinated children and Dr. Paul Thomas’ observations of over 13,000 patients in his own practice). The study’s weaknesses are the lack of access to medical records and small population sizes (666 children were observed). It’s not the end-all-be-all but it requires further investigation. Many vaccine advocates will point to a small handful of vaccinated-unvaccinated studies saying the studies have already been done and prove the CDC schedule is safe. None of these studies consist of never vaccinated and fully vaccinated control groups or a replicated CDC schedule like the Mawson study uses.

On a related note, there was a recent NBC article being circulated which insinuated that the schedule is proven safe thanks to a new study. The study consisted of 944 children aged 2 to 4 years old. It looked at vaccinated children and almost fully vaccinated children (the control group). Let me put this another way, the control group and the test group were nearly identical in vaccine related antigen count. The difference was that one group decided to delay some vaccines while the other did not. This is more vaccine junk science and does nothing to prove that vaccination is safe. It merely suggest that spreading out the vaccines leads to your child being just as susceptible to non-vaccine related “bugs” as those children who followed the schedule. It did not look at neurodevelopmental, autoimmunity, allergies, or any other outcome to determine if there were other benefits related to spacing out vaccines. The article also took a quote from a 2013 IOM review out of context to further “prove” that the schedule is safe. The IOM review did not conclude that the schedule was safe. It concluded that it could not be determined due to lack of quantity and quality of studies actually available and recommended that more studies be performed. The article also used a 2005 Danish study to make it’s case which was included in the IOM review (they double dipped for evidence). Once you’ve evaluated the evidence presented in the article and ignored the rhetoric, you’re left with no proof what-so-ever that vaccination is safe but a whole lot of manipulative language.

The CDC indicates that serious side effects caused by vaccines occur in about 1:1,000,000 children.The Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS) reported over 400 deaths in 2016. Since about four million babies are born each year, that would make the death rate (other serious side effects not included) about 1:10,000. VAERS is called reliable or unreliable when convenient. Coincidence is often used as the argument for unreliability which only undermines the entire purpose of having a vaccine surveillance system in place and suggests that all parents of vaccine injured children are liars (even if the injury is one of many admitted side effects listed on the vaccine insert, it’s often still categorized as “coincidence”). It is not disputed, however, that VAERS is vastly underutilized and needs reform.

A sampling of studies linking autoimmunity to vaccines:

• Aluminum in vaccines can cause autoimmune and neurological damage.
• Aluminum in vaccines can provoke permanent malfunctions of the brain and immune system.
• Vaccine adjuvants such as aluminum and oil-in-water emulsions may cause autoimmune diseases.

A sampling of studies linking neurodevelopmental disorders to vaccines:

• Infants with the least exposure to fish methylmercury but the most exposure to vaccine ethylmercury had the worst neurodevelopmental behavior.
• There is abundant evidence that thimerosal-containing vaccines are neurotoxic and should not be given to pregnant women or children.
• Chronic fatigue, chronic pain, and cognitive disorder have all been linked to aluminum in vaccines.
• Administration of aluminum to neonatal mice in vaccine-relevant amounts is associated with adverse long term neurological outcomes.
• Neurodevelopmental disorders are significantly more common in children who receive vaccines containing thimerosal.

A sampling of studies on vaccination during pregnancy (note: vaccination is a form of immune activation):

• Thimerosal exposure in rat moms caused a delayed startle response and decreased motor learning in their babies.
• Pregnant women vaccinated against two thimerosal containing vaccines during the 2009-2010 season had high rates of spontaneous abortions.
• Maternal immune activation yields offspring displaying mouse version of the three core symptoms of autism.
• Maternal immune activation causes age and region-specific changes in brain cytokines in offspring throughout development.
• Activation of the maternal immune system during pregnancy alters behavioral development in rhesus monkey offspring.

A sampling of studies or scientific papers on the current schedule:

• Infants who received the most vaccines have the worst hospitalization and death rates.
• Developed nations that require the most vaccines tend to have the worst infant mortality rates.
• Fully vaccinated children are significantly more likely to require emergency care than under-vaccinated children.
• Baby monkeys that were given vaccines according to the U.S. vaccination schedule had abnormalities in the region of the brain affecting social and emotional development.

I recommend picking up the book Critical Vaccine Studies by Neil Z. Miller for a summary of over 400 scientific papers on vaccination and adverse events and Vaccine Safety Manual for Concerned Families ad Health Practitioners, 2^nd Edition which include more than 1,000 scientific citations on vaccine related diseases and vaccine risks. Pediatrician Dr. Paul Thomas also has very informative book: The Vaccine Friendly Plan.

Vaccine safety science relies on the pharmaceutical company’s own research for initial approval or rejection. Once approved and added to the schedule, the FDA and CDC now have a position to defend which incentivizes them to have follow-up studies with similar safety findings or face loss of public trust. Despite the fact that this is a product given to almost every child in America, the requirements for approval are much lower than that of other pharmaceutical products (see table below).

[38]

Conclusion: The National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act of 1986 exonerated vaccine manufacturers from civil liability which effectively reduced incentives to produce safer vaccines and spurred a gold rush of vaccines to the market. The health of our children relies mainly on the FDA and CDC for adequate regulation and follow-up safety testing. Unfortunately, they both have proven to be undeserving of the public’s trust. Despite this, information taken at face value from the CDC’s website is still the only source of information for many news outlets, talk show hosts, doctors, agencies, and the general public. Conflicts of interest and deceptive tactics are a few of the reasons why I take everything the CDC says with a grain of salt. A few of many examples include:

• The recommendation to vaccinate pregnant women with the flu shot is not backed by science.[39] The CDC cites only two papers to support its claim that influenza is more dangerous during pregnancy. Both papers failed to show that influenza during pregnancy is more serious than at other times. On the contrary, studies continue to show the dangers of in utero exposure to thimerosal. In another study, vaccinated pregnant women were 4x more likely to be hospitalized for influenza-like illnesses than unvaccinated pregnant women.
• The CDC holds dozens of vaccine patents.
• There is very limited data available on the safety of vaccinating very young children with the flu shot.[40] Yet, it was still added to the childhood schedule.
• The CDC sponsored and promoted studies that showed positive outcomes of varicella vaccination but opposed – and attempted to block – publication of findings that were critical of the varicella vaccination program. Read more here.
• The CDC claims it has no financial dealings with manufacturers but this is not true. In 1992 Congress passed legislation that created the non-profit CDC Foundation to encourage relationships between the CDC and industry. Pharmaceutical companies donate to the CDC foundation. The CDC receives millions annually in “conditional funding” from corporations and the CDC Foundation.[41]
• A senior CDC scientist, William Thompson, admitted to committing scientific fraud by omitting a statistically significant link between the MMR vaccine and autism in African American boys. Evidence was destroyed after instructed to do so by his employer (the CDC). The study is still one of the studies used as proof that MMR does not cause autism.
• Influenza studies promoted by the CDC were shown to be substantially confounded by “healthy-user bias”, rendering the studies worthless.
• Vaccine safety studies deliberately exclude vulnerable populations with preexisting conditions but these people are encouraged to receive vaccines.[42] The occurrence of serious adverse reactions resulting from vaccinations in real life where vaccines are mandated to all individuals regardless of their susceptibility factors may be considerably underestimated.[43]
• There are over 240 studies that show thimerosal is harmful. Although reduced-thimerosal vaccines replaced thimerosal-preserved vaccines from 1999 through early 2000s, the CDC’s post 2000 recommended schedule has actually increased the maximum lifetime exposure to thimerosal.
• The CDC’s claim that thimerosal is safe is based on six studies that were coauthored and sponsored by the CDC. Evidence of malfeasance in research reporting and methodological problems were found.[44] A seventh study was also sponsored by the CDC but displayed negative results (infants who received thimerosal containing vaccines were 7.6x more likely to develop autism) so it was not publicized.
• The CDC is essentially a distribution arm to the vaccine industry. They purchase billions of dollars worth annually[45] through a federally funded program.
• Former CDC director (2002-2009), Julie Gerberding, took a lucrative position as head of Merck’s vaccine division following her position at the CDC. Merck’s controversial Gardasil vaccine was approved and added to the schedule under her supervision.
• A 2009 investigation by the Office of the Inspector General concluded the CDC has “a systemic lack of oversight of the ethics program”.
• Marketing strategies designed to increase influenza vaccinations lack moral integrity and scientific support.[46]

Ultimately, parents are left with this important decision in an environment that’s not transparent, accepting, or conclusive. We’re told “public safety trumps personal choice”. This is thinly disguised pharmaceutical industry propaganda promoting medical tyranny. This is not in the best interest of public health. This is for the best interest of select individual’s pockets. Pharmaceutical manufacturers will go to any length to silence vaccine dissent in order to protect their dream product (no liability, low production cost, mandatory for every person, guaranteed recurring cash flow). I recommend listening to both sides of the debate and evaluating the evidence supplied in order to get a better picture of the risks involved with each vaccine and the overall administration schedule. Also, get a good understanding of the benefits by understanding the vaccine-targeted diseases and find a doctor who is receptive to reviewing research. Data relating to the underlying diseases can be easily manipulated and dangers overinflated. In order to sell a vaccine, they have to sell the disease. Dr. Suzanne Humphries is known for calling out these data manipulation tactics and provides many examples using credible sources and data from government databases in her book Dissolving Illusions. Humphries is a good example of the wrath one endures after attempting to provide an objective review of vaccines and their history. She’s been the subject of ruthless defamation campaigns and the recipient of numerous death threats. Vaccine fanatics first line of defense is discrediting science-based evidence by stooping to personal attacks. This is a deflection strategy but they’re also playing towards their main audience (parent’s without an understanding of the scientific process and politics involved in medicine). In the vaccine debate, you must ignore the rhetoric and review only the evidence supplied. Listening to rhetoric will only subject you to powerful manipulation tactics and provide you with an easy way to satisfy a confirmation bias. To stress this point, a good example is vaccine fanatic’s poster boy Dr. Paul Offit who defends vaccines with twisted science and outright lies. Offit helped develop the rotavirus vaccine and profited substantially. He has a vested interest in ensuring vaccines continue to sell. He is proof that the scientists behind these products do not in fact contain “super-human” levels of intelligence. Perhaps one of the more well known statements by Offit is that aluminum can’t possibly be harmful and that infants are exposed to more through food and water than they are ever exposed to from the vaccine. Unfortunately for anyone without a basic understanding of the human body or nutrition, he sounds convincing. Never mind the synergistic ingredient effects that amplify the dangers of injected aluminum, simple calculations can easily disprove his theory. Only .1-.3% of ingested aluminum makes it into the bloodstream. This is well documented in the scientific literature and logically makes sense if you understand the barriers and processes in the human body that take place to ensure toxins do not reach the bloodstream in concentrated amounts. If you find the amount of aluminum an infant who is exclusively breast fed (the amount we are more evolutionarily hardwired to process) receives from 0-6 months of life and multiply that by the percentage that reaches the bloodstream (for a fair comparison between injected and ingested aluminum effects), you get the total amount the infant receives naturally. Then simply add up the amount of aluminum in the vaccines an infant receives from 0-6 months. The difference is staggering. Reader beware, Dr. Paul Offit is a wolf in sheep’s clothing. To read more about Offit’s misconduct and industry ties visit here, here, and here.

It’s important for the implementation of meaningful reform that more people strengthen their knowledge on the topic and let go of the dogma. Even as efforts to squelch the vaccine awareness movement ramps up, the voices of victims and skeptics are only getting louder and growing in numbers. If the establishment really wishes to “stamp out” this movement, they would agree to the terms put forth just last month by Robert F Kennedy Jr. along with 15 other dedicated children’s health advocates. They proposed to congress the following steps needed for sound vaccine science and transparency:

1. Subject vaccines to a scientifically rigorous approval process.
2. Require reporting of vaccine adverse events. Automate Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS) and Vaccine Safety Datalink (VSD) databases for research.
3. Ensure all parties involved with federal vaccine approvals and recommendations are free from conflicts of interest.
4. Reevaluate all vaccines recommended by the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) prior to the adoption of evidence-based guidelines.
5. Study what makes some individuals more susceptible to vaccine injury.
6. Support fully-informed consent and individual rights to refuse vaccination.

The details for each step can be read here.

I hope anyone, regardless of their position, would agree that when it comes to children’s health these are commonsense practices that everyone should endorse.

I welcome feedback and constructive criticism that contributes intellectually to the conversation in a respectful manner. All other forms of negative feedback will not be posted as they are not productive.

Suggested follow-up articles: Worse Than Nothing – How Ineffective Vaccines Enhance Disease, Incentivizing Pediatricians to Follow the CDC Vaccine Schedule, and all 7 parts of The Vaccine Program: Betrayal of Public Trust & Institutional Corruption. Part 1 of 7.

 

[1] https://www.healthypeople.gov/2020/topics-objectives/topic/immunization-and-infectious-diseases

[2] http://europepmc.org/articles/PMC3813742

[4] https://www.researchgate.net/publication/267572558_Varicella-zoster_virus_vaccination_under_the_exogenous_boosting_hypothesis_Two_ethical_perspectives

[5] http://www.eurosurveillance.org/content/10.2807/1560-7917.ES2014.19.41.20926

[6] https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/f863/96dbf2fcf44e0cb14a38d70c7f9a624ca93b.pdf

[7] https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0361090X06000043

[8] https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2951028/

[9] https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Gerald_Delorenze/publication/7868553_History_of_Chickenpox_and_Shingles_and_Prevalence_of_Antibodies_to_Varicella-Zoster_Virus_and_Three_Other_Herpesviruses_among_Adults_with_Glioma_and_Controls/links/5508d6400cf26ff55f83f519.pdf?inViewer=true&disableCoverPage=true&origin=publication_detail

[10] https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15700307

[11] https://www.researchgate.net/publication/41173580_Urayama_KY_Buffler_PA_Gallagher_ER_Ayoob_JM_Ma_XA_meta-analysis_of_the_association_between_day-care_attendance_and_childhood_acute_lymphoblastic_leukaemia_Int_J_Epidemiol_39_718-732

[12] https://www.researchgate.net/publication/259722533_Emergence_of_Non-Serotype_b_Encapsulated_Haemophilus_influenzae_as_a_Cause_of_Pediatric_Meningitis_in_Northwestern_Ontario/fulltext/56e9b39d08ae95bddc2a0d30/259722533_Emergence_of_Non-Serotype_b_Encapsulated_Haemophilus_influenzae_as_a_Cause_of_Pediatric_Meningitis_in_Northwestern_Ontario.pdf

[13] https://www.researchgate.net/publication/43181240_Changing_epidemiology_of_invasive_Haemophilus_influenzae_in_Ontario_Canada_Evidence_for_herd_effects_and_strain_replacement_due_to_Hib_vaccination

[14] https://wwwnc.cdc.gov/eid/article/19/6/12-1805_article

[15] https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3322072/

[16] https://journals.lww.com/epidem/Abstract/2013/07000/Competition_Between_Streptococcus_Pneumoniae.7.aspx

[17] https://www.researchgate.net/publication/221836039_The_Epidemiology_of_Invasive_Pneumococcal_Disease_in_British_Columbia_Following_Implementation_of_an_Infant_Immunization_Program_Increases_in_Herd_Immunity_and_Replacement_Disease

[18] https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0002962915307369

[19] http://www.oatext.com/Is-vaccine-dissent-based-on-science.php

[20] http://www.bmartin.cc/pubs/15see.html

[21] http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2013/11/20/1314688110

[22] https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/00048610.htm

[23] https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24757216

[24] https://wwwnc.cdc.gov/eid/article/15/8/08-1511_article

[25] http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/content/135/6/981

[26] https://wwwnc.cdc.gov/eid/article/18/8/12-0082_article

[27] http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/content/131/4/e1047

[28] https://www.aap.org/en-us/about-the-aap/aap-press-room/Pages/Effectiveness-of-TDAP-Vaccine-Drops-After-a-Year.aspx

[29] https://www.huffingtonpost.ca/lawrence-solomon/merck-whistleblowers_b_5881914.html

[30] https://academic.oup.com/cid/article/58/9/1205/2895266

[31] https://www.nap.edu/read/13164/chapter/5#82 (page 82)

[32] http://www.thelancet.com/pdfs/journals/lancet/PIIS0140-6736%2815%2960696-1.pdf

[33] https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1182327/

[34] https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1494677/

[35] https://www.nap.edu/read/13164/chapter/6#153 (page 153)

[36] http://www.feingold.org/Research/PDFstudies/Hooker2014.pdf

[37] http://info.cmsri.org/the-driven-researcher-blog/dirty-vaccines-new-study-reveals-prevalence-of-contaminants

[38] https://worldmercuryproject.org/news/congress-gets-vaccine-safety-project-details-including-actions-needed-for-sound-science-and-transparency/?utm_source=mailchimp

[39] https://avn.org.au/wp-content/uploads/2012/06/ayoub.pdf

[40] http://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(05)17984-7/fulltext

[41] https://www.bmj.com/content/350/bmj.h2362

[42] http://oadd.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/01/41011_JoDD_18-1_34-42_Tomljenovic_et_al.pdf

[43] https://www.researchgate.net/publication/266581679_Predicting_post-vaccination_autoimmunity_Who_might_be_at_risk

[44] https://www.researchgate.net/publication/262876832_Methodological_Issues_and_Evidence_of_Malfeasance_in_Research_Purporting_to_Show_Thimerosal_in_Vaccines_Is_Safe

[45] https://www.hhs.gov/about/budget/fy2015/budget-in-brief/cdc/index.html

[46] https://www.bmj.com/content/347/bmj.f6770