Mercury in Vaccines

Vaccines are big business. Pharma is a trillion-dollar industry with vaccines accounting for $25 billion in annual sales. CDC’s decision to add a vaccine to the schedule can guarantee its manufacturer millions of customers and billions in revenue with minimal advertis- ing or marketing costs and complete immunity from lawsuits. High stakes and the seamless marriage between Big Pharma and government agencies have spawned an opaque and crooked regulatory system. Merck, one of America’s leading vaccine outfits, is currently under investigation for deceiving FDA regulators about the effectiveness of its MMR vaccine. Two whistleblowers say Merck ginned up sham studies to maintain Merck’s MMR monopoly.

Big money has fueled the exponential expansion of CDC’s vaccine schedule since 1988, when Congress’ grant of immunity from lawsuits suddenly transformed vaccines into paydirt. CDC recommended five pediatric vaccines when I was a boy in 1954. Today’s children cannot ¬¬ school without at least 56 doses of 14 vaccines by the time they’re 18.

An insatiable pharmaceutical industry has 271 new vaccines under development in CDC’s bureaucratic pipeline in hopes of boosting vaccine revenues to $100 billion by 2025. The industry’s principle spokesperson, Dr. Paul Offit, says that he believes children can take as many as 10,000 vaccines.

Public health may not be the sole driver of CDC decisions to mandate new vaccines. Four scathing federal studies, including two by Congress, one by the US Senate, and one by the HHS Inspector General, paint CDC as a cesspool of corruption, mismanagement, and dysfunction with alarming conflicts of interest suborning its research, regulatory, and policymaking functions. CDC rules allow vaccine industry profiteers like Dr. Offit to serve on advisory boards that add new vaccines to the schedule. In a typical example, Offit in 1999 sat on the CDC’s vaccine advisory committee and voted to add the rotavirus vaccine to CDC’s schedule, paving the way for him to make a fortune on his own rotavirus vaccine. Offit and his business partners sold the royalties to his rotavirus vaccine patent to Merck in 2006 for $182 million. Offit told Newsweek, “It was like winning the lottery!” A 2009 HHS Inspector General’s report found that the CDC certified financial disclosure forms with at least one omission for 97% of committee members—and most forms had more than one type of omission. The same report stated that as many as 64% of committee members had potential conflicts of interest that CDC did not identify or resolve before certifying their forms. In addition to lucrative business partnerships with Merck, Offit holds a $1.5 million research chair, funded by Merck, at Children’s Hospital in Philadelphia. From this industry sinecure, he broadcasts vaccine industry propaganda and annually publishes books urging unlimited vaccinations and vilifying safe-vaccine advocates.

The corruption has also poisoned CDC’s immunization safety office, the research arm that tests vaccines for safety and efficacy. In August 2014, seventeen-year CDC veteran, Dr. William Thompson, who is author of the principal study cited by CDC to exculpate mercury- preserved vaccines from the autism link, invoked whistleblower protection, and turned extensive agency files over to Congress. Thompson, who is still employed at CDC, says that for the past decade his superiors have pressured him and his fellow scientists to lie and manipulate data about the safety of the mercury-based preservative thimerosal to conceal its causative link to a suite of brain injuries, including autism.

Thimerosal is 50% ethylmercury, which is far more toxic and persistent in the brain than the highly regulated methylmercury in fish. Hundreds of peer reviewed studies by leading government and university scientists show that thimerosal is a devastating brain poison linked to neurological disorders now epidemic in American children. My book, Thimerosal: Let the Science Speak, is a summary of these studies, which CDC and its credulous jour- nalists swear don’t exist. Although Thompson’s CDC and vaccine industry colleagues have created nine patently fraudulent and thoroughly discredited epidemiological studies to defend thimerosal, no published study shows thimerosal to be safe.

The common canard that US autism rates rose after drug makers removed most thimerosal from pediatric vaccines in 2003 is wrong. That same year, CDC added flu shots containing massive doses of thimerosal to the pediatric schedule. As a result, children today can get nearly as much mercury exposure as children did from all pediatric vaccines combined in the decade prior to 2003. Worse, thimerosal, for the first time, is being given to pregnant women in flu shots. Furthermore, CDC’s current autism numbers are for children born in 2002, when kids were still getting thimerosal in their pediatric vaccines. The best science suggests that thimerosal’s complete removal from vaccines is likely to prompt a significant decline in autism. For example, a 2013 CDC study in JAMA Pediatrics shows a 33% drop in autism spectrum disorder in Denmark following the 1992 removal of thimerosal from Danish vaccines. That paper is among 37 peer-reviewed studies linking thimerosal to the autism epidemic.

Thimerosal has precipitated a journalistic as well as a public health crisis. Big Pharma pumps over $3.5 billion annually into TV, newspapers, and other advertising, targeting news departments, which have become vehicles for pharmaceutical sales and propa- ganda platforms for the industry. Television and print outlets feature spokespeople like Dr. Offit—without identifying their industry ties— while censoring criticisms of vaccine safety andexcluding the voices of informed vaccine safety advocates. Busy journalists parrot the deceptive talking points dispensed by government and pharma officials rather than reading the science themselves. Unable to argue the science, they bully, pillory, and demonize vaccine safety advocates as “anti-vax,” “anti-science,” and far worse. The unwillingness of the press to scrutinize CDC has emboldened both industry and agency to follow the lowest paths of easy profit and bureaucratic preservation.

The measles scare was classic disaster capitalism, with media outlets dutifully stoking public hysteria on editorial pages and throughout the 24-hour broadcast cycle. With Dr. Offit leading the charge, CDC, drug makers, and industry-funded front groups parlayed a garden variety annual measles outbreak into a national tidal wave of state legislation to ban religious and philosophical vaccine exemptions. The national media frenzy over 159 measles cases left little room for attention to the the autism cataclysm which has debilitated 1 million American children since the pandemic began in 1989, with 27,000 new cases annually. CDC refuses to call autism an “epidemic.” In defiance of hard science, and common sense, CDC and Offit have launched a denial campaign to gull reporters into believing the autism plague is an illusion created by better diagnosis.

Big Pharma is among the nation’s largest political donors, giving $31 million last year to national political candidates. It spends more on political lobbying than any other industry, $3.0 billion from 1998 to 2014—double the amount spent by oil and gas and four times as much as defense and aerospace lobbyists. By February, state legislators in 36 states were pushing through over one hundred new laws to end philosophical and religious vaccine exemptions. Many of those state lawmakers are also on the industry payroll. You can see how much money bill sponsors from your state took from Big Pharma on

Normally plaintiffs’ tort lawyers would provide a powerful check and balance to keep vaccines safe and effective and regulators and policymakers honest. But Pharma’s dirty money has bought the industry immunity from lawsuits for vaccine injury no matter how dangerous the product. An obliging Congress disposed of the Seventh Amendment right to jury trial, making it impossible for vaccine-injured plaintiffs to sue pharmaceutical companies for selling unsafe vaccines. That’s right! No Class Actions. No discovery. No depositions and little financial incentive for the industry to make vaccines safer.

Vaccine industry money has neutralized virtually all of the checks and balances that once stood between a rapacious pharmaceutical industry and our children. With the re- search, regulatory, and policymaking agencies captured, the courts closed to the public, the lawyers disarmed, the politicians on retainer and the media subverted, there is no one left to stand between a greedy industry and vulnerable children, except parents. Now Big Pharma’s game plan is to remove parental informed consent rights from that equation and force vaccine hesitant parents to inject their children with potentially risky vaccines that the Supreme Court has called “unavoidably unsafe.”

Ending exemptions is premature until we have a functioning regulatory agency and a transparent process. The best way to insure full vaccine coverage is for the vaccine program to win back public trust by ending its corrupt financial ties with a profit-making industry.

To educate yourselves about CDC corruption and the truth about vaccine science, I hope you will read Thimerosal: Let the Science Speak and download the important movie Trace Amounts and insist your legislators watch it before voting on any of these bills.

—Robert F. Kennedy, Jr.

Vaccinated vs. Unvaccinated—Part 11

A peer-reviewed study by Hooker and Miller in the journal SAGE Open Medicine compared the health outcomes of vaccinated versus unvaccinated children from three large pediatric practices in the United States. The study concluded that unvaccinated children are healthier than their vaccinated peers.

I have now posted over 65 vaccinated/unvaccinated studies on this site. All of them show dramatically better health in unvaccinated children. We have found no studies that show superior health outcomes in vaccinated children.

(See full-sized Part 11 slides or see the complete Vaxxed-Unvaxxed presentation, Parts 1-12.

Slides and Summaries from Part 11:

Slide 1 and Summary:

Vaccination With the Hepatitis B Vaccine Series Increases the Odds of Liver Problems in Children 294%.


Slide 2 and Summary:

Polio Vaccine Increases the Risk of Crohn’s Disease by 228% and Ulcerative Colitis by 348%.


Slide 3 and Summary:

Vaccination in non-Persian Gulf War Veterans Increases Odds of Neurological and Pain Symptoms.


Slide 4 and Summary:

Vaccination Increases Odds of Gulf War Illness 260%.


Slide 5 and Summary:

Multiple Vaccination During Deployment Increases Odds of Gulf Warlllness500%and Fatigue 340%.



New England Journal of Medicine Publishes ‘Strategy’ for States on How to Consider COVID-19 Vaccine Mandates

A new article in the New England Journal of Medicine (NEJM), which is known for being amongst the most prestigious medical journals in the world, argues that state governments need a “strategy” for deploying the coming COVID-19 vaccine.

Concerned that only 51% of U.S. citizens plan to get the vaccine, the three authors lay out a framework for lawmakers “to help ensure uptake of the vaccine when it comes available,” with a focus on “six trigger criteria” states should consider when deciding whether a COVID-19 vaccine mandate is necessary. 

One condition is evidence that COVID-19 presents an “ongoing threat” to the state, explaining that the threat could be demonstrated by “sustained troubling trends in new cases, hospitalizations or deaths.” 

They also suggest a “generous compensation program for people who have serious vaccine side effects.” The question of why state governments should mandate a vaccine it expects to induce  serious side effects is unanswered in the article.

The authors recommend states first introduce a voluntary vaccine provision and if that proves “unsuccessful” then impose a vaccine mandate. This is necessary since “principles of public health ethics support trying less burdensome policies before moving to more burdensome ones.” The voluntary vaccine provision period, however, “should be limited to a matter of weeks,” they write. 

The authors move on to describe what a vaccination mandate might look like: each state will write its own legislation, but it might also be appropriate for the federal government to mandate that certain groups get the vaccine.

(Although the constitutional power to protect public health rests primarily with states, a national emergency declared in March allows such federal COVID-19 related measures.)

They argue that while it would be inappropriate for the state mandates to take the form of compulsory vaccination, noncompliance should incur “relatively substantial penalties.”

They discourage states from introducing criminal penalties, so as not to “invite legal challenges on procedural due-process grounds,” but do encourage penalties like “employment suspension or stay-at-home orders.”

Interestingly enough, while the authors discourage fines, conceding that they “disadvantage the poor,” they are at ease advocating for people to potentially lose their jobs unless they get the vaccine.

While the authors only lay out this possibility of penalties for people in “high-priority groups,” the determination of who is deemed high-priority would be left to the enforcing authorities, whoever that might be. This is especially disturbing when considering that the poor are more likely to be considered high-risk, in terms of contracting COVID-19.

The NEJM article concludes by noting the need for state policymakers to build “public trust,” so as not to “[raise] suspicion that profit rather than public health motives lay behind such proposals [to impose a vaccine mandate].”

“Vaccine manufacturers should stay on the sidelines,” they write. 

This might prove difficult, considering the chief scientific advisor for the U.S. government’s quest of a COVID-19 vaccine, dubbed “Operation Warpspeed,” is Moncef Slaoui, a former executive at GlaxoSmithKline (GSK).

GSK is the world’s largest vaccine company by revenue, and was responsible for what the U.S. Department of Justice called the “largest health care fraud settlement in U.S. history” at the time. Slaoui currently holds about $10 million in GSK stock.

And while the three authors of the NEJM article didn’t disclose any financial interests, it’s significant that all three authors can be associated with the Gates Foundation — the self-declared “biggest funder of vaccines in the world.”

Lead author Michelle Mello, hails from Stanford University, which has so far received $2.7 million from the Gates foundation in 2020. Co-author Ross Silverman hails from Indiana University, which has received $3.4 million from the Gates Foundation in 2020.

And perhaps most striking is the connection between the foundation and the article’s third author, Saad Omer, the inaugural director of the Yale Institute for Global Health. Omer’s private research group is bankrolled by both the Gates Foundation and the Global Alliance for Vaccines and Immunization, which is intricately linked with the Gates Foundation and whose largest private funder is the Gates Foundation.

“This article is a revealing — and horrifying —  blueprint for Pharma’s imposition of mandates that could require hundreds of millions of reluctant Americans to submit to a risky medical procedure with poorly-tested, ineffective, zero-liability vaccines,” said Robert F. Kennedy, Jr., chairman of Children’s Health Defense. “The NEJM has once again confirmed its former editor Marcia Angell’s warning that this once renowned journal has devolved into a propaganda vessel for Pharma.”

Breaking News: University of California Makes Tactical Retreat, Revises Executive Order

As you may know, Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. and I (with the able assistance of Children’s Health Defense chief legal guru Mary Holland, Physicians for Informed Consent’s human vaccine encyclopedia aka Greg Glaser and San Diego ace litigator Ray Flores) filed an injunction lawsuit to stop the University of California’s (UC) executive order requiring all students, faculty and other employees to get the flu shot by Nov. 1 or face not being able to work or register for class. We filed on Aug. 27, the executive order having been published on Aug. 7.

On Sept. 17, we filed a motion for a preliminary injunction to stop the executive order. The most outrageous part of the executive order, and the part that befits the constitutional phrase of something which “shocks the conscience,” was the fact that students were treated differently from faculty and staff in two important respects. First, unlike staff and faculty, students did not have a “religious accommodation” (more about that later). Second, while faculty could remote teach and staff could remote work and not have to take the shot, remote learning students still had to get the stick. That seemed to me to be a textbook equal protection and First Amendment violation. Whatever idiot UC lawyer came up with that should have to take some con law CLE (continuing legal education). Well, it seems like the UC has finally opened its con law books (and with all its law school libraries, it’s about time).

The UC filed its response to our motion (and there are a lot of papers, but more about that later) AND GUESS WHAT? TWO DAYS AGO, THE UC (apparently secretly so far) ISSUED A NEW EXECUTIVE ORDER REVISING THE MANDATE! And, guess what it doesn’t have in it? Correct, students are now treated the same as faculty and staff, well sort of.

Bottom line, students attending all classes online who do not live on campus do not have to get the flu shot. That is very good news for those students. Of course, if you live on campus, you still have to get the shot, at least unless and until the judge grants our preliminary injunction motion.

For perspective, this is just the opening skirmish (ok, maybe a tad bit more than that; the UC backed down probably after reviewing our fourth cause of action for equal protection violations on behalf of the students). This was a just tactical retreat for the UC. They gave up something to protect the core mandate requiring the flu vaccine for everyone who comes to the campuses.

Two other breaking news points in this case

First, the UC is setting up in effect religious inquisition courts, but with no published court procedures. That’s right, and it is just as insane as the now eliminated equal protection violations.

The UC has apparently hired outside consultants to function as judges deciding on the bona fides of people seeking a religious accommodation to the flu shot. Really, you have to appeal before some consultant to make the case that your religious beliefs are the right kind, or you have the sufficient fervor to justify the UC bestowing on you whatever it has in mind as a religious accommodation?

So what are the standards these consultant judges use? I don’t think anyone knows so far. It must be some secret set of criteria. So, maybe the UC should go back to its libraries and look up the First Amendment and something called due process and do something it hasn’t done yet. Think about what you’re doing and the path you’re going down, because as stated, this is just as crazy as the discrimination against students, only it affects the entire UC community.

If anyone has gone through or is planning to appear at these religious inquisition courts, please shoot me an email, because I think the judge is really going to want to hear from you, and I don’t think he’s going to like it one bit. Second, we now know (sort of) how this flu mandate came about and who was in charge.

One of the many declarations filed in response to our motion was from the UC head of the COVID tracing and tracking committee from which the mandate emanated. Her name is Dr. Carrie Byington. She is an executive vice president at UC Health and professor of Pediatric Infectious Disease at UC San Francisco. She has a very impressive resume and a long career in infectious disease. Here is her declaration. If anyone reading this post has any information about how this whole thing came about, and the statements contained in Dr. Byington’s declaration, please email me with details. To anyone with such knowledge, you’ll know what I am referring to. To all else, stay tuned.

Rick Jaffe is a guest contributor and the lead attorney in Kiel v. U of C case that Children’s Health Defense is supporting.

Half a Million Sharks Could Be Killed to Make Vaccine

Drug maker GlaxoSmithKline may need to slaughter half a million sharks to harvest squalene, an oil made in shark livers, to make a new line of COVID jabs. Glaxo mixes squalene with a witches’ brew of proprietary surfactants to produce its controversial AS03 vaccine adjuvant. Adjuvants are compounds that amplify immune response to hyperstimulate the immune system. They are associated with a variety of autoimmune diseases.

Scientific studies have linked squalene adjuvants to Gulf War syndrome and to a wave of debilitating neurological disorders including epidemics of narcolepsy caused by Glaxo’s H1N1 Pandemrix vaccine during the 2009 swine flu “pandemic.” One study showed a 13-fold increased risk of narcolepsy in children who received Pandemrix.

The devastating cascade of brain injuries to children and health care workers forced the termination of that Glaxo vaccine after European governments used only a small fraction of the jabs they had purchased from Glaxo. A recent study links squalene to carcinomas. In a bizarre and reckless twist, Glaxo has revived the dangerous adjuvant as its hall pass to the COVID-19 money orgy.

The company said it would manufacture a billion doses of this adjuvant for potential use in coronavirus vaccines. Around 3,000 sharks are needed to extract one ton of squalene.

Shark Allies, a California-based group, said Glaxo will kill around 250,000 sharks to make enough AS03 for the world’s population to receive one dose of its COVID-19 vaccine. If, as expected, two doses are needed, half a million sharks must die.

Glaxo declared that it would be producing 1 billion doses of AS03 “to support the development of multiple adjuvanted COVID-19 vaccine candidates.”

Glaxo has developed partnerships with multiple companies, including its behemoth rival Sanofi, China’s Clover Biopharmaceuticals and Innovax Biotech in the city of Xiamen. Glaxo has also agreed to make the technology available to the Coalition for Epidemic Preparedness Innovations for COVID vaccines in Australia and elsewhere. Glaxo said it is focusing on what it considers a “proven technology” that will give the company “several shots on goal.”

‘TRUTH’ with Robert F. Kennedy, Jr.—Season 2, Episode 3 Featuring Dr. Sherri Tenpenny

In the third episode of our second season of “TRUTH” with Robert F. Kennedy, Jr., Mr. Kennedy interviewed renowned physician Dr. Sherri Tenpenny about various aspects of the COVID crisis. They covered a lot of territory which included discussions regarding:

  • The implementation of transhumanism
  • Google’s many ties to the pharmaceutical industry and how this affects the ability to find information that’s not part of the Pharma paradigm
  • The link between flu shots and susceptibility to COVID
  • Expanding the list of who can administer vaccines in the UK to “meet the need” of vaccinating the population
  • The Bill Gates agenda item of being able to conduct surveillance upon every square inch of the planet
  • How going into a digital currency would result in slavery

(All episodes can be found on CHD’s social media, and on the CHD Channel found on Peeps TV, a network on Roku. Roku is accessible from any Smart TV and can be purchased separately for older TVs.)


Lawsuit Filed Against Pharmaceutical Giant Merck on Behalf of Young Man Allegedly Injured by Gardasil

The law firm of Baum Hedlund Aristei & Goldman filed a lawsuit Wednesday against pharmaceutical giant Merck on behalf of a young man, Zachariah Otto, who was allegedly injured by Gardasil, Merck’s HPV vaccine. The complaint seeks damages, including punitive damages, for negligence; strict liability (failure to warn); strict liability (manufacturing defect); breach of warranty; common law fraud; and violation of California’s unfair competition law.

Zachariah claims multiple Gardasil injections, which he first received at the age of 16, caused him to develop life-altering injuries, including dysautonomia, postural orthostatic tachycardia syndrome (POTS), Orthostatic Intolerance, small fiber neuropathy, chronic fatigue syndrome, mast cell activation syndrome, autoimmune disease and fibromyalgia, as well as a constellation of other serious health issues. POTS is an autoimmune condition that impacts the autonomic nervous system (which automatically regulates critical bodily functions) and the sympathetic nervous system (which is involved in the “fight or flight” response). POTS symptoms include fainting, migraine headaches and anxiety among many other serious conditions.

The plaintiff says the Gardasil-induced injuries have made him disabled to a point where he can no longer work and cannot physically attend college. His mother says it was Merck’s intense Gardasil marketing campaign that encouraged her to have her son get the shots. Zachariah and his mother stress that had they known of the serious risks associated with this vaccine, they would have never gone forward with the shots.

“Merck fast-tracked Gardasil by presenting misleading data to the FDA and fabricating a health crisis,” says Mr. Otto’s co-counsel Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. “They claimed they were ‘filling an unmet medical’ need but in reality, the only thing Merck was interested in filling was the $6 billion financial hole created by the Vioxx scandal.”

Gardasil is racking up a long list of young women and men who were similarly harmed following vaccination with Merck’s product. Children’s Health Defense has also been following the case of former athlete and scholar Jennifer Robi, who filed a lawsuit for Gardasil injuries against Merck in 2016. Jennifer is a 25-year-old woman who has been confined to a wheelchair since receiving her third Gardasil vaccine at age 16. Like Zachariah, she was diagnosed with POTS after receiving the series of Gardasil shots. Her attorneys allege that Gardasil’s highly toxic Amorphous Aluminum Hydroxyphosphate Sulfate (AAHS) adjuvant can over-stimulate the immune systems of vaccine recipients tipping them into autoimmune conditions in which their redlining immune defenses begin attacking their bodies’ own organs. This “autoimmune process” causes a cascade of illnesses that, in Jennifer Robi’s case, resulted in damage and deterioration in diverse organ systems throughout her body.

Colton Berrett, featured in the documentary film Vaxxed II, was another victim of Gardasil injury. Berrett was an active 13 year old when he received the series of shots as advised by his physician before leaving for Boy Scouts camp in 2014. Two weeks after his third dose of Gardasil, Colton experienced a sore neck followed by paralysis in his arms and hands. The paralysis continued to other parts of his body ultimately making Colton completely paralyzed from the neck down and ventilator dependent through tracheostomy. Though he fought hard, he never recovered and in January of 2018, Colton removed himself from the need of life support or his ventilator.

In this latest Gardasil lawsuit on behalf of Zachariah Otto, Baum Hedlund accuses Merck of knowingly and recklessly placing Gardasil’s profits ahead of patient safety. The team is asking for punitive damages to deter Merck from withholding information on the serious adverse events associated with Gardasil while promoting it as “safe and effective.”

“Most people think Gardasil is for girls, but since 2009, Merck has made billions in profit by marketing the HPV vaccine to the parents of boys and to young men,” says attorney Nicole K.H. Maldonado. “Through its advertising, Merck sold parents on the idea that Gardasil is a safe and effective tool to stop the spread of HPV and prevent cervical cancer. But Merck knew that Gardasil was neither safe nor effective at preventing cervical cancer, and worse, the company knew that Gardasil could cause a host of serious health issues.”

The Polio and “Non-Polio” Shell Game in Africa and the U.S. — 2020 Update

In early September, one week after definitively pronouncing the African continent polio-free, the World Health Organization (WHO) had to eat crow. With no wild polio cases reported in Africa since 2016, the WHO admitted that the oral polio vaccines that its top sponsor, Bill Gates, so generously finances and so avidly promotes are giving African children polio. In addition to officially acknowledged vaccine-derived polio cases, which increased substantially from 2018 to 2019, the African region also annually reports tens of thousands of cases—over 31,500 from just 18 countries in 2017—of acute flaccid paralysis (AFP), a debilitating condition with a clinical picture virtually identical to polio. Many other countries—ranging from India to Italy—also record significant numbers of AFP cases.

In the U.S., childhood paralysis may not be documented on the same scale as in Africa or India, but it has attracted notice in high places. In early August, Senator and one-time presidential candidate Amy Klobuchar sent a letter to CDC director Robert Redfield raising concerns about an expected fall outbreak of acute flaccid myelitis (AFM), a subtype of AFP that, again, produces polio-like symptoms: muscle weakness, paralysis, pain, trouble swallowing and, in the most severe cases, acute respiratory failure. The CDC only began tracking and studying AFM when cases inexplicably surged in 2014; since then, it has documented an odd biennial pattern of peaks and lulls, but also a steady upward trend in cases. So far this year, up to 65 U.S. children have surfaced with confirmed or suspected AFM. Since 2014, a total of 638 cases have been confirmed across America, with a 98% hospitalization rate.

… 70 years of published studies along with manufacturers’ package inserts documenting a trail of polio-like symptoms (ranging from myelitis, numbness, pain and limb paralysis) following vaccination.

“Mysterious”—or iatrogenic?

In countries that use the oral polio vaccine, the CDC has no problem acknowledging that AFP is associated with vaccine-derived poliovirus. In the U.S., however, the use of another type of polio vaccine has allowed officials to frame the story very differently. In fact, AFM is almost universally painted as random and “mysterious.”

The CDC has assiduously avoided mentioning one iatrogenic (medically induced) cause that is staring the agency in the face: 70 years of published studies along with manufacturers’ package inserts documenting a trail of polio-like symptoms (ranging from myelitis, numbness, pain and limb paralysis) following vaccination. Among the mechanisms that could explain this phenomenon are the aluminum adjuvants in vaccines; studies in animals show that aluminum-containing vaccines contribute to neuropathological changes that include neurodegeneration of the gray matter of the spinal cord and hindlimb paralysis.

In discussing AFP, African researchers have been somewhat less cagey than CDC researchers, identifying at least two proximal and primarily iatrogenic causes: injection injuries and Guillain-Barré syndrome (GBS). A rural Ugandan study published in 2018, for example, found that two conditions commonly seen throughout Uganda—post-injection paralysis (PIP) and a form of tissue fibrosis called gluteal fibrosis (GF)—together accounted for, over a three-year period, over 30% of clinic visits specifically for musculoskeletal conditions and an astounding 40% of outreach visits “for any medical complaint.” Declining to mention that Ugandan children are expected to be vaccinated five times before their first birthday, the Ugandan researchers nevertheless noted that PIP tends to cluster in very young children (ages 0-3). In the case of GF (which displays increased odds with “increasing frequency of injections”), they observed a peak in 8- to 11-year-olds, severe enough to limit the children’s school attendance and ability to perform “activities of daily living.” Other researchers have matter-of-factly described tissue fibrosis as a “known complication of intramuscular injections . . . especially seen in children due to vaccinations and injections.”

A study of pediatric AFP in South Africa (also published in 2018) concluded that GBS—a condition typified by muscle weakness and paralysis—was AFP’s predominant cause, accounting for 83% of cases, producing “significant morbidity” and, in two cases, resulting in death. In fact, researchers credit GBS with being the most common cause of AFP worldwide. Again, one does not have to travel very far down the causal chain to come up with a plausible GBS trigger; twenty-one different package inserts for vaccines on the U.S. market list GBS as an adverse event. The U.S. experience with the 1976 swine flu vaccine and a decades-old evidence base also point in this direction.

Reflecting the current Covid-19 zeitgeist—which has decreed that the ‘wily virus’ is the biggest threat to humankind ever faced—the CDC is putting forth a viral etiology for AFM …

The end game: more vaccines, of course

Reflecting the current Covid-19 zeitgeist—which has decreed that the “wily virus” is the biggest threat to humankind ever faced—the CDC is putting forth a viral etiology for AFM while steering clear of explanations that might implicate vaccination. Although, in the majority of AFM patients, “no pathogen (germ) has been detected in spinal fluid to confirm a cause,” the agency is converging on a possibly mutated version of a common-cold enterovirus called EV-D68 as its principal suspect; at the same time (without explaining why benign viruses suddenly go rogue), it is hedging its bets by stating that other common viruses could also be responsible for some AFM cases.

In interviews with parents of children suffering from AFM, who admit to being “desperate for some magical thing” to help their children, the stage is being set for—what else?—a vaccine “solution.” Even though EV-D68’s involvement in AFM/AFP is hypothetical rather than proven, the all-too-predictable corollary of the CDC’s viral fixation is the entry of yet another vaccine into the pipeline—a scenario explicitly mentioned by Senator Klobuchar in her letter to Director Redfield. The National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID) headed up by Anthony Fauci has just entered into a “co-development contract,” worth $9.4 million, with Dutch company Intravacc to come up with a prophylactic vaccine against EV-D68. Never ones to question whether the vaccine model actually works, the CDC and WHO are likewise preaching a doubling-down of vaccination in the countries suffering the scourge of vaccine-induced polio. Given that the Global Polio Eradication Initiative documented almost half a million cases of AFP in children age 14 and under between 2013 and 2018, it seems like time to admit that the model is not only broken but counterproductive.

COVID-19 Vaccine Participant Develops Neurological Symptoms, AstraZeneca Pauses Trial

On Tuesday, AstraZeneca announced a pause on its experimental COVID-19 vaccine trial after a woman in the UK developed a “suspected serious reaction.” The company is also conducting trials in the U.S., South Africa and Brazil, with enrollment in all these countries on hold for now.

AstraZeneca is partnering with researchers at Oxford University to develop this vaccine, and is testing it on children as young as 5 years old. The World Health Organization’s Chief Scientist Soumya Swaminathan called the project a COVID-19 vaccine race “frontrunner” earlier this year.

The company asserts that a panel of independent experts will review the adverse reaction and decide whether or not AstraZeneca should lift the pause.

While AstraZeneca says the woman has not been officially diagnosed, an anonymous source told the New York Times that the woman’s symptoms were consistent with transverse myelitis (TM).

TM is a neurological disorder characterized by inflammation of the spinal cord, a major element of the central nervous system. It often results in weakness of the limbs, problems emptying the bladder and paralysis. Patients can become severely disabled and there is currently no effective cure.

Concerns over associations between TM and vaccines are well known. A review of published case studies in 2009 documented 37 cases of transverse myelitis associated with vaccines, including Hepatitis B, measles-mumps-rubella, diphtheria, pertussis, tetanus and others in infants, children and adults. The researchers in Israel noted “the associations of different vaccines with a single autoimmune phenomenon allude to the idea that a common denominator of these vaccines, such as an adjuvant, might trigger this syndrome.” Even the New York Times piece on the recent AstraZeneca trial pause notes past “speculation” that vaccines might be able to trigger TM.

Perhaps the most infamous example of this phenomenon is the case of Colton Berrett. Berrett received Merck’s HPV vaccine at age 13 after doctors advised his mother it would help prevent cervical cancer in his hypothetical wife down the line. After the vaccine, doctors diagnosed Berrett with TM, and the boy became increasingly paralyzed as his spine became increasingly inflamed. Doctors said he’d eventually lose the ability to breathe and the family chose to intubate him. After years of living with this disability, and needing someone to carry a breathing apparatus for him at all times, Berrett took his own life.

Even if AstraZeneca’s vaccine is found responsible for the trial participant’s TM symptoms, that may not become the official conclusion. In July, another participant developed symptoms of TM, and the vaccine trial was paused. But an “independent panel” concluded the illness was unrelated to the vaccine, and the trial continued.

As Nikolai Petrovsky from Flinders University told the Australian Broadcasting Corporation, these panels are “typically made up of doctors, a biostatistician and a medical representative of the sponsor company running the trial.”

It’s unclear if the panel that reviewed the first case of TM will be the same group of experts to decide if the second case of TM was caused by the vaccine, but the Oxford team seems to be laying the groundwork for another such conclusion.

“This may be due to an issue related to the vaccine. It also may not,” a spokesperson from Oxford University told ABC News Thursday.

Also of significance is the fact that researchers have yet to produce a safe and effective vaccine against any coronavirus. When researchers were experimenting on vaccines against SARS (similar to COVID-19 in that it infects the lungs), trials were halted completely, after the vaccinated animals developed even more severe (and sometimes fatal) versions of SARS than the unvaccinated animals.

But while AstraZeneca informs volunteers about the results of animal trials with experimental SARS and MERS vaccines, it leaves out the results of its own animal trials, which suggest ineffectiveness at stopping the spread of the virus.

Screenshot from information sheet given to AstraZeneca’s vaccine trial volunteers.

As Forbes reported in May, all six monkeys injected with AstraZeneca’s COVID-19 vaccine became infected with COVID-19 after being inoculated. Then, all the monkeys were put to death, meaning the public won’t know if other issues were to have developed.

Adding obscurity to the AstraZeneca trial results is the fact that control groups are given Pfizer’s Nimenrix, a meningitis and pneumonia vaccine.

In a tweet, Oxford University’s Oxford Vaccine Group explained the decision, while seemingly indicating that it doesn’t expect its own vaccine to be safe at all since adverse reactions to Nimenrix and the new COVID-19 vaccine are expected.

Robert F. Kennedy Jr., chief legal counsel and chairman of Children’s Health Defense, explains, “Since none of these companies have ever had to test their products for safety against a true inert placebo, they have always been able to dismiss these sort of tragic outcomes as sad ‘coincidence.'”

Furthermore, AstraZeneca is no stranger to hiding negative trial data from the public eye. has documented this pattern at length. For example, the company knowingly and systematically hid results showing that its antipsychotic drug Seroquel was either ineffective or harmful, which is revealed in company emails. (AstraZeneca had to pay $520 million to the U.S. Department of Justice and $647 million in settlements after covering up Seroquel’s side effects.)

Not to mention, in March 2020, the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services issued a declaration under the PREP Act (retroactive to February), providing liability immunity “against any claim of loss caused by, arising out of, relating to, or resulting from the manufacture, distribution, administration, or use of medical countermeasures,” including vaccines. This means that AstraZeneca is indemnified against lawsuits, regardless of whether or not its new vaccine produces harmful effects.

AstraZeneca calls its recent decision to halt the trial a “routine action,” and some experts have chimed in with similar takes. Cambridge University lecturer Dr. Charlotte Summers contends the pause is a sign of the “rigorousness of the safety monitoring regime,” while Florian Krammer, a Virologist at the Icahn School of Medicine, similarly argues the move to pause proves that “only safe and effective therapies make it to the market.”

But, as Kennedy points out, this move to investigate adverse reactions is anything but routine. “The vaccine industry is unaccustomed to this level of scrutiny,” he says. He suggests that most vaccine approval processes are not subject to such investigation by the global public eye, and that “if the 72 doses now mandated for children [such as measles-mumps-rubella] had endured critical appraisal by so many eyeballs, not one of them could have gotten close to an FDA license.”

Season 2, Episode 1 of “TRUTH” with Robert F. Kennedy, Jr.

In the first episode of our second season “TRUTH” with Robert F. Kennedy, Jr., he and Vaxxed 2’s Polly Tommey covered a variety of topics including:

  • The inaccuracy of mainstream news accounts of the August 29 Berlin Protest: wrong on the numbers and wrong on the nature of the rally itself
  • Similarities between what’s happening today and the origins of Nazism in Germany: censorship and creating fear
  • How authoritarian efforts are destroying the middle class while tech barons such as Gates, Zuckerberg, and Bezos are making billions
  • Creating a new form of media among “awakened” people to counter the misinformation of mainstream media
  • Vaccine mandates
  • CHD’s lawsuit against the University of California for mandating flu shots for all faculty, staff and students
  • Dr. Fauci’s tenure at the NIH
  • The launch of CHD’s new publication, The Defender, on September 10
  • Waterkeepers: What it is and how it started

(All episodes can be found on CHD’s social media, and on the CHD Channel found on Peeps TV, a network on Roku. Roku is accessible from any Smart TV and can be purchased separately for older TVs.)

Injunction Lawsuit Against the University of California – Filed!


Late last week, our Chairman Robert F. Kennedy Jr., General Counsel Mary Hollard and Rick Jaffe, a highly regarded national health care attorney, filed an injunction lawsuit against the University of California’s recent flu mandate for the entire 510,000 member UC community.  The lead plaintiff is Associate Executive Vice Chancellor of the UC Davis Academic Research Department Cindy Kiel. One additional employee and two students are plaintiffs as well.

The stated reason for the flu mandate is to free up hospital beds in case there is a bad flu season, and in case there is a bad COVID-19 second wave, and in case there is a future shortage of hospital beds. As we say in the Complaint, “that is a large number of ‘ifs’ for which to sacrifice the personal freedom and bodily integrity rights” of all these people.

Data from the California Department of Public Health proves that the chances of a hospital bed shortage is somewhere between remote and extremely miniscule.

No court in the history of this country has ever approved such a broad adult vaccine mandate for such a collateral, speculative purpose. We are hopeful that the court hearing this case will strike down UC’s order.

Our hope is in no small part based on Jacobson, the Supreme Court’s original precedent on vaccine mandates. Jacobson upheld a city ordinance requiring all residents to get the smallpox vaccine during a smallpox outbreak or pay a $5 fine. However, Jacobson elegantly explained the limits of government action: “if a statute purporting to have been enacted to protect the public health, the public morals, or the public safety, has no real or substantial relation to those objects, or is, beyond all question, a plain, palpable invasion of rights secured by the fundamental law, it is the duty of courts to so adjudge, and thereby give effect to the Constitution.”

The collateral, speculative purpose to free up hospital beds has no real or substantial relation to preventing COVID-19 cases, hospitalizations, or deaths. Data from the California Department of Public Health proves that the chances of a hospital bed shortage is somewhere between remote and extremely miniscule. We hope the court will so rule, and are planning to obtain an initial ruling before November 1, 2020, when the mandate would take effect.

If you can, please donate to support our great legal team fighting on behalf of everyone who thinks that the UC system, and other school systems around the country, are trampling on privacy and bodily integrity rights.

Now is the time to stop this, and this is the case to do it.


The Persuasion Game: Manipulating Intention to Get a Covid-19 Vaccine



Last December, the world’s leading vaccine experts met in Geneva and acknowledged that vaccine confidence was in the toilet. Despite the public health establishment’s best efforts to mock and dissipate “vaccine hesitancy,” these experts, convened by the World Health Organization (WHO), confessed that the number of citizens and health professionals raising questions about vaccine safety was spiraling out of their control. One of the attendees—a WHO-affiliated anthropologist who has made a career out of fine-tuning vaccine messaging and rebranding vaccine concerns as “rumors”—even admitted that there was no legitimate science to back up vaccine proponents’ bald assertions about safety.

As if by magic, SARS-CoV-2 and Covid-19 materialized early in 2020, just in time to recast vaccines as a solution rather than a problem. In fact, vaccines have been given a starring role in the tense global drama that is unfolding, with the media misleadingly promoting them as the best and even only “path to immunity.” Frustratingly for the vaccine pushers, this daily barrage of propaganda has not only failed to achieve its intended effect but is trending in the wrong direction. In the most recent poll, two out of five Americans (40%) indicated that they do not intend to get a Covid-19 vaccine, and the percentage voicing interest in a vaccine displayed a 10% drop since May.

Stumped by this recalcitrance, behavioral scientists have decided to take the persuasion game in hand, availing themselves of the bonanza of research dollars suddenly on offer for anything Covid-19-related. On July 8, Yale University quietly completed a randomized controlled trial assessing the impact of “Persuasive Messages for COVID-19 Vaccine Uptake,” and in late August, Vanderbilt University issued a press release summarizing results from a similar study. (The same types of studies are also being conducted to determine how best to convince people to socially isolate themselves, social distance and wear masks.) Both Yale and Vanderbilt happen to be hosting clinical trials for Covid-19 vaccines, and both institutions’ persuasion studies operate from the insulting premise that individuals making independent vaccine choices are cowardly, selfish and unscientific. Equally insultingly, the university researchers appear to believe that the ignorant masses can be manipulated into a different way of thinking if exposed to the proper messaging.

In addition, …  the survey measured social judgment of those who do not vaccinate, defined as the trustworthiness, selfishness, likeableness, and competence of those who choose not to get vaccinated after a vaccine becomes available.

Variations on a Theme

The Yale group wrapped up its survey in five days, randomizing 4,000 people to one of 12 groups to experiment with different strategies for manipulating attitudes and future behavior. With the exception of two control groups, each remaining group received one of 10 messages designed to tip the respondent into willingness to get a Covid-19 vaccine “once the vaccine becomes available.” The messages tweaked themes pertaining to freedom (personal or economic), social or economic benefit,  social pressure, trust in science, and bravery. In the latter group, for example, the message held up firefighters, doctors and frontline medical workers as the standard-bearers for bravery, while stigmatizing individuals making the choice not to get a Covid-19 vaccine as “not brave.”


Although the Yale researchers were primarily interested in “intention to get a vaccine,” they also explored the impact of their messages on vaccine confidence, willingness to persuade others to take the vaccine and fear of the unvaccinated, showing that they intend to assail refusers from a variety of angles. In addition—in a blatant display of the divide-and-conquer shaming tactics that have been in use for quite some time—the survey measured “social judgment of those who do not vaccinate,” defined as “the trustworthiness, selfishness, likeableness, and competence of those who choose not to get vaccinated after a vaccine becomes available.”

Meanwhile, the Vanderbilt study assessed “personal risk preferences,” acknowledging that “immunization with a brand-new vaccine is a gamble.” After finding that the more “naturally willing” a person was to take risks, the more likely they were to say that they planned to be vaccinated, the investigator went further, experimenting with how to convince “risk-averse” people to take a Covid-19 vaccine. This second experiment compared one message emphasizing “social duty and benefit” (defined as herd immunity) with a second message emphasizing the hypothetical vaccine’s “high rate of effectiveness, limited side effects, and approval through a standardized and rigorous process.” For the risk-averse crowd, she found that while the herd immunity argument held some sway, the second (“safe and effective”) message completely bombed. (The researcher noted that her study “did not investigate people who categorically refuse all vaccines.”)

Cutting through the propaganda

The Yale study’s economy-focused messages are particularly offensive, blaming a non-living organism for “limiting economic freedom” and “wreaking havoc on the economy.” More honest observers know that the real blame for the economic carnage of the past six months must fall squarely on the shoulders of the local, state and federal politicians and health officials who have imposed (and ruthlessly renewed) unprecedented, unconstitutional and non-evidence-based restrictions—euphemistically called “nonpharmaceutical interventions”—on a public whose fears they have helped stoke. As a late-July study published in the Lancet-affiliated journal EClinicalMedicine showed, the endless lockdowns and widespread testing have both been worthless in terms of lowering overall mortality. J.B. Handley states:

[L]ocking down society was a bone-headed policy decision so devastating to society that historians may judge it as the all-time worst decision ever made. Worse, as these clear facts have become available, many policy-makers haven’t shifted their positions, despite the fact that every hour under any stage of lockdown has a domino-effect of devastation to society.

Now, these same policy-makers—with the willing collusion of bottom-feeding behavioral scientists who make their living by devising clever propaganda and exploiting sincere human impulses such as altruism and courage—want to manipulate the public into giving up personal freedoms and accepting coerced and experimental medical interventions. Fortunately, the crowds that assembled last weekend in Berlin, London, Ottawa and numerous other cities around the world showed that more and more people are rejecting mass hypnosis and coercion, whether psychological or physical.

Polio Vaccine Causing Polio Outbreaks in Africa, WHO Admits



A year ago, news outlets briefly shone a light on the fact (a fact that makes public health officials squirm) that oral polio vaccines are causing polio outbreaks. With reports streaming in throughout 2019 regarding the circulation of vaccine-derived polioviruses in numerous African and Asian countries, a CDC virologist confessed, “We have now created more new emergences of the virus than we have stopped.”

… there were 400 recorded cases of vaccine-derived polio in more than 20 countries worldwide.

This week, the same story is making the same headlines, with the WHO’s shamefaced announcement that the oral polio vaccine is responsible for an alarming polio outbreak in Sudan—“linked to an ongoing vaccine-sparked epidemic in Chad”—with parallel outbreaks in a dozen other African countries. In fact, between August 2019 and August 2020, there were 400 recorded cases of vaccine-derived polio in more than 20 countries worldwide. Ironically, WHO disclosed this “setback” barely a week after it declared the African continent to be free of wild poliovirus—which has not been seen in Africa since 2016. While African epidemiologists cheerily claim that these outbreaks can “be brought under control with further immunization,” and Sudan prepares to launch a mass polio vaccination campaign, WHO is warning that “the risk of further spread of the vaccine-derived polio across central Africa and the Horn of Africa” is high.

The Gates Foundation is a leading funder of oral polio vaccination in Africa and around the world, having dedicated nearly $4 billion to such efforts by the end of 2018. As discussed in Forbes in May 2019, Gates has “personally [driven] the development” of new oral polio vaccines and plays a “strategic role beyond funding.” The Forbes author (who partners with Gates on polio initiatives) states:

The work on the [polio] vaccine changes the direction of the light on Gates and the Foundation, shifting the view from philanthropist to social entrepreneur. The Foundation . . . isn’t merely a grant-making organization but also an innovation engine.

Clearly, the outcome of these “innovations”—hundreds of new cases of polio a year—warrants a closer look.


Related articles from Children’s Health Defense:

Polio vaccination—still causing polio after all these years (September 24, 2019)

What polio vaccine injury looks like, decades later (September 5, 2019)

The non-polio illness that “looks just like polio” (October 16, 2018)

Read the fine print, part two—nearly 400 adverse reactions listed in vaccine package inserts (August 14, 2020)

WHO experimenting on African children without informed consent (March 3, 2020)

Most of you think we know what our vaccines are doing—we don’t (May 7, 2019)


News articles about current outbreaks:

UN says new polio outbreak in Sudan caused by oral vaccine (September 2, 2020)

BREAKING! UN AND WHO finally admits that the new polio outbreak in Sudan and elsewhere in Africa is caused by a oral polio vaccine gone wrong (September 2, 2020)

Vaccine-derived polio spreads in Africa after defeat of wild virus (September 2, 2020)

Polio spreads in Sudan (August 26, 2020)

Polio reported in Port Sudan (August 20, 2020)

Don’t Blink or You’ll Miss it: The Prep Act Quietly Gets a Third Amendment, Allowing Pharmacists to Vaccinate Children



While our nation was busy spending a considerable amount of time discussing racial inequalities (as we should) or wondering whether or not public schools and colleges were going to open or start on-line, or debating the upcoming national political conventions, our federal government, specifically, the Secretary of Health and Human Services (HHS) issued his third amendment to the Public Readiness and Emergency Preparedness Act (PREP). The Act was first put into place this year by a declaration from the Secretary of HHS on March 10, 2020.

The third amendment on August 24th allows pharmacists to administer vaccines to children ages three to 18. Many states had previously established restrictions on who could administer childhood vaccinations.

… a horrible scenario for which pharmacists are clearly not trained to handle.

The announcement of the amendment slipped past me when it occurred as I imagine it did many others, the press having other issues to cover. I was alerted to it when talking with a parent advocate one evening. At first, I couldn’t believe it and then thought it surely must be just for a specific state. Later, I searched the internet to find that the Federal Register listed the action on Monday, August 24, 2020.

Even my home state of Minnesota passed legislation in May, 2020 to allow pharmacists to administer any FDA approved COVID vaccine to children as young as six years of age. This is not a mandate, but rather setting up a horrible scenario for which pharmacists are clearly not trained to handle.

My dad, a pharmacist in North Dakota when I was growing up, mastered the art of compounding pharmaceuticals in the 60s and 70s. Very proud of his profession, he was always busy preparing prescriptions for his customers, trying to interpret various doctors’ handwriting correctly. Yet I doubt that he would enjoy today’s modern pharmacy and think that he would say vaccinations are for doctors, not pharmacists.

This action by the Secretary of HHS allows certain licensed pharmacists (and pharmacy interns who are acting under the supervision of a licensed pharmacist) to order and administer any vaccine that the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) recommends to persons ages three through 18. This amendment was prompted by a report from the CDC in which it found a significant decrease in rates of routine childhood vaccinations.

Amendments of The PREP Act

Previous amendments of The PREP Act include:

  • The first amendment on April 10th to extend liability immunity to covered countermeasures authorized under the newly passed CARES Act. This declaration provides limited immunity to manufacturers of masks, plastic shields, gloves and other protective equipment.
  • The second amendment on June 4th for the purpose of clarifying that covered countermeasures include qualified countermeasures that limit the harm COVID-19 might otherwise cause. Basically, allowing the use of therapeutics and other measures that were not designed for COVID, to be used if necessary.
… pharmacies can barely keep up with adults receiving one vaccine at a time.

Setting the stage for disaster

Now for the problems of allowing pharmacists to administer childhood vaccines. Currently, in “vaccine court” the number one petition filed for compensation is for shoulder injury as the result of a vaccination (SIRVA). Most of the injured persons (adults) received influenza or Tdap vaccinations from their local retail pharmacy such as Walgreens, CVS, RiteAid or Target.

If these retail pharmacies cannot properly administer a vaccine to an adult, why would we allow this for children?

One of the biggest problems when filing a petition claiming shoulder injury is the failure of the retail pharmacies to accurately record in the medical records which arm the vaccine was administered and who did it. These pharmacies can barely keep up with adults receiving one vaccine at a time. What happens when a parent brings their child into the business to get several vaccines? Will the pharmacy tech or pharmacist record the date, time, which arm or leg? Probably not.

Will they be able to obtain and examine a thorough review of medical records prior to administering the vaccine? Probably not given what we know from vaccine court petitions.

Most doctors lack any comprehensive training that would prepare them to recognize vaccine injury or adverse reactions in children. Pharmacists receive no such training, setting the stage for disaster.

So why is our government transferring the responsibility of administering vaccines to retail pharmacies instead of doctors’ offices or clinics? It might be in part the pushback from doctors who claim it is not profitable or too costly to administer basic vaccinations in their offices. From their point of view, vaccination would be more cost effective when provided in a pharmacy setting. Here is one of many agendas by our government agencies and medical community that show no regard for the best interest of the people.

I believe that we will see a few more amendments to the PREP Act if Congress will not address the liability issue for businesses, schools, and colleges to open up. There are lawsuits already filed by employees for wrongful death (WalMart) and hospitalizations of employees claiming being infected by COVID while employed.

The big problem here is the PREP Act is being used as a vehicle to circumvent Congress. The real concern is whether or not we’ll see a federal mandate for COVID vaccines at some point in the future via the PREP Act, adopting policy via fiat without proper and necessary public comments and testimony.

We must remain vigilant, we must be prepared to act, and we must educate our elected officials on federal, state and local levels.

The PREP Act is in force until October, 2024 unless revoked by the Secretary of HHS or POTUS.


Peaceful Rallies Around the World to Champion Freedom

It was a historic weekend for freedom activists around the world. Saturday, August 29th, one million true citizens of all walks of life united to stand against unscientific lock downs, government totalitarianism, and medical mandates.

Berlin, Germany

One million peaceful people.

Children’s Health Defense’s Chairman, Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. spoke to an estimated one million ( arial video ) in Berlin, Germany calling for democracy and free speech in the face of the current massive, world-wide power grab and violation of human rights in progress. “The only thing that governments need to make people into slaves is fear,” Kennedy said in a seven minute speech, met with robust applause from a crowd flying flags from seemingly all European countries. “They have not done a very good job of protecting public health, but they’ve done a very good job of using the quarantine to bring 5G technology into all of our communities and to begin the process of shifting us all into digital currency, which is the beginning of slavery,” Kennedy added.

Here’s the speech from a different perspective, without the German translator and with Italian subtitles.

CHD Launches CHD-Europe Chapter

This weekend has also marked the launch of the Children’s Health Defense Europe Chapter. A  press conference with Robert F. Kennedy Jr. and members of the CHD board was held the day before the rallies, on August 28, broadcast and translated into 10 languages, detailing the dangers of Big Tech and Big Pharma tyranny: “Now they have a source of fear that is the most pervasive and all-encompassing power they’ve ever had, which is the fear of pandemics… and today we have an inflection of new technologies that give the government the capacity to impose controls on populations that have never been imaged before in any time in history by any tyrant in history . . . ”

Senta Depuydt, President, CHD Europe and Mary Holland, vice chair, CHD, and Tina Choy, board member, CHD Europe, lead in celebrating the new CHD Europe chapter at the Berlin Freedom Rally.

Police sent to the Berlin rally took off their helmets in solidarity with the people.

International Wake Up Call

The world is exponentially waking up to government corruption and the Bill Gates agenda in huge numbers. From Freedom Rallies in Parliament Hill, Ottawa, Canada and Albany, New York, to protesting the mandate of the flu shot in Boston, Massachusetts, to railing against fake COVID science in Palma de Mallorca, Spain, an estimated hundred thousand additional voices culminated to stand for bodily sovereignty, free speech, and human rights. Thirty-five thousand were reported in London’s Trafalgar Square alone, demanding an end to lockdowns and restoring of freedom and choice in association with whose slogan is, “No New Normal.” Del Bigtree spoke to the crowd, from Texas, about the coming COVID vaccine’s potential to be “the most dangerous vaccine ever invented.”

Trafalgar Square, London

A peaceful, yet high-energy crowd of tens of thousands converged in London as well, Saturday, and lead a freedom march on Parliament. One of many speakers, Dr. Mikael Nordfors of was interviewed by Children’s Health Defense: “Everyone who is going against free speech—Facebook . . . they are traitors to humanity now. This is our deciding moment. Most of these people are cowards. They do as they are told and they won’t escape anymore.”

Kate Shemirani—’natural nurse in a toxic world’—and more speakers Rally the crowd

In the words of Robert F. Kennedy, Jr.:

“We are not going to let you take our democracy away. We are not going to let you take our health away. We are not going to let you take our freedoms away. We are not going to let you take our children away.”


Curtis Cost—Q&A with Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. and Health Freedom Advocates

¡También disponible con subtítulos en español!

Recently, Robert F. Kennedy, Jr sat down with Curtis Cost, activist and author of “Vaccine are Dangerous,” and a panel of health freedom advocates including Agneta Wilson, a humanitarian and activist from Sweden and CHD Board Members Alix Mayer and Kristina Kristin, to discuss a wide range of topics including coronavirus, vaccine safety, pharmaceutical greed, and more.

The Playbook Revealed! CHD’s ‘The Jab’ Delivers Inside Scoop on COVID Pandemic

Join Children’s Health Defense (CHD) on a snappy journey through the recent history and current replay of the pandemic-scam-page from Big Pharma’s playbook. It’s deja-vu with the W.H.O. declaring “pandemics” that result in gold rushes for pharmaceutical companies. But serious adverse events such as the very real narcolepsy epidemic that we saw in the swine flu “pandemic” of 2009—which many researchers tie to GSK’s Pandemrix vaccine—counter any perceived benefits of these rushed vaccines. CHD’s The Jab video documents the facts behind the unfolding pandemic drama and begs the question: Are we are being played—again?

THE JAB: Featuring GlaxoSmithKline

The winter of 2009 may feel like it was just yesterday, but the Trump administration’s Operation Warp Speed is betting more than two billion dollars that Americans have already forgotten about GlaxoSmithKline’s elaborate scam that caused narcolepsy and cataplexy epidemics across Europe 11 years ago.

Act 1: The Trap

As the trustworthy stewards of global public health (wink, wink), in the years leading up to 2009, the World Health Organization worked to ensure that dozens of European and African nations executed agreements to protect their citizens in the event of an unforeseen global pandemic.

These “sleeping contracts” stipulated that the pharmaceutical companies would be called upon to produce flu vaccines—and be paid billions of dollars for doing so. But there was no reason to fear any financial impropriety because the contracts could only be activated in the event that the W.H.O. declared a phase 6 influenza pandemic.

Unfortunately, the government officials who signed the contracts never suspected that GSK makes multimillion-dollar donations to the W.H.O. in return for control over decisions that result in GSK windfalls.

Act 2: The Switch

For six years leading up to 2009, the W.H.O. displayed their definition of “influenza pandemic” on the top of their Pandemic Preparedness home page. It read, “An influenza pandemic occurs when a new influenza virus appears against which the human population has no immunity, resulting in several, simultaneous epidemics worldwide with enormous numbers of deaths and illness.”

On June 11, 2009, the W.H.O. declared H1N1 swine flu to be a global influenza pandemic, phase 6. Curiously, at that point in time, there were only 144 swine flu deaths in the entire world. Nevertheless, the W.H.O.’s declaration triggered $18 billion in sleeping contracts to activate across the world, and production of hundreds of millions of H1N1 vaccine doses kicked into high gear—including GlaxoSmithKline’s Pandemrix.

Suspiciously, just 39 days before declaring the pandemic, the W.H.O. deleted the pandemic definition from their website. When confronted, they told the media that their definition “painted a rather bleak picture and could be very scary.” In the new definition, the W.H.O. no longer required that anyone die before they declare a pandemic. GSK’s Pandemrix jab was an experimental vaccine that was never tested for safety or efficacy. It was given straight to hundreds of millions of Africans and Europeans.

This wasn’t the time for red tape and formalities. By any definition– rather, by the new definition, we were in a global pandemic.

Act 3: The Plants

The W.H.O. did not declare the 2009 pandemic on its own. Before making the declaration, the W.H.O. Director General, Dr. Margaret Chan, sought guidance from an Emergency Committee drawn from a panel of 160 scientists on the W.H.O’s International Health Regulations Review Committee.The W.H.O. describes these advisors as “the world’s leading experts in their respective fields,” but their identities are still shrouded in secrecy, which the W.H.O. claimed was necessary to “protect them from outside influences.” But a shocking 2010 British Medical Journal investigation revealed that numerous Emergency Committee members who voted for the pandemic declaration had financial ties to flu vaccine and Tamiflu manufacturers, including GlaxoSmithKline.

Wolfgang Wodarg, a former delegate to the European Council, said, “The W.H.O. officials have no idea about such things. They have to depend on scientists. And the scientists are allocated to them by the countries and by the organizations that finance the W.H.O. And many of them gave advice and made decisions that benefited the pharmaceutical industry.”

Act 4: The Getaway

Narcolepsy is more than a minor inconvenience in an otherwise normal life. Narcoleptics suffer from the extreme tendency to fall asleep whenever in relaxed surroundings. Cataplexy is a condition in which strong emotion or laughter causes a person to suffer sudden physical collapse.

GSK’s adjuvanted Pandemrix vaccine caused both, devastating at least 1,300 children across Europe– for life. In the media, GSK’s AS03 adjuvant, added to stimulate a powerful immune response, shouldered the blame for amplifying these heinous reactions. Documents obtained by plaintiffs in a series of European lawsuits revealed that GSK knew about the mounting adverse events associated with Pandemrix in the winter of 2009–including a 5.4-fold increase in death. By December 2009, an injured person filed a report with GSK for every 12,500 doses of Pandemrix administered. Yet, they continued promoting their vaccine in order to move inventory.

As lawsuits began to pile up, the UK spent millions of pounds defending itself, ultimately settling for nine-figure sums after losing on appeal. After all, every country that signed a sleeping contract was required to grant GSK full legal indemnity for their fast-tracked pandemic vaccine, leaving taxpayers on the hook for defending and settling hundreds of lawsuits.

GSK never stood trial for destroying 1,300 young lives with narcolepsy and cataplexy and they never paid one dollar in fines for influencing the fake pandemic in what Wolfgang Wodard called, “One of the greatest medical scandals of the century.”

Act 5: The Encore

Relying on the same attenuated definition of “pandemic,” on March 11, 2020, the World Health Organization declared COVID-19 to be a global pandemic when its partner, the COVID-19 Therapeutics Accelerator, received 125 million-dollar commitments from the Gates Foundation and Mastercard just one day prior.

On July 31, 2020, GSK and Sanofi scored 2.1 billion US taxpayer dollars to partner on an experimental Covid-19 vaccine. Sanofi will provide the vaccine and GSK will provide– you guessed it– hundreds of millions of doses of their AS03 adjuvant from the 2009 narcolepsy epidemic.

Will they get away with it this time?


3. Forbes contributor Michael Fumento 2009 article on the WHO faking the 2009 pandemic and the definition change
4. BMJ investigation into the WHO’s Emergency Committee secrecy and ties to pharma
5. Peter Doshi for the BMJ, why wasn’t the public warned about the dangers of Pandemrix
6. GSK to sell AS03 to US for $2.1B for coronavirus vaccine

Gardasil Lawsuit Claims HPV Vaccine Caused Teen Severe Injuries

August 19, 2020, Providence, Rhode Island – – The national law firm of Baum Hedlund Aristei & Goldman filed a Gardasil lawsuit against Merck today on behalf of a 19-year-old woman, alleging the company misled the FDA, legislators, doctors and moms about the safety and efficacy of its Gardasil vaccine. The lawsuit asserts Merck purposely downplayed the risk of Gardasil’s ingredients, including a proprietary aluminum compound (a potent neurotoxin) and secret and potentially hazardous DNA particles. Plaintiff Julia Balasco alleges she suffered and continues to suffer severe and permanent physical injuries such as an autoimmune disease known as postural orthostatic tachycardia syndrome (POTS) after receiving multiple injections of the human papillomavirus (HPV) Gardasil vaccine.

Attorneys Bijan EsfandiariNicole K. H. MaldonadoMichael L. Baumco-counsel Robert F. Kennedy, Jr and local counsel Christopher E. Hultquist of Hultquist Law in Providence, filed the lawsuit in U.S. District Court for the District of Rhode Island on behalf of Ms. Balasco, who alleges her vaccine injuries were so severe and debilitating, she was physically unable to attend most of high school. The case number is 1:20-cv 00364.

The complaint against defendants Merck & Co. Inc. and subsidiary Merck Sharp & Dohm Corp., both of New Jersey, seeks damages based on the following causes of action:

  • Negligence
  • Strict Liability (Failure to Warn)
  • Strict Liability (Manufacturing Defect)
  • Breach of Warranty
  • Common Law Fraud
  • Violation of Rhode Island’s Deceptive Trade Practices Act

The lawsuit also seeks punitive damages against Merck.

According to the complaint, Merck failed to properly test Gardasil before the HPV vaccine was fast-tracked and administered to millions of young girls and boys throughout the United States and the world. Furthermore, Merck knew or had reason to know that its vaccine was defective and ineffective, but instead of warning the medical community and the public, the company wrongfully concealed information and further made false statements concerning the safety and efficacy of Gardasil.

“Merck spent more money marketing and advertising Gardasil than any vaccine manufacturer in history,” says Gardasil lawyer Nicole K. H. Maldonado. “The company made billions telling the parents of young girls that Gardasil could eliminate cervical cancer without having any proof to back up the claim. Now, with thousands of severe Gardasil vaccine injuries reported, we intend to hold Merck accountable for concealing known safety risks in the name of massive profits.”  

“Before there was Gardasil, there was Vioxx,” says attorney Robert F. Kennedy Jr. “Merck paid billions to settle civil allegations that it purposely hid Vioxx’s cardiovascular risks. They also paid $950 million in fines as a result of their criminal conduct. When Gardasil came along, the boardroom at Merck joked that its HPV vaccine could ‘Help Pay for Vioxx.’ Sure enough, some of the same shadowy cast of characters who were involved in the Vioxx scandal worked on Gardasil, and they employed the very same methods of manipulating science and obscuring risks as they did with Vioxx. And just as with Vioxx, Gardasil has left a calamitous health disaster in its wake.”

What is Gardasil?

In 2006, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration approved the Gardasil HPV vaccine after being “fast-tracked” in just six short months. The FDA’s fast-track process is designed to facilitate the development and expedite the review of drugs or vaccines to treat serious conditions and fill an unmet medical need like providing a treatment for an epidemic which has no existing treatment. Gardasil met neither of these criteria. Cervical cancer was far from epidemic status and the existing PAP smear plus follow up removal of abnormal cervical tissue had substantially controlled most cervical cancers. In fact, according to the National Cancer Institute’s Surveillance, Epidemiology and End Results Program (“SEER”), the incidence of deaths from cervical cancer prior to the introduction of Gardasil in the U.S., was on a steady decline with a rate of 2.4 per 100,000 women.

Notwithstanding, in its bid to fast-track Gardasil and prove that the vaccine treats a serious condition and fills an unmet medical need, Merck allegedly presented misleading data to the FDA suggesting that HPV infections and some abnormal cervical tissue–cervical interepithelial neoplasia (CIN) lesions–inexorably result in cancer, hence the urgent need for the HPV vaccine. The complaint indicates those contentions are untrue.

Merck sought and received FDA approval for Gardasil based on its theory that HPV alone causes cervical cancer, and that Gardasil could eliminate cervical cancer and other HPV-associated cancers. According to Balasco’s attorneys, however, Merck’s theory is unproven – Gardasil has never been shown to prevent cervical cancer, itself. On the contrary, studies have shown that systemic administration of Gardasil leads to increased rates of cervical cancer and other serious health issues.

According to the complaint, Gardasil contains a host of hazardous ingredients, including at least one ingredient that Merck failed to disclose to regulators and consumers. Gardasil contains a secret DNA adjuvant and potentially hazardous ingredient, HPV LI-DNA fragments, to make the vaccine more potent. According to the allegations, Merck used this hidden adjuvant to prolong the immunological effects of the vaccine, but illegally omitted it from its list of substances and ingredients in the vaccine.

Gardasil also contains a particularly toxic aluminum-containing adjuvant – Amorphous Aluminum Hydroxyphosphate Sulfate (AAHS), which is a potent neurotoxin created by Merck, that can result in very serious harm, according to the complaint. Studies show that AAHS can trigger autoimmune disorders and other serious conditions and has never been proven safe. Federal law requires that manufacturers cannot add adjuvants to vaccines that have not been proven safe.

Gardasil also contains borax, polysorbate 80, and genetically-modified yeast, all of which can cause adverse events, the lawsuit alleges. Merck never tested any of these added ingredients for safety in vaccines.

Gardasil Clinical Trial Was Fraudulent, Per Complaint

In clinical trials, those who receive the active medication are compared with those who receive a placebo. This is to measure the vaccine’s safety against an inactive (inert) placebo, such as an injection of a saline (saltwater) solution.

Merck’s Gardasil clinical trials, however, did not use a true placebo, the complaint alleges. Instead, the company “spiked” the placebo with AAHS and the vaccine’s other additives, which resulted in approximately equal numbers of subjects in the vaccine group and the placebo group suffering adverse reactions. This gave the impression that the Gardasil HPV vaccine was “as safe as a placebo” when, in fact, significant numbers of subjects in both treatment groups suffered many serious medical conditions, including symptoms of autoimmune disease, the lawsuit maintains.

Teenage Girl Developed POTS After Two Gardasil Injections

According to Julia Balasco’s complaint, she was 13-years-old when she received a Gardasil shot for the first time in August of 2014. A happy, healthy girl with a love for cheerleading, Julia had never experienced serious medical issues before her first Gardasil injection.

Julia’s mother, Michaela, allowed her daughter to receive the Gardasil shot after years of exposure to relentless online, print, and television marketing by Merck representing that Gardasil is very safe, that Gardasil prevents cancer, and that “good mothers” must vaccinate their pre-teen daughters with the Gardasil vaccine. Little did she know that Merck had engaged in “Disease Mongering” and used false advertising and scare tactics to enhance Gardasil sales. A year later, Rhode Island mandated the Gardasil vaccine for all school children before 7th grade entry.

Within hours of receiving the first dose, Julia experienced flu-like symptoms, including achiness, headache, nausea, and low-grade fever. The symptoms lasted for approximately 24-48 hours. In the weeks that followed, Julia experienced ear pressure, tinnitus, and headaches. Her symptoms were atypical and over-the-counter medication did not bring her any relief.

A few months later, Julia experienced more frequent and severe ear pain and tinnitus. Her mother took her to her doctor who prescribed Julia steroids. She received her second dose of Gardasil during this visit and proceeded to experience the same flu-like symptoms as before.

As months passed, Julia began to experience headaches of varying seriousness and continued to deal with ear pain and tinnitus. She also complained of fatigue and body aches. Her symptoms were severe enough to increasingly keep her from attending school.

Julia and her mother visited multiple specialists to understand why she was experiencing these “spells” that caused severe dizziness, headaches, ear pressure, and tinnitus. No one could give them a satisfactory answer or relief, and her symptoms continued unabated.

When Julia was due for her third Gardasil injection, her mother started to believe that Gardasil may have been the cause of her daughter’s symptoms. The family doctor agreed that the timeline following each of the shots and the symptoms Julia experienced was suspicious but could not say for certain that Gardasil was the cause.

Julia was put on several different medications over the next several months but nothing alleviated her symptoms. She continued to miss school regularly and saw her quality of life diminish. Her mother helped her change her diet and altered her school schedule to include online learning in the hopes of reducing her stress and improving her symptoms. Nothing worked.

After being diagnosed with fibromyalgia and years of struggle, Julia’s life continues to be altered in very dramatic ways. Now 19, she struggles to keep up with friends and cannot participate in many of the things she used to enjoy. She was forced to stop cheerleading because she could no longer participate, and has switched to online learning exclusively instead of attending in-person classes.

“This is no life for anyone,” her mother says.

According to the complaint, Gardasil caused Julia Balasco to develop serious and debilitating autoimmune disease, including POTS, and a constellation of adverse symptoms, complications, injuries, and adverse events.

POTS is an autoimmune disorder that can be incapacitating; it affects a branch of the nervous system that regulates functions we do not consciously control, including blood pressure, heart rate, perspiration, and body temperature. People with POTS often experience fainting, migraine headaches, anxiety, and  other life-altering health issues.

If Mrs. Balasco had been informed about the known safety risks associated with Gardasil, she never would have allowed her daughter to receive the HPV vaccine.

Gardasil, the Most Expensive Vaccine on the Market, Also Causes the Most Injuries

Julia’s symptoms after receiving Gardasil, are far from unique. According to data from the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS), more than 64,000 case reports of adverse events have been reported after individuals received the Gardasil vaccine. Experts estimate that only one percent of vaccine adverse events are actually reported.

According to the complaint, Gardasil now has more reported injuries than any other vaccine, and the Vaccine Injury Compensation Program has paid out millions of dollars in damages for Gardasil-induced injuries and deaths.

Gardasil is also the most expensive vaccine on the market; two doses of Gardasil 9 presently cost about $450, plus the cost of two office visits. In 2018, Merck made $2.2 billion from Gardasil sales in the U.S. alone. In 2019, Merck made $3.7 billion in worldwide Gardasil revenue.

Ms. Balasco seeks to hold Merck accountable for its alleged negligent, reckless, and fraudulent conduct, and for causing her physical and emotional injuries and harms as a result of Gardasil. Today’s lawsuit alleges the company willingly placed Gardasil’s profits ahead of patient safety. Ms. Balasco is requesting that exemplary (punitive) damages be assessed against Merck to deter the company and other would-be defendants from engaging in similar alleged reprehensible conduct.

“It’s too late for my daughter. The damage is already done, but it’s not too late to warn other parents about the truth about Gardasil,” said Michaela Balasco, Julia’s mother. “Thousands of families are going through what we are going through. I have made friends around the world whose children are suffering like my Julia. She is not alone. I want Gardasil off the market so my grandkids and other children don’t have to needlessly suffer these injuries.”

Additional General Allegations Against Merck

  • Merck provided financial incentives to legislators to attempt to make the Gardasil vaccine mandatory in all school children;
  • Merck pushed Gardasil using trusted doctors and third party front groups;
  • Merck deceived regulators and the public by classifying many serious adverse events, which afflicted nearly half of all study participants, as coincidences;
  • Merck manipulated the study protocols to block participants and researchers from reporting injuries and designed the studies to mask any long-term adverse events
  • Merck deceived regulators and the public about its pivotal Gardasil Clinical Trial (Protocol 018);
  • Contrary to Merck’s representations, Gardasil may actually cause and increase the risk of cervical and other cancers;
  • Merck has concealed the fact that Gardasil (including its adjuvants and ingredients) induce and increase the risk of autoimmune diseases;
  • The Gardasil vaccines’ harms are not limited to the United States, rather the vaccines have injured patients all over the world:
  1. In light of Gardasil’s serious and debilitating adverse events, the Japanese government rescinded its recommendation that girls receive Gardasil;
  2. Denmark has opened specialized clinics specifically focused on treating Gardasil-induced injuries, including Gardasil-induced autoimmune diseases;
  3. Gardasil-induced adverse events caused the government in Colombia to conclude that Gardasil would no longer be mandatory;
  4. India halted Gardasil trials and accused Merck of corruption after the death of several young girls who were participants in the trial.

About Baum Hedlund Aristei & Goldman

Baum Hedlund Aristei & Goldman is one of the nation’s leading law firms representing victims harmed by the Gardasil HPV vaccine. In practice since 1973, our firm has won more than $4 billion in verdicts and settlements on behalf of more than 20,000 clients in personal injury and wrongful death claims across the nation, including cases against major pharmaceutical companies.

The firm has repeatedly been honored and awarded for its $2.24 billion groundbreaking and landmark jury verdicts against Monsanto (now Bayer) for its Roundup weed killer causing cancer.

Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. is co-counsel on this case. Mr. Kennedy has been fighting for safer vaccines for years. He is not “anti-vax” as some would label him, but is a staunch advocate for safe and effective vaccines. His reputation as a resolute defender of the environment led him to be named by Time magazine as one of the “Heroes for the Planet.” As a protector of waterways around the world, Mr. Kennedy has sought to alleviate mercury pollution and prevent mercury contaminated fisheries. As he says, this does not make him anti-fish, he is anti-mercury in fish. Likewise, he is not against safe and effective vaccines, he is opposed to toxin contaminated vaccines.

Mr. Kennedy was also co-counsel with Baum Hedlund on the Monsanto Roundup cancer cases. He is Founder and President of Waterkeeper Alliance and Founder of Children’s Health Defense, an organization devoted to promoting childhood health by exposing and reducing toxic exposures that harm children’s health.

Baum Hedlund is at the forefront of the Gardasil vaccine lawsuits and is in the beginning stages of litigation. So far, we represent two dozen clients but expect to see these numbers grow rapidly as we are receiving hundreds of calls now that the word is out that plaintiffs can sue Merck in civil court if cases do not resolve in vaccine court.

It is important to note that, while there is currently a great deal of controversy surrounding vaccines, our firm wishes to stress that we and our clients are not against vaccines. They have the potential to eradicate disease and save millions of lives.

We are, however, against intentional efforts to mislead consumers about the safety and effectiveness of a drug or vaccine. Our firm has always fought—and will continue to fight—for the rights of consumers to be fully and honestly informed about risks associated with any drug, vaccine, chemical or medical device. We will work tirelessly to ensure those rights are defended and victims of injustice are compensated for their injuries.


# # #

Censorship Claims Another Victim: Honest-Journalism Giant, Del Bigtree’s “The Highwire”


On July 29, YouTube terminated Del Bigtree’s “The Highwire” account after he posted a video of Del and me discussing my debate with Alan Dershowitz on vaccine mandates. YouTube also purged hundreds of other truthful videos on vaccines.

YouTube’s owner, Google, is effectively a vaccine company. Two subsidiaries of Google’s parent company, Alphabet, market and manufacture vaccines: Calico and Verily. Arthur Levinson, Genentech’s former CEO, runs Calico, an anti-aging drug company while Verily teams with Pharma to conduct drug and vaccine clinical trials.

In 2016, Alphabet inked a $715 million deal with GlaxoSmithKline to create Galvani, another venture to develop bioelectronic medicines and vaccines and to mine medical information from Google customers. Google’s Customer Services President, Mary Ellen Coe, sits on Merck’s board.

In 2016, Google partnered with Sanofi launching Onduo, a virtual diabetes clinic and in 2018 in another business that uses analytics to develop new drugs and vaccines.

In 2018, Google invested $27,000,000 in Vaccitech to make vaccines for flu, MERS, and prostate cancer. Vaccitech calls itself “the future of mass vaccine production.” In 2020, Vaccitech started work on a COVID vaccine. Google claims to provide politically and commercially neutral searches, but it systemically manipulates search results to suppress accurate vaccine safety and efficacy information and steers users toward deceptive and fraudulent Pharma propaganda.

Google’s algorithms censor negative information about COVID vaccines and positive information about therapies like hydroxychloroquine that compete with the vaccines in development. Google censors reports that diminish public panic about COVID-19. Google’s definition of “misinformation” is “any information, even if accurate and true, which criticizes vaccination products.” Facebook and Google hired “FactChecker” (Politifact) to censor vaccine misinformation.

Politifact was launched by a grant from the Gates Foundation, the world’s largest vaccine promoter. Google’s orchestrated censorship across social media is crippling legitimate debates over international vaccination policies. This is a crisis for liberal democracies.

Support Del:


Navigating Vaccine Exemption in the Military


With the new COVID-19 vaccine on the horizon, being prepared to advocate for yourself is more important than ever. A medical vaccine exemption is a stronger strategy than a religious or personal belief exemption in the military, since force protection is valued above all else. The military places a monetary value on every resource, including people and military working dogs. So while advocating for your own individual health, you will also have to convince the Chain of Command that you are a valuable resource to the unit’s mission to avoid threats of being subject to Chapter Separation Procedures out of the military for a health condition or being punished under UCMJ for disobeying an order.

The Military Vaccine Program

Military personnel are required to get all ACIP recommended vaccines (TDAP, MMR, VAR) to include Influenza (seasonal, northern hemisphere, southern hemisphere) and HPV vaccines that are not mandatory for civilians in the workplace.  Military personnel pending deployment also receive additional vaccines that are not common on the civilian schedule: Cholera, Typhoid, Yellow fever. A subgroup of military personnel in Republic of Korea and Japan also receive the Japanese Encephalitis vaccine. In 2018, FORSCOM ended a mandatory routine adult schedule for Anthrax and Smallpox vaccines. Since 2011, new enlisted recruits receive an oral Adenovirus vaccine.

What You Can Do

Print and review these resources when approaching your doctor. First, the Military Immunization Tool Kit includes a Adult Immunization Schedule with contraindications, to include pregnancy and immune compromised individuals. You can use this resource to broach the subject of exemption in any way that may apply to you. Second, you can download and print the DOD (Department of Defense) Form 3111 — an immunization screening form. This form is never used to screen military personnel for general contraindications. It is ignored in military practice much like the screening checklist contraindication form for children in pediatric practice is ignored. There are also screening checklists for each individual vaccine (linked in the toolkit above). These screening tools are a good foot-in-the-door strategy to begin a conversation with a doctor to determine your health dictates a medical exemption.

You must make the case that the risk of harm outweighs the intended benefit.
  • Screen for Contraindications. Discuss medical contraindication to a specific vaccine with your preferred doctor. If you do not find support, search for a sympathetic doctor or physician’s assistant at a different Troop Medical Clinic or in the civilian sector under TRICARE. Be prepared to pay out of pocket for a civilian doctor.
  • Find Exceptions. Be aware that rank and specialty plays a role in exceptions to every policy in the military. Find an example of a high-ranking officer or a high-value Military Occupational Specialty (i.e. Communications, Physicians, or Pilots) that is exempt from the requirement and seek free legal advice from JAG (Judge Advocate General Corps).
  • Cite History & Research. The Anthrax vaccine injured soldiers with long term adverse effects, and Israel compensated $6 million to soldiers who were coerced into the experimental vaccine. Likewise, make your case based on research that animal phase trials of mRNA vaccines have demonstrated irreversible risks to include uncontrolled swelling and clotting, and immune enhancement that causes infection when exposed to wild strain viruses. The current human COVID trials are reporting adverse effects in healthy people and low efficacy as measured in low neutralizing antibodies.
  • Develop a Support Network. Create a collaborative network of people working together at your duty station on this issue. If you find a supportive doctor or physician’s assistant, do not publicly announce his or her support. Use discretion in language that indicates that the doctor “values individualized medical treatment” and “proper contraindication screening.” If you develop a hostile strategy of friendly fire, you will not succeed.
  • Request Compassionate Reassignment.  If you are near retirement, and cannot comply with a COVID vaccine mandate, then ask for a compassionate reassignment to finish your service much like soldiers injured in combat and families of exceptional children.
  • Be Indispensable. Perform your duties in such an exemplary way that your commander will rally around you and support you. In my personal military experience, my Chain of Command had to approve my taking a Commander position while I was pregnant and non-deployable. I committed to being fit-to-fight in six weeks after delivery. The day of my return to duty, I led my company on a two-mile run. Demonstrate your value, leadership, and proficiency to the unit.

In conclusion, follow groups such as Children’s Health Defense that provide information on adverse events and efficacy of vaccines for both adults and children so you can bring any potentially relevant side-effects up to your doctor.

Despite the one-size-fits-all approach with vaccines, you can advocate for your personal health effectively if you keep force protection and military readiness in mind. Remember, the military has invested time, training, and education in each service member and does not want to replace or rehabilitate soldiers when injuries or adverse reactions can be avoided. You must make the case that the risk of harm outweighs the intended benefit. Often, the patient knows more about their contra-indications of a vaccine than the medic, nurse, or PA administering the vaccine. For example, you might have an allergy to an ingredient and it would be malpractice to administer the vaccine. Persevere with persuasion.

Read the Fine Print, Part Two—Nearly 400 Adverse Reactions Listed in Vaccine Package Inserts


Download the PDF

Package inserts are available online for all vaccines licensed in the U.S. In addition to containing bits of practical information for the clinicians who administer the vaccines, the inserts provide members of the public with one of their only opportunities to learn about a vaccine’s contraindications, warnings, precautions and—perhaps most importantly—potential adverse reactions.

The inserts communicate the information about adverse reactions in two distinct sections: “Clinical trials experience” (Section 6.1) and “Data from postmarketing experience” from the U.S. or other countries (Section 6.2). In April, 2020, Children’s Health Defense summarized the postmarketing data for over three dozen vaccines given routinely to American infants, children and adolescents. That tally showed that vaccines touted for the prevention of 13 illnesses (Table 1) have been linked to at least 217 adverse medical outcomes reported post-licensure, including serious infections, autoimmune conditions, life-threatening allergies and death.

As noted in April, the postmarketing list is far from exhaustive, because manufacturers have the latitude to decide which outcomes to list in the inserts—using loose criteria determined by severity, frequency of reporting and “strength of evidence for a causal relationship.” In addition, vaccine adverse events are notoriously underreported, not least because medical schools do not teach doctors to recognize vaccine injuries. But what would the picture look like if the adverse reactions observed during clinical trials were also added to the list?

This combination of clinical trial and postmarketing data presents a dramatic picture, with almost double the total number of undesirable post-vaccination outcomes …

Double trouble

Children’s Health Defense can now answer that question. The revised chart (Table 2) includes the adverse reactions reported in the clinical trial sections of 41 vaccine brands covering diphtheria, Haemophilus influenzae type b, hepatitis A, hepatitis B, human papillomavirus, influenza, meningococcal infection, pertussis, pneumococcal infection, polio, rotavirus, tetanus and varicella. This combination of clinical trial and postmarketing data presents a dramatic picture, with almost double the total number of undesirable post-vaccination outcomes—397 different types of reactions reported pre- and post-licensure.

Although roughly 400 adverse events is a sobering number, again, it is probably an underestimate. This is because most clinical trials follow participants for an absurdly short period of time—three days here, seven days there—and do not capture problems that arise beyond that brief window, even though clinicians recognize (and the scientific literature confirms) that vaccine reactions are not always immediate or acute. Moreover, even for those few days of monitoring, the inserts are often short on details, citing only a smattering of adverse events collected from a predetermined list of “solicited” reactions and only sometimes accepting “unsolicited” feedback. In addition, the fact that vaccine clinical trials typically compare vaccine against vaccine rather than vaccine against inert placebo makes it easy to divert attention from specific adverse reactions by simply citing “similar rates” of adverse reactions in both groups.

… and that vaccines can cause the very illnesses—or adverse consequences of those illnesses—that they are supposed to prevent.

Clinical trial themes

The April discussion of postmarketing adverse events noted several themes, including the facts that all vaccines are capable of producing adverse reactions (though Gardasil and Gardasil 9 are macabre standouts) and that vaccines can cause the very illnesses—or adverse consequences of those illnesses—that they are supposed to prevent. The clinical trial data reinforce these points and also highlight some new themes:

  • The adverse reactions reported following clinical trials do not necessarily match up to the adverse reactions reported post-licensure. This is particularly the case for vaccine-associated deaths; whereas the April postmarketing-only list included just two categories of death associated with six vaccines, the addition of clinical trial data brings the total up to 40 types of death associated with 13 vaccines.
  • Sizeable proportions of participants in vaccine clinical trials experience unpleasant reactions, including fever, chills, pain, nausea, diarrhea, vomiting, headache, rash, loss of appetite and irritability.  For example, in clinical trials for the five-pronged Pentacel vaccine (diphtheria, tetanus, pertussis, Haemophilus influenzae type b and polio)—given as a four-dose series beginning at six weeks of age—almost half of the young children (48%) experienced injection-site “tenderness” after the first dose (defined as “whimpering” or crying when the arm or leg was touched or moved); about the same percentage (46%) experienced “lethargy,” 59% cried “inconsolably” and 77% were “fussy” or “irritable.” In adolescents, the Adacel vaccine given as a booster for tetanus-diphtheria-acellular pertussis (Tdap) produced injection-site pain in almost eight in ten teens (78%), and one in five (20%) study participants experienced pain rated as “moderate to severe.” More than two-fifths (44%) suffered from headaches.
  • Clinical trials also document more serious reactions with the potential to cause longer-term problems. Adverse reactions of particular concern—especially in the young—include asthma, seizures, heart problems, sleep problems and joint and muscle pain. Nine vaccines list anorexia as a clinical trial reaction. Surprisingly, while numerous package inserts mention serious and potentially lifelong conditions like transverse myelitis (11 vaccines) and Guillain-Barré syndrome (20 vaccines) in their postmarketing section, only a few list them as a clinical trial outcome despite hundreds of published studies pointing to post-vaccination onset.
  • Intentional and unintentional injuries are more prominent in the clinical trial data than in the postmarketing reports, particularly in association with Gardasil and certain meningococcal vaccines (abbreviated as MenACWY). These events include alcohol intoxication and drug overdose; suicidal thoughts or attempts; head and limb injuries; and falls resulting in injuries. Noting that syncope (fainting) is a common post-vaccination reaction in adolescents and young adults, the CDC states, “In 2005, the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS) began detecting a trend of increasing syncope reports that coincided with the licensure of 3 vaccines for adolescents: human papillomavirus (HPV), MenACWY, and Tdap. Of particular concern among adolescents has been the risk for serious secondary injuries, including skull fracture and cerebral hemorrhage.” (One of the robustly healthy volunteers in the current clinical trials for the Moderna Covid-19 vaccine illustrated this very point, narrowly escaping injury when his girlfriend caught him in the midst of a fainting episode.)
  • Illustrating how vaccines can cause what they are supposed to prevent, the clinical trials for the ProQuad measles-mumps-rubella-varicella vaccine—intended to prevent infections associated with rashes—highlighted an astounding array of rashes. The ProQuad insert lists seven different types of rash-related adverse reactions: “rash,” “injection-site rash,” “measles-like rash,” “rubella-like rash,” “varicella-like rash,” “vesicular rash” and “viral exanthema” (an eruptive rash associated with viral infections). Across both the clinical trial and postmarketing data, ProQuad injection also appears to precede numerous infections, including “atypical measles” and measles, varicella (chickenpox), bronchitis, cellulitis and other skin infections, herpes simplex (cold sores), herpes zoster (shingles), influenza or “influenza-like illness,” meningitis, pneumonia, respiratory tract infections, sinusitis, sore throats and other viral infections.
Researchers interested in solutions rather than convenient coronavirus cover stories would do well to review the information contained in vaccine package inserts.

Mysteries explained?

One of the autoimmune conditions encountered during the clinical trials for meningococcal and rotavirus vaccines (and also reported post-licensure) is a condition called Kawasaki disease (KD). Diagnosed solely on the basis of symptoms (high fever plus symptoms such as rash, redness and lymph node swelling), KD came out of nowhere in the 1960s and 1970s when childhood vaccine programs were starting to gear up. The published literature confirms Bexero meningococcal B and rotavirus vaccination as likely triggers for KD and, in addition, points to numerous other vaccines as possible culprits, including those for hepatitis A, hepatitis B, influenza, Prevnar-13 and multiple vaccines administered in a single health care visit. Canadian researchers have identified KD as a “condition of interest” for pediatric vaccine safety surveillance.

Ordinarily fairly obscure, KD made headlines this year when researchers started speculating that it might be one of the apparently myriad faces of SARS-CoV-2. In the UK—the first country in the world to start administering (in 2015) three doses of Bexero to infants—researchers were also the first to suggest that KD might be Covid-19-related. This week, a different group of researchers raised the same question about another low-profile autoimmune condition, myasthenia gravis, asking whether it, too, could be connected to SARS-CoV-2. Researchers interested in solutions rather than convenient coronavirus cover stories would do well to review the information contained in vaccine package inserts. This information clearly points the way to a different set of questions and answers, pertaining not only to autoimmunity but also to the many other health problems besieging American children.


Table 1. Vaccine package inserts reviewed

of Vaccine

Brand Name


Vaccines containing
diphtheria, tetanus and pertussis components
Adacel (Tdap) Sanofi Pasteur
Boostrix (Tdap) GlaxoSmithKline
Daptacel (DTaP) Sanofi
and Tetanus Toxoids Adsorbed (DT)
Infanrix (DTaP) GSK
Kinrix (DTaP-IPV) GSK
Pediarix (DTaP-HepB-IPV) GSK
Pentacel (DTaP-IPV/Hib) Sanofi
Quadracel (DTaP-IPV) Sanofi
Tdvax (Td) MassBiologics
Tenivac (Td) Sanofi
influenzae type b (Hib)
ActHIB Sanofi
Hiberix GSK
PedvaxHIB Merck
Hepatitis A and/or B Engerix-B (HepB) GSK
Havrix (HepA) GSK
Recombivax HB (HepB) Merck
Twinrix (HepA/HepB) GSK
Vaqta (HepA) Merck
Human papillomavirus (HPV) Gardasil Merck
Gardasil 9 Merck
Influenza Afluria Quadrivalent Sequirus
Fluarix GSK
Quadrivalent (age 18 and older)
Protein Sciences
Flucelvax Sequirus
Flulaval Quadrivalent GSK
FluMist AstraZeneca
Fluzone Quadrivalent Sanofi
Meningococcal A, C, W and/or Y Menactra Sanofi
Menomune Sanofi
Menveo GSK
Meningococcal B Bexero GSK
Trumenba Pfizer
(MMR) and MMR+varicella (MMRV)
MMR-II Merck
Proquad Merck
Pneumococcal Prevnar-13 Pfizer
Pneumovax-23 Merck
Inactivated polio (IPV) IPOL Sanofi
Rotavirus vaccines Rotarix GSK
RotaTeq Merck
Varicella Varivax Merck


Table 2. Clinical trial and post-marketing adverse events reported in vaccine package inserts, by body system

Body System

Medical Disorder

Reported in Clinical

Reported Post-marketing

Allergic (6) Allergic reactions/
Varivax ActHIB, Adacel, Afluria, Bexero, Boostrix, Daptacel, Engerix-B, Fluarix, Flublok, FluMist, Fluzone, Gardasil/Gardasil 9, Hiberix, Infanrix, IPOL, Kinrix, Menveo, Pediarix, Pentacel, Quadracel, Recombivax, Tenivac, Trumenba, Twinrix
Allergy to vaccine Gardasil/Gardasil 9
Anaphylaxis and
anaphylactoid reactions, including shock
Bexero, Fluarix, MMR-II ActHIB, Adacel, Afluria, Bexero, Boostrix, Daptacel, Engerix-B, Fluarix, Flublok, Flucelvax, Flulaval, FluMist, Fluzone, Gardasil/Gardasil 9, Havrix, Hiberix, Infanrix, IPOL, Kinrix, Menactra, Menveo, MMR-II, Pediarix, Pentacel, Pneumovax-23, Prevnar-13, ProQuad, Quadracel, Recombivax, RotaTeq, Tenivac, Trumenba, Twinrix, Varivax
angioneurotic edema
Menveo, MMR-II, Recombivax ActHIB, Adacel, Boostrix, Daptacel, Engerix-B, Fluarix, Flucelvax, Flulaval, FluMist, Fluzone, Havrix, Hiberix, Infanrix, Kinrix, Menactra, Menomune, MMR-II, Pediarix, PedvaxHIB, Pneumovax-23, Prevnar-13, ProQuad, RotaTeq, Tenivac, Twinrix, Varivax
Serum sickness Afluria, Engerix-B, Fluarix, Havrix, Pneumovax-23, Recombivax, Twinrix
Urticaria [hives] Engerix-B, Havrix,
MMR-II, PedVaxHIB, Prevnar-13, Recombivax, Twinrix, Vaqta, Varivax
ActHIB, Adacel, Afluria, Boostrix, DT, Engerix-B, Fluarix, Flucelvax, Flulaval, FluMist, Fluzone, Gardasil/Gardasil 9, Hiberix, Infanrix, IPOL, Kinrix, Menactra, MMR-II, Pediarix, Pentacel, Pneumovax-23, Prevnar-13, Quadracel, Recombivax, RotaTeq, Tenivac, Twinrix
Autoimmune (15) Autoimmune diseases Gardasil/Gardasil 9
Autoimmune thyroiditis Gardasil/Gardasil 9
Celiac disease Gardasil/Gardasil 9
Cutaneous lupus
Gardasil/Gardasil 9
Diabetes mellitus
Gardasil/Gardasil 9, Pediarix, Pneumovax-23
Gardasil/Gardasil 9
Guillain-Barré syndrome
IPOL, MMR-II, PedVaxHIB Adacel, Afluria, Engerix-B, Fluarix, Flulaval, FluMist, Fluzone, Gardasil/Gardasil 9, Havrix, Menactra, Menomune, MMR-II, PedvaxHIB, Pneumovax-23, ProQuad, Recombivax, Tenivac, Vaqta, Varivax
Kawasaki disease Menveo, Rotarix,
Rotarix, RotaTeq
Lupus-like syndrome Recombivax
Multiple sclerosis (or
Gardasil/Gardasil 9 Engerix-B, Havrix,
Recombivax, Twinrix
Pancreatitis MMR-II, Pneumovax-23 Gardasil/Gardasil 9, MMR-II
Rheumatoid arthritis/juvenile
rheumatoid arthritis
Gardasil/Gardasil 9
Scleroderma Gardasil/Gardasil 9
Systemic lupus
Gardasil/Gardasil 9 Recombivax
thrombocytopenic purpura (ITP) [low platelets]
Daptacel, Gardasil/Gardasil 9, MMR-II, PedVaxHIB Afluria, Engerix-B, Fluzone, Gardasil/Gardasil 9, Havrix, Infanrix, Kinrix, MMR-II, Pneumovax-23, ProQuad, Recombivax, Rotarix, Twinrix, Vaqta, Varivax
Blood/lymphatic system
Anemia (aplasic or
Gardasil/Gardasil 9,
Pneumovax-23, ProQuad, Varivax
Epistaxis [nosebleed] FluMist, ProQuad
Extravasation [blood
vessel leakage
Hematochezia [bloody
RotaTeq ProQuad, Rotarix,
Hemorrhage Gardasil/Gardasil 9
Increased erythrocyte
sedimentation rate
Leukocytosis [increased
white blood cells
MMR-II MMR-II, Pneumovax-23
lymph nodes
Adacel Boostrix, Pneumovax-23,
including regional
Engerix-B, Havrix, MMR-II, Recombivax, Varivax Boostrix, Daptacel, DT, Fluarix, Flulaval, Fluzone, Gardasil/Gardasil 9, Infanrix, IPOL, Kinrix, Menactra, Menveo, MMR-II, PedvaxHIB, Pneumovax-23, Prevnar-13, ProQuad, Tenivac
Neutropenia, chronic Pediarix
thrombocytopenic purpura (ITP) [low platelets]*
Gardasil/Gardasil 9, MMR-II, PedVaxHIB
Afluria, Engerix-B, Fluzone, Gardasil/Gardasil 9, Havrix, Infanrix, Kinrix, MMR-II, Pneumovax-23, ProQuad, Recombivax, Rotarix, Twinrix, Vaqta, Varivax
Cardiac (10) Angina pectoris Pneumovax-23, Tenivac
Cyanosis* [bluish,
low oxygen
Daptacel, Hiberix, Infanrix, Pediarix, Pentacel, Prevnar-13, Quadracel
Heart failure Pneumovax-23
Hypotension Engerix-B, Recombivax Adacel, Menactra
Myocardial infarction Pneumovax-23
Myocarditis [heart
muscle inflammation
Gardasil/Gardasil 9 Adacel, Boostrix
Palpitations Engerix-B, Twinrix
Pericarditis [pericardial
Pleuropericarditis Flublok (> age 50)
Tachycardia [abnormally
high heart rate
Engerix-B, Fluarix,
Recombivax, Twinrix
Congenital (1) Congenital anomaly Havrix
Death, by cause (40) Unspecified Flublok, IPOL,
Prevnar-13, Tenivac
Gardasil/Gardasil 9
Acute lymphocytic
Gardasil/Gardasil 9
Acute renal failure Gardasil/Gardasil 9
Arrhythmia Gardasil/Gardasil 9
Asphyxia Pentacel
Aspiration Daptacel
Autoimmune disease Gardasil/Gardasil 9
Breast cancer Gardasil/Gardasil 9
Cardiopulmonary arrest Tenivac
Cardiovascular Prevnar-13,
Cerebral hemorrhage Gardasil/Gardasil 9
Gardasil/Gardasil 9
immunodeficiency and sepsis
Convulsive disorder Pediarix
Drug overdose Gardasil/Gardasil 9
Fetal MMR-II
Gunshot wound Gardasil/Gardasil 9
Head trauma Pentacel
Homicide Gardasil/Gardasil 9
Hyperthyroidism Gardasil/Gardasil 9
Hypovolemic septic
Gardasil/Gardasil 9
Infectious disease Gardasil/Gardasil 9
Intussusception RotaTeq Rotarix, RotaTeq
Motor vehicle accident Gardasil/Gardasil 9
Myocardial infarction Tenivac
Nasopharyngeal cancer Gardasil/Gardasil 9
Neoplasm Gardasil/Gardasil 9,
Neuroblastoma Pediarix, Pentacel
Pancreatic cancer Gardasil/Gardasil 9
Peritonitis Prevnar-13
Pneumonia Rotarix
Pulmonary embolism Gardasil/Gardasil 9
Pulmonary infection Prevnar-13
Pulmonary tuberculosis Gardasil/Gardasil 9
Sepsis, septic shock Gardasil/Gardasil 9,
Menveo, Prevnar-13
Stomach adenocarcinoma Gardasil/Gardasil 9
Sudden infant death
syndrome (SIDS)
Menveo, Pediarix,
Pentacel, Prevnar-13, RotaTeq
Suicide Gardasil/Gardasil 9
Traumatic brain
injury/cardiac arrest
Gardasil/Gardasil 9
Unexplained sudden
Gardasil/Gardasil 9
Ear/labyrinth (8) Earache Recombivax
Ear pain Engerix-B, Infanrix,
Menveo, ProQuad, Twinrix
Hearing impaired Menveo
Nerve deafness MMR-II MMR-II, ProQuad
Otitis media/ear
Afluria, Fluarix,
PedVaxHIB, RotaTeq, Vaqta, Varivax
Tinnitis Engerix-B, Recombivax,
Vertigo Havrix, Recombivax,
Engerix-B, Fluarix,
Endocrine (6) Cushing’s syndrome Menveo
Goiter Gardasil/Gardasil 9
Hyperthyroidism Gardasil/Gardasil 9
Hypothyroidism Gardasil/Gardasil 9
Thyroiditis Gardasil/Gardasil 9
Toxic nodular goiter Gardasil/Gardasil 9
Eye (17) Conjunctivitis Vaqta
Eye complaints Varivax
Eye irritation/itching Vaqta
Eye pain Fluarix, Flulaval
Eye redness Fluarix
Eye swelling Bexero, Fluarix
Eyelid ptosis [drooping] Menveo
Eyelid swelling Fluarix, ProQuad
Keratitis [corneal
Ocular hyperemia [eye
Ocular palsies [nerve
neuritis/neuropathy, papillitis [optic nerve inflammation]
Gardasil/Gardasil 9,
Engerix-B, Fluzone,
MMR-II, ProQuad, Recombivax, Twinrix
Photophobia [light
Havrix Flulaval
Retinitis, necrotizing
Retrobulbar neuritis [nerve
MMR-II, ProQuad
Uveitis [eye
Gardasil/Gardasil 9 Recombivax
Visual disturbances Engerix-B, Recombivax,
Gastrointestinal (21) Abdominal pain,
Boostrix, Engerix-B, Fluarix, Flulaval, FluMist, Gardasil/Gardasil 9, Havrix, Menomune, Recombivax, Twinrix, Vaqta, Varivax Fluarix, ProQuad
Candidiasis ProQuad
Colonic polyp Tenivac
Constipation Engerix-B, Infanrix,
Vaqta, Varivax
Crohn’s disease Gardasil/Gardasil 9
Diarrhea Adacel, Afluria, Boostrix, Engerix-B, Fluarix, Flulaval, Gardasil/Gardasil 9, Havrix, Hiberix, Menactra, Menomune, Menveo, MMR-II, PedVaxHIB, Prevnar-13, ProQuad, Recombivax, Rotarix, RotaTeq, Trumenba, Twinrix, Vaqta, Varivax Daptacel, FluMist, Menomune,
MMR-II, Pediarix, Pentacel
Dysgeusia [altered
sense of taste
Dyspepsia [indigestion] Pneumovax-23,
Engerix-B, Twinrix
Dysphagia [swallowing
Gastroenteritis Flulaval, Gardasil/Gardasil 9, Kinrix, Menveo, Pediarix, Pentacel, Prevnar-13, Rotarix, RotaTeq, Vaqta Rotarix, RotaTeq
Inflammatory bowel
Gardasil/Gardasil 9
Inguinal hernia Menactra
including recurrent
Rotarix, RotaTeq Rotarix, RotaTeq
Mouth ulcers ProQuad
Nausea Adacel, Afluria, Bexero, Boostrix, Engerix-B, Fluarix, Flublok, Flulaval, Gardasil/Gardasil 9, Havrix, Menveo, MMR-II, Recombivax, Twinrix, Vaqta, Varivax Daptacel, DT, Fluarix, FluMist, Gardasil/Gardasil 9, Menomune, MMR-II, Pneumovax-23, Tdvax
Swelling of mouth,
throat or tongue
Teething Afluria, Vaqta, Varivax
Ulcerative colitis Gardasil/Gardasil 9,
Vitello-intestinal duct
Vomiting ActHIB, Adacel, Afluria, Boostrix, Daptacel, Engerix-B, Fluarix, Flulaval, Fluzone, Gardasil/Gardasil 9, Havrix, Hiberix, IPOL, Menactra, Menomune, Menveo, MMR-II, PedVaxHIB, Prevnar-13, ProQuad, Recombivax, Rotarix, RotaTeq,
Trumenba, Twinrix, Vaqta, Varivax
Flulaval, FluMist, Fluzone, Gardasil/Gardasil 9, Menomune, MMR-II, Pediarix, Pentacel, Pneumovax-23,
General and injection
site (35)
Abnormal gait Flulaval
Apathy ProQuad
Asthenia [fatigue,
Hiberix, Pneumovax-23,
Fluarix, Flulaval, Fluzone, Gardasil/Gardasil 9, Infanrix, Menomune, Pediarix, Tenivac
Body aches Adacel, Recombivax Fluarix
Chest pain Pneumovax-23, Tenivac Fluarix, Flulaval, Fluzone
Chills/shivering Adacel, Afluria, Engerix-B, Fluarix, Flublok, Flucelvax, Flulaval, FluMist, Menactra, , Menveo, Prevnar-13, Recombivax, Trumenba, Vaqta, Varivax Fluarix, Gardasil/Gardasil 9, Havrix, Menomune, Twinrix
Decreased limb mobility Pneumovax-23
Dehydration Kinrix, Menveo,
Pentacel, Rotarix, Vaqta
Drowsiness/sleepiness ActHIB, Daptacel, Fluarix, Flulaval, Fluzone, Havrix, Hiberix, Infanrix, IPOL, Kinrix, Menactra, Menomune, Menveo, Pediarix, PedvaxHIB
Ecchymosis [bruising] Engerix-B, Fluarix, Flucelvax, Pneumovax-23, ProQuad, Recombivax, Twinrix, Vaqta Engerix-B, Recombivax,
Edema Vaqta Adacel
Fatigue Afluria, Bexero, Boostrix, Engerix-B, Fluarix, Flublok, Flucelvax, Flulaval, Havrix, Menactra, Menomune, Menveo, MMR-II, Prevnar-13, Recombivax, Trumenba, Twinrix, Varivax Gardasil/Gardasil 9, Menomune, Menveo
Feeling hot Fluarix
Fever/pyrexia ActHIB, Adacel, Afluria, Bexero, Boostrix, Daptacel, DT, Engerix-B, Fluarix, Flublok, Flucelvax, Flulaval, FluMist, Fluzone, Gardasil/Gardasil 9, Havrix, Hiberix, Infanrix, IPOL, Kinrix, Menactra, Menomune, Menveo, MMR-II, Pediarix, PedVaxHIB, Pentacel, Prevnar-13, ProQuad, Quadracel, Recombivax, Rotarix, RotaTeq, Tenivac, Trumenba, Twinrix, Vaqta, Varivax Menomune, Menveo, MMR-II, Pneumovax-23, Tdvax
Hematoma Gardasil/Gardasil 9, Havrix, Varivax
Hypernatremia [excess
Increased arm
Adacel, Boostrix, Daptacel, Infanrix, Kinrix, Pentacel, Quadracel
Increased thigh
Injected limb—extensive
Boostrix, Daptacel, Infanrix, Quadracel ActHIB, Bexero, Hiberix, Menactra, Menveo
Injection-site abscess Adacel, Daptacel, Fluarix, Flulaval, PedvaxHIB, Pentacel, Quadracel
Injection-site bruising Afluria, Gardasil/Gardasil 9, ProQuad, Vaqta Adacel, Flulaval
Afluria, Daptacel, Fluarix, Flulaval, Menveo, Pediarix, Quadracel, Tenivac
Injection-site pain and
other reactions (induration, warmth)
ActHIB, Adacel, Afluria, Bexero, Boostrix, Daptacel, DT, Engerix-B, Fluarix, Flublok, Flucelvax, Flulaval, Fluzone, Gardasil/Gardasil 9, Havrix, Hiberix, Infanrix, IPOL, Kinrix, Menactra, Menomune, Menveo, Pediarix, PedvaxHIB, Pentacel, Pneumovax-23, Prevnar-13, ProQuad, Quadracel, Recombivax, Tenivac, Trumenba, Twinrix, Vaqta, Varivax Adacel, Afluria, Bexero, Boostrix, Daptacel, DT, Engerix-B, Fluarix, Flucelvax, Flulaval, Havrix, Hiberix, Infanrix, IPOL, Kinrix, Menactra, Menomune, Menveo, MMR-II, Pediarix, Pentacel, Pneumovax-23, Prevnar-13, ProQuad, Quadracel, Tdvax, Tenivac, Twinrix
Injection-site rash ProQuad, Vaqta, Varivax Daptacel, Flulaval,
IPOL, Prevnar-13
Interference with normal
activity of arm
Daptacel, DT,
Itching Afluria, Varivax
Lightheadedness Recombivax
Listlessness Quadracel
Malaise Adacel, Afluria, Engerix-B, Fluarix, Flucelvax, Fluzone, Gardasil/Gardasil 9, Havrix, Menactra, Menomune, Menveo, MMR-II, Quadracel, Recombivax, Tenivac, Varivax Gardasil/Gardasil 9, Menomune, Menveo, MMR-II, Pneumovax-23, Tdvax, Twinrix
Medical attention
Pain in extremity Fluarix
Peripheral edema ActHIB, MMR-II, Pneumovax-23, ProQuad, Tdvax, Tenivac, Varivax
Severe pain Bexero
Swelling Afluria, Adacel, Boostrix, Daptacel, DT, Engerix-B, Fluarix, Flublok, Flucelvax, Fluzone, Infanrix, IPOL, Kinrix, Menactra, Menomune, Pediarix, PedVaxHIB, Pentacel, Pneumovax-23, Prevnar-13, ProQuad, Quadracel, Recombivax, Tenivac, Trumenba, Twinrix, Vaqta, Varivax Menveo, MMR-II, ProQuad
Tiredness Adacel, FluMist, IPOL
Hepatobiliary/liver (3) Elevation of liver
Hepatitis Menveo Havrix, Twinrix
Jaundice Havrix, Twinrix
Infections and
infestations (51)
Appendicitis Gardasil/Gardasil 9,
Atypical measles MMR-II MMR-II, ProQuad
Bronchiolitis Daptacel, Pediarix,
Pentacel, Prevnar-13, RotaTeq
Bronchitis Flulaval Infanrix, ProQuad
Cellulitis Daptacel, Infanrix,
Tenivac, Vaqta
Daptacel, Gardasil/Gardasil 9, Infanrix, Pneumovax-23, ProQuad, Tdvax, Varivax
Chlamydia Gardasil/Gardasil 9
Cholecystitis Tenivac
Croup Afluria, Fluzone, Vaqta
Early-onset Hib disease PedVaxHIB PedvaxHIB
Glomerulonephritis Gardasil/Gardasil 9
Herpes simplex/cold
Varivax ProQuad
Herpes zoster [shingles] ProQuad, Menactra Engerix-B, ProQuad, Recombivax, Twinrix, Varivax
Infection ProQuad
influenza-like illness
Engerix-B, Fluarix, Gardasil/Gardasil 9, Recombivax, Twinrix Afluria, Flulaval,Havrix, ProQuad
Invasive Hib disease Pentacel
Laryngitis Menveo Flulaval
Laryngotracheo-bronchitis Vaqta
Localized infection Tenivac
Measles ProQuad
Measles-like rash MMR-II, ProQuad, Vaqta MMR-II
Meningitis (aseptic,
Daptacel Engerix-B, FluMist, MMR-II, Pentacel, ProQuad, Twinrix, Varivax
Nasal congestion Afluria, Fluarix,
Gardasil/Gardasil 9, Vaqta
Pelvic inflammatory
Gardasil/Gardasil 9,
Afluria, Bexero, Fluarix, Flulaval, Gardasil/Gardasil 9, Havrix, Pneumovax-23, ProQuad, Recombivax,
RotaTeq, Vaqta
Fluarix, Varivax
Pharyngolaryngeal pain Fluarix
Pneumonia, pneumonitis,
lobar pneumonia, bilateral pneumonia
Daptacel, Gardasil/Gardasil 9, Hiberix, Menomune, Menveo, MMR-II, Pentacel, Prevnar-13, RotaTeq, Varivax MMR-II, ProQuad,
Pulmonary congestion ProQuad
Pulmonary embolism Gardasil/Gardasil 9 Gardasil/Gardasil 9
[kidney infection]
Gardasil/Gardasil 9
Pertussis Daptacel
Respiratory congestion Fluarix, Vaqta
Respiratory tract
infection (upper or lower)
Afluria, Engerix-B, Fluarix, Flulaval, FluMist, Gardasil/Gardasil 9, Havrix, PedVaxHIB, Pneumovax-23, ProQuad, Recombivax, Twinrix, Vaqta, Varivax Infanrix, Pediarix, ProQuad
Rhinitis Fluarix, Flucelvax,
MMR-II, Recombivax, Vaqta
Fluarix, Flulaval,
Havrix, MMR-II, Pentacel, ProQuad
Roseola Vaqta
Rubella-like rash ProQuad, Vaqta
Secondary bacterial
infection (skin, tissue)
Sepsis Daptacel, Pediarix
Sinusitis FluMist ProQuad
Skin infection ProQuad
Sore throat FluMist, MMR-II MMR-II, ProQuad
Sneezing FluMist
Staph infection Menveo
Tonsillitis Fluarix
Tracheitis PedVaxHIB
Transmission of vaccine
virus strains
Varicella Flulaval, Menveo
Varicella (vaccine
ProQuad, Varivax
Varicella-like rash ProQuad, Vaqta, Varivax ProQuad
Viral infection ProQuad, Vaqta Pentacel
Injury (intentional
and  unintentional) (10)
Accidental drug ingestion Hiberix
Alcohol intoxication Pneumovax-23
Fall Menactra Menveo
Falling with injury Gardasil/Gardasil 9
Head injury Menveo
multiple-drug overdose
Limb injury Menveo
Road accident Menveo
Suicidal depression Menveo
Suicide attempt Menveo
Investigations (6) Abnormal liver function
Engerix-B, Twinrix
aminotransferase increased
Body temperature
Creatine phosphokinase
Diagnostic studies Pediarix
Increased serum
C-reactive protein
Metabolic (3) Change in eating habits Menveo
Loss of appetite,
decreased appetite
Afluria, DT, Fluarix, Flulaval, FluMist, Fluzone, Havrix, Hiberix, Infanrix, Kinrix, Menactra, Pediarix, Prevnar-13, Recombivax, Rotarix, Varivax Pentacel
encephalomyopathy, Leigh syndrome exacerbation [neurometabolic]
Musculoskeletal and
connective tissue (24)
Ankylosing spondylitis
[rare arthritis]
Gardasil/Gardasil 9
Arm pain Engerix-B, Vaqta
Arthralgia [joint
Adacel, Bexero, Engerix-B, Fluarix, Flublok, Flucelvax, Flulaval, Gardasil/Gardasil 9, Havrix, MMR-II, Menactra, Menomune, Menveo, Prevnar-13, Recombivax, Tenivac, Trumenba, Twinrix, Varivax Boostrix, Engerix-B, Gardasil/Gardasil 9, IPOL, Menomune, Menveo, MMR-II, Pneumovax-23, ProQuad, Recombivax, Tdvax, Twinrix
Arthritis Gardasil/Gardasil 9,
Engerix-B, Flulaval,
MMR-II, Pneumovax-23, ProQuad, Recombivax, Twinrix
Arthropathy Gardasil/Gardasil 9
Back pain Engerix-B, Fluarix, Gardasil/Gardasil 9, Pneumovax-23, Recombivax, Twinrix, Vaqta Boostrix
Bone pain Menveo
Cramps Engerix-B, Recombivax
Hip and wrist fracture Tenivac
Hypotonia [low
muscle tone
Pentacel Daptacel, Hiberix,
Infanrix, Pediarix, Prevnar-13, Quadracel
Invertebral disc
Muscle spasm Adacel
Adacel, Engerix-B, Recombivax, Tenivac, Twinrix Engerix-B, Flulaval, Recombivax, Twinrix
Musculoskeletal pain Fluarix ProQuad
Myalgia [muscle pain] Adacel, Afluria, Bexero, Daptacel, Engerix-B, Fluarix, Flublok, Flucelvax, Flulaval, FluMist, Fluzone, Gardasil/Gardasil 9, Havrix, Menactra, Menveo, MMR-II, Pneumovax-23, Quadracel, Recombivax, Trumenba, Twinrix, Vaqta, Varivax Boostrix, Gardasil/Gardasil 9, IPOL, Menactra, Menomune, MMR-II, ProQuad, Tdvax, Tenivac
Myositis [muscle
Neck pain Engerix-B, Fluarix,
Pneumovax-23, Recombivax
Pain in extremities Fluarix, Fluzone,
Pediarix, Recombivax, Tdvax, Tenivac
Psoriatic arthropathy Gardasil/Gardasil 9
Reactive arthritis Gardasil/Gardasil 9
Shoulder pain Engerix-B, Recombivax
Stiff neck Recombivax, Varivax
Stiffness Pneumovax-23, Vaqta,
Nervous system (45) Acute disseminated
encephalomyelitis (ADEM)
Menveo, MMR-II Gardasil/Gardasil 9,
Menactra, MMR-II, ProQuad
Ataxia [nervous
system dysfunction
Bulging fontanelle Pediarix
Cerebellar ataxia Vaqta
Convulsions/seizures ActHIB, Daptacel, Havrix, Hiberix, Infanrix, Menactra, Menomune, Menveo, Pediarix, PedVaxHIB, Pentacel, Prevnar-13, RotaTeq ActHIB, Adacel, Afluria, Boostrix, Daptacel, DT, Fluarix, Flulaval, Fluzone, Gardasil/Gardasil 9, Havrix, Hiberix, IPOL, Kinrix, Menactra, MMR-II, Quadracel, Recombivax, Tdvax, Twinrix, Varivax
Depressed level of
Boostrix, Pediarix,
Dizziness Engerix-B,
Gardasil/Gardasil 9, MMR-II, Recombivax, Twinrix
Fluarix, Flulaval, Fluzone, Gardasil/Gardasil 9, Havrix, Menactra, Menomune, Menveo, MMR-II, ProQuad, Tdvax, Tenivac, Varivax
vaccine-induced encephalitis [brain inflammation]
MMR-II Boostrix, Engerix-B, FluMist, MMR-II, Pediarix, Recombivax, Twinrix, Vaqta, Varivax
Encephalomyelitis [brain
and spinal cord
Afluria, Fluarix,
Encephalopathy [brain
MMR-II, Pentacel Afluria, Engerix-B, Flulaval, Havrix, Infanrix, MMR-II, ProQuad, Twinrix
Facial palsy, Bell’s
Adacel, Boostrix, Engerix-B, Fluarix, FluMist, Fluzone, Menactra, Menveo, ProQuad, Recombivax, Twinrix, Varivax
Facial (or cranial)
nerve paralysis
Adacel Flulaval
Facial paresis [impaired
facial movement
Fluarix, Menveo
Afluria, Daptacel, Fluzone, Infanrix, Hiberix, Menveo, MMR-II, Pediarix, Pentacel, Prevnar-13, ProQuad, RotaTeq, Vaqta, Varivax Afluria, Daptacel, Fluzone, IPOL, MMR-II, PedvaxHIB, Pneumovax-23, ProQuad, Quadracel, Recombivax
Headache Adacel, Afluria, Bexero, Boostrix, Engerix-B, Fluarix, Flublok, Flucelvax, Flulaval, FluMist, Fluzone, Gardasil/Gardasil 9, Havrix, Menactra, Menomune, Menveo, Pneumovax-23, Prevnar-13, ProQuad, Quadracel, Recombivax, Tenivac, Trumenba, Twinrix, Vaqta, Varivax DT, Gardasil/Gardasil 9, Infanrix, IPOL, Menomune, Menveo, MMR-II, ProQuad, Tdvax, Twinrix
Hypoesthesia [decreased
tactile sensitivity
Adacel, Engerix-B, Fluarix, Flulaval, Havrix, Recombivax, Twinrix
Hypokinesia [loss of
muscle movement
episode (HHE)
Daptacel, Infanrix, Prevnar-13 Daptacel, Hiberix,
Kinrix, Pediarix, Pentacel, Quadracel
Hypertonia Havrix
Infantile spasms Daptacel, Pediarix
Lethargy ActHIB, Daptacel,
FluMist, Pentacel
Limb paralysis Flulaval
Measles inclusion body
encephalitis (MIBE)
Migraine Adacel, Fluarix,
Engerix-B, Recombivax
Motor neuron disease Gardasil/Gardasil 9
Myelitis [spinal
cord disease
Adacel, Fluarix,
Fluzone, Havrix, Recombivax, Twinrix
Nerve compression Adacel
Neuralgia [nerve
Neuritis (including
brachial, polyneuritis)
MMR-II Adacel, Afluria, Engerix-B, Fluarix, Fluzone, MMR-II, Twinrix
MMR-II Afluria, Engerix-B, Fluarix, Havrix, MMR-II, ProQuad, Recombivax, Twinrix
Numbness Varivax
Paralysis Engerix-B,
Gardasil/Gardasil 9, Twinrix
Paresis [partial
Engerix-B, Twinrix
Paresthesia [abnormal
skin sensations
MMR-II, Recombivax,
Adacel, Afluria, Boostrix, Engerix-B, Fluarix, Flucelvax, Flulaval, Fluzone, Havrix, IPOL, Menactra, Menomune, MMR-II, Pneumovax-23, ProQuad, Tenivac, Varivax
Partial seizures,
Menveo Daptacel, Engerix-B,
Presyncope [feeling
Radiculopathy [“pinched
nerve” in spine
Pneumovax-23 Pneumovax-23, Recombivax
Somnolence Engerix-B, ProQuad,
Daptacel, DT, Flulaval,
Havrix, Hiberix, IPOL, Pediarix, Pentacel, Quadracel, Recombivax
Subacute sclerosing
panencephalitis (SSPE)
Syncope, vasovagal
syncope [fainting]
Flublok, MMR-II,
Adacel, Bexero, Boostrix, Daptacel, DT, Engerix-B, Fluarix, Flucelvax, Flulaval, Fluzone, Gardasil/Gardasil 9, Havrix, Hiberix, Infanrix, Kinrix, Menactra, Menomune,
Menveo, MMR-II, Pediarix, ProQuad, Recombivax, Tenivac, Trumenba
Tingling Engerix-B
Tonic convulsions Menveo Menveo
Transverse myelitis MMR-II Afluria, Engerix-B, Fluzone, Gardasil/Gardasil 9, Menactra, MMR-II, ProQuad, Recombivax, Twinrix, Varivax
Tremors Pneumovax-23 Flulaval, ProQuad
Unresponsiveness Daptacel
Psychiatric (15) Agitation Engerix-B, Twinrix IPOL, ProQuad,
Anorexia ActHIB, Daptacel,
Havrix, Engerix-B, IPOL, Menactra, Menomune, Twinrix, Vaqta
Crying (abnormal,
unusual, persistent or inconsolable)
ActHIB, Daptacel, DT, Flulaval, Fluzone, Hiberix, Infanrix, IPOL, Menactra, Menveo, PedVaxHIB, Pentacel, Prevnar-13, Vaqta Pediarix
Decreased sleep Prevnar-13
Depression Pneumovax-23
Disturbed sleep Recombivax, Varivax
Fretfulness Daptacel
Fussiness ActHIB, Daptacel,
Hiberix, Infanrix, IPOL, Pediarix, Pentacel
Hypersomnia ProQuad
Increased sleep Prevnar-13
Insomnia Engerix-B, Gardasil/Gardasil 9, Havrix, Recombivax, Twinrix, Vaqta Flulaval, Pediarix
Irritability ActHIB, Afluria, , Engerix-B, Fluarix, Flulaval, FluMist, Fluzone, Havrix, Hiberix, Infanrix, IPOL, Menactra, Menomune, Menveo, Pediarix, PedVaxHIB, Pentacel, Prevnar-13, ProQuad, Recombivax, Rotarix, RotaTeq, Twinrix, Vaqta, Varivax MMR-II, Recombivax
Nervousness Varivax Pediarix, ProQuad
Restlessness Hiberix Pediarix
Screaming Daptacel, Pediarix,
Pentacel, Quadracel
Reproductive (2) Dysmenorrhea Fluarix
Menstruation disorders Vaqta
Respiratory, thoracic
and mediastinal (19)
Apnea ActHIB, Daptacel Engerix-B, Hiberix, Infanrix, Kinrix, Pediarix, Pentacel, Prevnar-13
Asthma, asthma-like
Daptacel, FluMist, Gardasil/Gardasil 9, Pediarix, Pentacel, Tenivac, Vaqta Engerix-B, Fluarix,
Asthmatic crisis Gardasil/Gardasil 9
Bronchial constriction Vaqta
Bronchospasm, bronchial
Gardasil/Gardasil 9, MMR-II, Prevnar-13, RotaTeq
Engerix-B, Fluarix, Flulaval, Gardasil/Gardasil 9, MMR-II, ProQuad, Recombivax, Tenivac, Twinrix
Cough Afluria, Fluarix, Flucelvax, Flulaval, Fluzone, Gardasil/Gardasil 9, FluMist, MMR-II, ProQuad, Recombivax, Rotarix, Vaqta, Varivax Fluarix, Fluzone,
Infanrix, MMR-II, Pediarix, Pentacel
Cyanosis* [bluish
discoloration, low oxygen
Daptacel, Hiberix,
Infanrix, Pediarix, Pentacel, Prevnar-13, Quadracel
Difficulty breathing Menactra
Dyspnea [shortness
of breath
Prevnar-13 Fluarix, Flulaval, Fluzone, Havrix, Menomune, Pediarix, Quadracel, Twinrix
Dysphonia [vocal
Hypoxia Daptacel, FluMist
Oropharyngeal pain Afluria, Flucelvax,
Flulaval, Gardasil/Gardasil 9
Fluzone, Menveo
Respiratory distress Havrix Fluarix
Rhinorrhea [runny
Afluria, Fluarix, Flulaval, FluMist, Fluzone, HepB, MMR-II, ProQuad, Rotarix, Vaqta, Varivax Fluzone
Stridor [high-pitched
Throat tightness Flulaval, Fluzone
Upper airway swelling Menactra
Wheezing FluMist, Menveo, Vaqta Fluzone, Menactra,
Skin/ subcutaneous
tissue (33)
Acute hemorrhagic edema
of infancy
Alopecia [hair loss] Gardasil/Gardasil 9 Engerix-B, Recombivax, Twinrix
Contact rash Varivax
Dermatitis Vaqta, Varivax
Diaper rash Varivax
Dry skin Varivax
Eczema Varivax Engerix-B, Recombivax,
Erythema [skin
ActHIB, Adacel,Afluria, Bexero, Engerix-B, Flucelvax, Fluzone, IPOL, Menactra, Menveo, PedVaxHIB, Pneumovax-23, Prevnar-13, ProQuad, Quadracel, Recombivax, Twinrix,
Vaqta, Varivax
Fluarix, Infanrix, Menactra, Menveo, MMR-II, Pediarix, Pentacel, Tdvax
Erythema multiforme [skin
Flucelvax, MMR-II, Prevnar-13 Engerix-B, Fluarix, Havrix, MMR-II, Pneumovax-23, ProQuad, Prevnar-13, Recombivax, Twinrix, Varivax
Erythema nodosum [nodules
or lumps
Gardasil/Gardasil 9 Engerix-B, Recombivax,
exanthema [widespread rash]
ProQuad, Vaqta Boostrix
Facial swelling/edema Prevnar-13 Daptacel, Fluarix, MMR-II, ProQuad, Varivax
Heat rash Varivax
Hyperhydrosis [abnormal
Flulaval, Havrix, Twinrix
Impetigo ProQuad, Varivax
Lichen planus [inflammatory
skin rash
Engerix-B, Twinrix
Panniculitis [disease
of fatty layer of skin
Parotitis [salivary
gland inflammation
Pigmentation disorder Gardasil/Gardasil 9
Pruritus [itchy skin] Afluria, Engerix-B, Fluarix, Havrix, MMR-II, Pneumovax-23, ProQuad, Recombivax, Twinrix, Vaqta, Varivax ActHIB, Adacel, Afluria, Boostrix, Daptacel, Fluarix, Flucelvax, Flulaval, Fluzone, Infanrix, Kinrix, Menactra, Menomune, Menveo, MMR-II, Prevnar-13, ProQuad, Tdvax, Tenivac
Psoriasis Gardasil/Gardasil 9
Purpura [red/purple
MMR-II Engerix-B, MMR-II,
Pustular psoriasis Gardasil/Gardasil 9
Rash Adacel, Afluria, Engerix-B, Flublok, Flulaval, Havrix, Menactra, Menomune, Menveo, MMR-II, PedVaxHIB, Prevnar-13, ProQuad, Recombivax, Twinrix, Vaqta, Varivax ActHIB, Adacel, Afluria, Bexero, Boostrix, Daptacel, DT, Fluarix, Flucelvax, Flulaval, FluMist, Fluzone, Hiberix, Infanrix, IPOL, Menomune, MMR-II, Pediarix, Pentacel, Pneumovax-23, Prevnar-13, Quadracel, Tdvax, Tenivac
Rash morbilliform Vaqta
Rash vesicular ProQuad, Vaqta
Skin discoloration Pentacel
Skin exfoliation Menveo
Skin induration MMR-II, ProQuad
syndrome [severe skin reaction]
Gardasil/Gardasil 9,
Engerix-B, Fluarix, Fluzone, MMR-II, ProQuad, Recombivax, Varivax
Sweating Engerix-B, Fluarix,
Flucelvax, Pneumovax-23, Recombivax, Twinrix
Vesiculation MMR-II
Vitiligo Gardasil/Gardasil 9
Vascular (10) Cerebrovascular
Kinrix, Pneumovax-23,
ProQuad, Varivax
Deep venous thrombosis Gardasil/Gardasil 9
Flushing Engerix-B, Recombivax,
Flulaval, Fluzone
purpura [blood vessel inflammation]
MMR-II Boostrix, Fluarix,
MMR-II, ProQuad, Varivax
Pallor DT, Flulaval, Hiberix,
Pediarix, Pentacel, Prevnar-13, Quadracel
Petechiae [bleeding
Engerix-B, Twinrix Pediarix, Recombivax
Polyarteritis nodosa [damaged
Raynaud’s phenomenon Gardasil/Gardasil 9
Renal vasculitis Afluria
Vasculitis MMR-II Afluria, Engerix-B,
Fluarix, Fluzone, Havrix, MMR-II, Recombivax, Twinrix
Urogenital (6) Dysuria [difficult
Epididymitis [testicular
Orchitis [inflammation
of the testes
Proteinuria Gardasil/Gardasil 9
Urinary retention Pneumovax-23
Urinary tract infection Gardasil/Gardasil 9,

Vaccine Fundamentalism—War Metaphors in the Covid-19 Response, Vaccine Policy, and Public Health, Part 1



The metaphor of war has long been a part of public health. In responding to the Covid-19 pandemic, the world’s public health agencies mobilized and shut down entire parts of society under the utilitarian goal of stopping the spread of Covid-19.

In America, entire states were locked-down, public schools were dismissed, government public services halted, and businesses closed, while grim pictures of death were painted, pictures of sick and dying on ventilators were broadcast, and vivid dialogue of “overwhelmed” hospital capacity were plastered on mainstream media. Journals and media outlets played along, streaming out content about the dangers of Covid-19 and the need for continued lock-down. Dissenting views on social media were censored by social media tech companies.

Ostensibly the public health response escalated over time while new real-life data emerged that contradicted the severity of the Covid-19 forecasts. What was supposed to be a short lockdown response dragged on for months; the American economy faltered and sank in the wake of the response, and American state governors extended their short-term emergency powers to extend the lockdown period.

Public health officials themselves disseminate the war mentality with the repeated message: We are at war with an invisible enemy that must be eradicated. War mentality emphasizes the need for self-sacrifice in order to stop Covid-19 spread. And the weapons of war are glorified; public health authorities glorify its chief weapon of vaccination.

Like any war, there is collateral damage. The collateral damage here are the bedrocks of medical ethics, informed consent, human rights, civil liberties, and even science itself. How can proper science be conducted when one goal, “deliver a vaccine at warp-speed,” is emphasized over healthy scientific skepticism and public discourse? The ultimate collateral damage, of course, is among those damaged or injured by decisions resting on faulty science.

A further examination of the public health response to Covid-19 reveals a deeper problem: the metaphor of war and the assumption of vaccine fundamentalism has long been part of the public health mindset.

Fundamentalism reduces the complex to the simple and demands sacrifice of the immediate, the human, or the personal in service to an overarching ulterior goal that trumps all.

Vaccine Fundamentalism – Does Nothing Else Matter?

The war metaphor leads to a reductionist thinking style that leads to two exclusive outcomes. We either 1) win by eradicating the disease in question, or 2) the pandemic continues and threatens all of humanity. Peaceful coexisting is seen as a kind of surrender.

Citizens are given sham choices: either participate in the war effort or side with “the enemy.” Psychological shaming is used to coerce naysayers into participating; after all, who wants to be on the “pro-disease side?” Efforts to destroy the threat are prioritized as the most important consideration. Central to public health is the weapon of vaccines, and it has a sacred status in public health.

Vaccine fundamentalism is the belief that vaccination is the most important public health intervention, that it is above criticism, and that increasing the metric of vaccination uptake rate is the core purpose of public health agencies.

A public health official might defend the practice of vaccination through the often-repeated standard dogma of vaccine fundamentalism: vaccines have saved millions of lives, represent cost-efficient public health intervention, and an abundance of scientific research has shown time and time again that vaccines are safe and effective. Due to their importance, vaccines are above reproach and neither questioning them nor criticizing them is permitted. 

While the practice of vaccination does have a place in the public health repertoire, the repercussions of such fundamentalist thinking cannot be ignored, and must be completely understood.

The chief consequence of vaccine fundamentalism is that public health policy over-emphasizes a single reductionistic metric: increased vaccination uptake. And consequently, single-minded pursuit of any goal can lead to other detrimental outcomes which have been almost entirely  ignored.

Charles Eisenstein, in his book Climate: A New Story explained, “This pattern of thinking is called fundamentalism, and it closely parallels the dynamics of two defining institutions of our civilization: money and war. Fundamentalism reduces the complex to the simple and demands sacrifice of the immediate, the human, or the personal in service to an overarching ulterior goal that trumps all.”

The war mentality represents an unfortunate confluence of ignorance, fear, prejudice, and profit… The ignorance exists in its own right and is further perpetuated by government propaganda.

Warmaking in the Efforts to Drive Vaccine Uptake

When vaccine fundamentalism is combined with the war metaphor, public health takes on the mantra of increasing vaccine uptake to fight disease at any cost. However, the behavior of public health institutions to achieve that goal can lead to perverse consequences that are seemingly the opposite of policy goals.

Public health institutions have lamented the rise of anti-vaccine sentiment. In response, they have developed elaborate strategies to deal with vaccine hesitancy. But they are missing the crucial point that mistrust of public health institutions arises from their ulterior goals of increasing vaccine uptake at whatever the cost.

All of the strategies used by the public health institutions to increase vaccination uptake rely upon a key assumption: the core of vaccine refusal lies with the refuser’s ignorance of scientific knowledge and acceptance of misinformation delivered by vaccine deniers.

The warmaking is evident here. There is a separation of the people into two separate groups: those who comply and those who do not. The latter are given a label of vaccine hesitant or vaccine denier. Public health implicitly sees these groups as a form of deviance that must be corrected through the good efforts of public health. 

Public health authorities also embed an important assumption here: those who question vaccines do not have valid concerns. The war metaphors of public health permit a callous dismissal of any vaccination concerns and grievances that occur within the medical setting. This diminishment of concerns and grievances naturally leads to more distrust amongst the populace of public health institutions.

There are numerous problems with the war mentality that public health officials ignore. Charles Eisenstein summarized: “The war mentality represents an unfortunate confluence of ignorance, fear, prejudice, and profit… The ignorance exists in its own right and is further perpetuated by government propaganda. The fear is that of ordinary people scared by misinformation but also that of leaders who may know better but are intimidated by the political costs of speaking out on such a heavily moralized and charged issue.”

Dissenting voices are drowned out by a strawman argument; the virtues of vaccines are used as a response to legitimate concerns without actually addressing the concern at hand.

Vaccine Fundamentalism Erodes Public Health Trust

The war mentality dehumanizes the enemy as unworthy of engagement on an equal level. Similarly, public health officials have taken the policy of refusing to initiate two-way dialogue regarding vaccine concerns for fear of legitimizing vaccine concerns. However, these strategies backfire in that those same concerns grow in the public.

What public health officials also fail to realize about the refusal to engage in productive two-way dialogue with those who have concerns is that this action is a form of epistemic violence. Philosopher Kristie Dotson defined epistemic violence as a “refusal, intentional or unintentional, of an audience to communicatively reciprocate a linguistic exchange owing to pernicious ignorance. Pernicious ignorance should be understood to refer to any reliable ignorance that, in a given context, harms another person (or set of persons).”

The pernicious ignorance on part of public health authorities lies in the refusal to fully investigate any criticisms brought forth against the vaccine program. Instead, these criticisms are immediately labeled as vaccine misinformation to reduce their legitimacy in the public eye. Public health authorities respond by extolling the virtues of vaccines.

Dissenting voices are drowned out by a strawman argument; the virtues of vaccines are used as a response to legitimate concerns without actually addressing the concern at hand. Thereby an insidious form of confirmation bias occurs; the presumptive rationale for vaccines comes from a one-side assessment from the past that is never revisited.

This strategy backfires because those people bringing the grievances feel unheard. In response to the deafness of public health institutions, these people must do the equivalent of yelling louder.  They band together, form coalitions, begin grassroot campaigns, and advocate for change with legislators. As a result, well-organized organizations (Children’s Health Defense and ICAN) have arisen whose primary purpose is to advocate for those whose concerns are not heard and to push government for public health reform.

The war metaphor then encourages public health officials to double-down on forceful activities to stifle inroads made by vaccine critics. Public health agencies in partnership with social media tech companies began censorship campaigns of vaccine misinformation, public relations agencies pushed out increased negative press on “anti-vaxxers,” and previously unrelated institutions started calling for increasingly draconian policies regarding vaccines.

Paternalism in public health has long been criticized, but war metaphors elevate this charge. Public health agencies have taken a hard paternalism stance. They have positioned themselves as a necessary police figure that defends society from the threat of pandemics, one that is willing to override citizen concerns, censor free speech, and engage in violence in pursuit of its goals.

Public health broadcasts a message that is essentially elitist in nature, asking the people to have faith in the public health experts without question. Public health sees itself as society’s primary epistemic authority on public health related matters, and any questioning of its authority is met with umbrage.

The public is aware of these problems, and distrust of public health has been increasing over the past few decades. Vaccine fundamentalism is dangerous because the very strategies used by public health officials to increase vaccination uptake also ironically lay the groundwork for undermining the public good on which the entirety of the public health system is based.

… doctors may be inculcated to deliberately ignore or undermine patient concerns in service to the primary public health metric of increasing vaccination rates.

Vaccine Fundamentalism as a Threat to Medical Ethics

According to the American Medical Association Code of Ethics, a core precept of medical ethics is, “A physician shall, while caring for a patient, regard responsibility to the patient as paramount.” How does the responsibility to the patient as paramount work when at odds with state public health goals? Ideally there is the assumption that what is good for the state is in line with what is good for the patient but this is not always the case.

Vaccine fundamentalism has the perverse consequence in which doctors may be inculcated to deliberately ignore or undermine patient concerns in service to the primary public health metric of increasing vaccination rates. 

While public health agencies do actively collect and classify the types of concerns that parents have, these activities are done under the goal of addressing vaccine hesitancy; due to vaccine fundamentalism, there is an assumption that the proper decision for the individual is to take the vaccine, regardless of personal circumstances.

Rather than use data to facilitate open dialogue, they use this knowledge to create strategies against vaccine hesitancy. For example, the CDC has created training materials that teach healthcare providers how to achieve greater conversion of individuals from vaccine hesitant to vaccine compliant.

Medical ethics acknowledges the importance of informed consent in preserving both patient dignity and trust in the medical system. The healthcare providers’ use of behavior modification techniques to achieve increased vaccine uptake is questionable and deceptive.

Even doctors are not immune to the pressures of vaccine fundamentalism as the war burden ultimately falls upon them to ensure their patients are compliant  with public health vaccine recommendations. According to research undertaken by Dr. Paul Offit, providing vaccine information in order to obtain compliance is time consuming. It was found that 53% of physicians spend 10 to 19 minutes discussing vaccines with concerned parents, and 8% of physicians spend 20 minutes or more with these parents. They also reported that pediatricians experienced decreased job satisfaction because of time spent with parents who have significant vaccine concerns.

There can be no true informed consent if the patient cannot freely refuse the treatment nor is there true informed consent if the consequences of refusal include the potential repercussion of terminating the doctor-patient relationship. Certainly medical ethical guidelines can do better.

According to bioethicist Nir Eyal, “Coercion, deception, manipulation and other violations of standard informed consent requirements seriously jeopardise that trust.” The value of informed consent does not show up in any epidemiological model but it has a powerful intangible value to all those involved. Is vaccine fundamentalism so important that it warrants destroying trust in the medical system?

Vaccines and Autism—Is the Science Really Settled?

Let’s be clear: the work of science has nothing whatever to do with consensus. Consensus is the business of politics. Science, on the contrary, requires only one investigator who happens to be right, which means that he or she has results that are verifiable by reference to the real world. In science consensus is irrelevant. What is relevant is reproducible results. The greatest scientists in history are great precisely because they broke with the consensus.

—Michael Crichton, M.D., best-selling author


Maybe not?

Very few people in the world have read every single published study purporting to show that vaccines don’t cause autism. I happen to be one of them. Not since President George W. Bush stood on the aircraft carrier USS Abraham Lincoln in 2003 to declare “mission accomplished” about the war in Iraq (right before it descended into a decade of chaotic hell) has so little evidence actually been marshaled to support a declaration that a critical question has been asked and answered—or, in this case, that the science is settled.

The “Tobacco Playbook”—more on this shortly—is alive and well, and it’s been both perfected and expanded in the fight to obfuscate the truth about vaccines and autism through the propagation of what’s called “distracting research”and, whenever necessary, outright lies about the science that’s been published exploring this topic. What’s actually true?

Almost no science has actually been done, and what little has been completed has been done with a singular focus: exonerate vaccines.

Again and again and again. Baffled. Debunked. Exasperated.

Feigned Exasperation by Vaccine Spokespeople

Dr. Paul Offit

Perhaps not surprising, but still a bit breathtaking, are the backgrounds of the two most public spokespeople for the “science is settled” side of the vaccine-autism debate. The aforementioned Dr. Paul Offit of the Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia (“CHOP”) and Dr. Peter Hotez of Baylor University share something else besides their exuberance that vaccines are innocent: They’re both patent holders for vaccines and owe their careers to the vaccine industry. In Dr. Offit’s case, his rotavirus vaccine patent has already been parlayed into a small fortune.

When it comes to any discussion of vaccine-autism science, Drs. Offit and Hotez both take the tone in public interviews that it’s silly to even ask the question, because the science has been done so many times, you must be sort of stupid if you still feel the need to talk about it. As one example, in early 2017 actor Robert De Niro publicly raised the question about vaccines triggering his own son’s autism, and Dr. Offit was there to quickly admonish him, stating on NBC News, “It’s been answered again and again and again.”

Dr. Peter Hotez

Soon after, Robert F. Kennedy Jr. held a press conference alongside Robert De Niro, and Dr. Hotez was immediately quoted on the pharma-friendly new site Vox, saying, “I’m a bit baffled as to why Bobby Kennedy focuses on vaccines and autism, which has been debunked, instead of focusing on the known risks and demanding more research and studies.” Again and again and again. Baffled. Debunked. Exasperated. This is the strategy for how the vaccine industry is now approaching the vaccine-autism link, by feigning extreme exasperation, despite the fact that very little relevant science has ever taken an honest look into the possible role of vaccines in the explosion of autism.

One Vaccine and One Ingredient Studied

1983 Vaccine Schedule

The most shocking thing about all these studies that make Drs. Offit and Hotez so exasperated is that for all the griping that vaccines have been studied, in fact only one vaccine and one vaccine ingredient have actually ever been scientifically explored. Let me explain.

Remember that in 1962 the maximum number of vaccines a child would receive by age five was three. In 1983 the maximum number of vaccines a child would receive by age five was ten. Today that number is thirty-eight, which is nearly quadruple what it was in 1983 and more than twelve times what it was in 1962.

Today by the time a child is five years old, if his parents follow the CDC’s recommended schedule, he will have received the following vaccines, with most being given three to four separate times: (1) hepatitis B, (2) rotavirus, (3) DTP, (4) Hib, (5) pneumococcal, (6) polio, (7) flu, (8) MMR, (9) varicella, (10) hepatitis A, (11) meningococcal (only for certain groups), and (12) HPV (teenagers)

Today at his two-month-old “well baby” visit, the average American infant will receive six separate vaccines in about fifteen minutes: hepatitis B, rotavirus, DTaP, Hib, pneumococcal, and polio. Two months later, at four months of age, most American children will again receive the same six vaccines, all administered at the same time: hepatitis B, rotavirus, DTaP, Hib, pneumococcal, and polio. Two months later, at six months of age, most American children then receive seven vaccines, all administered at the same time: hepatitis B, rotavirus, DTaP, Hib, pneumococcal, polio, and flu. By six months of age most American children receive nineteen vaccines in three visits to the doctor. Many kids also receive a birth dose of hepatitis B, boosting this number to twenty vaccines.

So of the first twenty vaccines given to American babies, how many have been studied for their relationship to autism? None. That’s right, because only one vaccine, the MMR, has ever been studied for its relationship to autism. The MMR is a vaccine first administered to American children at thirteen months of age. But what about the two-month, four-month, and six-month “well baby” visits during which children receive so many vaccines? The truth is none of those vaccines have ever been studied or considered for their relationship to autism, so no one has any idea. This would be like trying to identify the source of a plane crash, suspecting mechanical failure, solely analyzing one of the wings, and then declaring the entire airplane free of culpability.

Separate from looking at one vaccine (the MMR), studies have also been published looking at a single ingredient within vaccines—thimerosal—a vaccine preservative comprised of ethylmercury. According to the CDC, there are thirty-eight separate ingredients present in two or more vaccines on the American schedule. While it certainly made sense to start the search by looking at thimerosal, given that it contains a known neurotoxin, that still leaves thirty-seven ingredients that have never been analyzed. David Kirby, former New York Times investigative journalist and the award-winning author of Evidence of Harm, is the only journalist I have seen who actually understands the extreme limitations of the completed science, and here’s how he explains it:

To begin with, it is unscientific and perilously misleading for anyone to assert that “vaccines and autism” have been studied and that no link has been found. That’s because the 16 or so studies constantly cited by critics of the hypothesis have examined just one vaccine and one vaccine ingredient. . . . It is illogical to exonerate all vaccines, all vaccine ingredients, and the total US vaccine program as a whole, based solely on a handful of epidemiological studies of just one vaccine and one vaccine ingredient. It is akin to claiming that every form of animal protein is beneficial to people, when all you have studied is fish.

Here’s a complete list of every vaccine American children receive. I’ve bolded the one that has been studied for its relationship to autism: hepatitis B, rotavirus, DTaP, Hib, pneumococcal, polio, flu, MMR, varicella, hepatitis A, meningococcal, and HPV (teenagers).

And here are all thirty-eight vaccine ingredients. Once again I’ve bolded the one that has been studied for its relationship to autism: 2-Phenoxyethanol, albumin, aluminum hydroxide, aluminum potassium sulfate, amino acids, ammonium sulfate, antibiotics, bovine components, bovine serum, chick embryo cell culture, culture, detergent, dextrose, enzymes, formaldehyde, gelatin, glutaraldehyde, human components, human embryonic cells, lactalbumin hydrolysate, medium 199, mineral salts, monosodium l-glutamate, phenol, phosphate, polymixin B sulfate, polysorbate-80, potassium aluminum sulfate, potassium chloride, potassium phosphate monobasic, sodium borate, sodium chloride, sodium phosphate dibasic, sorbitol, soy peptone, sucrose, thimerosal, vero (monkey kidney) cells, and yeast protein.

Do you really think it’s reasonable to say, “Case closed; we’ve studied vaccines and autism”

Twenty-Seven Studies and All the Wrong Questions

The Autism Science Foundation (ASF) serves as a repository for the “asked and answered” question about vaccines and autism and also as a platform for Dr. Offit of CHOP, who sits on the board of the organization and speaks on their behalf. The organization’s website cites twenty-seven studies that they assert prove that “vaccines and autism” are unrelated. Thirteen of the studies look at the thimerosal-autism relationship. Ten of the studies look at the MMR-autism relationship. And four of the studies are “meta-analyses” of the aforementioned twenty-three thimerosal and MMR studies. That’s it. One vaccine, one ingredient.

None of the twenty-seven studies cited by the ASF used to “prove” vaccines don’t cause autism have come close to asking the right questions about cause and effect or have even considered the proper control group (fully unvaccinated children) to get to an answer. Having spent the time to critically read every study produced to “prove” vaccines don’t cause autism, I’m dumbfounded by their inadequacy. And the comments public officials make about these studies are even more absurd and unsupportable. To help you understand what I mean, let’s review the actual questions asked by three of the most common studies cited to “prove” that “vaccines don’t cause autism.”

Wrong Question #1: Do children who received more thimerosal in their vaccines have different neurological outcomes from children who received less thimerosal in their vaccines? This study, published in Pediatrics in 2000 and commonly called the “Verstraeten study,” effectively compared two-pack-a-day smokers to one-pack-a-day smokers, looking at children who received more mercury in their vaccines to children who received slightly less mercury in their vaccines, to see if there were any differences in a variety of neurological disorders. This is arguably the signature study of the “vaccines don’t cause autism” crowd, which makes a careful reading of the study so bewildering. The study, “Safety of Thimerosal-Containing Vaccines: A Two-Phased Study of Computerized Health Maintenance Organization Databases,” reached a conclusion that everyone seems to have forgotten; namely, the study authors could neither prove nor disprove an association between mercury and vaccines, stating:

“The biological plausibility of the small doses of ethylmercury present in vaccines leading to increased risks of neurodevelopmental disorders is uncertain.”

This is a very instructive and important study to scrutinize for many reasons. First, this was the first study ever done to explore any link between vaccines and autism, albeit the exploration was solely to see whether more or less mercury might impact the autism rate. When the study was published, the vaccine industry PR machine went into overdrive, declaring that a new study in Pediatrics had proven vaccines don’t cause autism. In fact, the study author was so irked by the way his findings were being misinterpreted that he took the extraordinary step of penning a letter to Pediatrics to complain. Dr. Thomas Verstraeten, the study author, wrote this letter right before he left his position at the CDC to take a job with vaccine maker GlaxoSmithKline in Belgium:

Surprisingly, however, the study is being interpreted now as negative [where “negative” implies no association was shown between thimerosal and autism] by many. . . . The article does not state that we found evidence against an association, as a negative study would. It does state, on the contrary, that additional study is recommended, which is the conclusion to which a neutral study must come. . . . A neutral study carries a very distinct message: the investigators could neither confirm nor exclude an association, and therefore more study is required.

It’s hard to understate how irresponsible and inaccurate it is that people like Dr. Paul Offit and Dr. Peter Hotez still routinely cite this study as “proof ” vaccines don’t cause autism, since the study only considered mercury level exposure in fully vaccinated kids, reached a neutral outcome, and recommended more work needed to be done. Even crazier, the study did find that “tics” (a motor disorder) are in fact correlated to mercury levels, writing that “cumulative exposure at 3 months resulted in a significant positive association with tics.”

Wrong Question #2: Are autism rates different for children who received 62.5 mcg or 137.5 mcg of ethylmercury? Published in 2009, also in Pediatrics, this study from Italy was released with great fanfare and is commonly called the “Tozzi study.” The Associated Press headline shouted, “Study Adds to Evidence of Vaccine Safety” and the editor- in-chief of Pediatrics, Dr. Lewis First, included a note to pediatricians advising that “you’ll want to know this information when talking with parents of your patients about the safety and benefits of vaccines.”

Dr. Alberto Tozzi

What’s bizarre is that eight years after the Verstraeten study above, the Tozzi study utilized the exact same trick, looking at children who received more mercury in their shots and less mercury in their shots to see if there was any difference in neurological outcomes. Even more mystifying, the Tozzi study had a sample of children with a miniscule autism rate; as the study authors explained, “We detected, through the telephone interviews with parents and reviews of medical charts, 1 case of autism among the 856 children in the lower thimerosal intake group and no cases among the 848 children in the higher thimerosal intake group.” So in their sample the rate of autism of the children analyzed was 1 in 1,704 (the US rate is 1 in 36, approximately 47 times higher than the sample rate) meaning this data is both suspect and useless. Another Italian doctor, Dr. Vincenzo Miranda, offered up a stunning rebuke of the Tozzi study, agreeing with the abject uselessness of the data:

This study is not methodologically correct. The study by Tozzi and others has many limitations. No comparison is done with children not exposed to thimerosal and neuropsycholog- ical disturbances are studied in recruiting voluntary [sic] all children even healthy ones, without assessing the sensitivity individual mercury. With this background this study cannot lead to any conclusion.

Let’s pause here for one moment. I have just walked you through two of the signature studies held up by the spokespeople for the vaccine industry who claim “vaccines don’t cause autism,” despite the fact that neither study gets anywhere near exploring that actual topic of whether vaccines are causing autism. The PR machine for these studies is something to behold. Pediatrics, the scientific journal of the American Academy of Pediatrics, publishes these studies, and on the day they are released, every major news organization in the country reports on the studies, and every article sends the same basic message: Vaccines are safe, and they don’t cause autism.

By the way, guess who funded these first two studies? If you guessed the CDC, you’re right. The federal agency that’s responsible for implementing the vaccine program is also responsible for safety monitoring, and they also sponsor studies that don’t look at the vaccine-autism connection in any honest way, and then they support the promotion of the studies where doctors and scientists lie about what the studies actually did and what conclusions they actually reached.

Wrong Question #3: Are autism rates higher among the younger siblings of children with autism if they receive the MMR vaccine? It’s no exaggeration to say that this 2015 study—“Autism Occurrence by MMR Vaccine Status among US Children with Older Siblings with and without Autism”—is the most hyped study I’ve ever seen, with every mainstream media outlet running a story to say that the MMR-autism hypothesis had been conclusively disproven. In a novel approach, the study authors focused their analysis on children who had an older sibling with autism or without. In a more novel approach, the study authors chose to use the word “unvaccinated” to describe any child in the study who hadn’t received the MMR vaccine. What they failed to clarify for anyone not reading the details was that “unvaccinated” could also mean, and often did mean, that the child had gotten every vaccine except the MMR. In other words, the authors blatantly misused the word “unvaccinated,” and the press ate it up. Even more shocking was the prerelease publicity page from the Journal of the American Medical Association, where the study was published. To help reporters get ready to write a story, they included some quotes from some “third parties” discussing the findings. Here’s an important quote they provide from Dr. Bryan King of the University of Washington:

Taken together, some dozen studies have now shown that the age of onset of ASD does not differ between vaccinated and unvaccinated children, the severity or course of ASD does not differ between vaccinated and unvaccinated children, and now the risk of ASD recurrence in families does not differ between vaccinated and unvaccinated children.

What’s absolutely, positively mystifying about this quote, a quote you can find on the website of the journal that published this study, is that it’s 100 percent false. There have never been any studies comparing vaccinated to unvaccinated kids until very recently, which is the holy grail study that needs to be done, and which I will discuss at length in one moment. Furthermore, it was never mentioned that this study was actually written by researchers imbedded inside a large PR/consulting firm called The Lewin Group, which counts the largest vaccine makers in the world as its clients.

I’m not going to bore you with too many more details about this study, but I will with one, which is the number of total kids in the study, a number that’s been bandied about impressively. This study was heralded as being a “large” study of “unvaccinated” kids. I’ve already shown you that the “unvaccinated” part of that claim was untrue, and so was the “large” part. Yes, the study authors started with over ninety-five thousand kids, and this was certainly the number used everywhere in the media. But the power of this study was in looking at younger siblings who had an older sibling with autism. This group is considerably more “at risk” for autism, and it’s therefore their outcome that was of interest to the study authors.

How many had an older sibling with autism, had autism themselves, and had never received the MMR? Twenty-three kids. That’s it.

The real “gem” in the study would be a child who met three separate criteria: (1) had an older sibling with autism, (2) had autism themselves, and (3) had not received the MMR vaccine. You see, if you met all three criteria, you were the proof the study authors were looking for, that MMR had not caused your autism. How many kids in this large study met the three criteria that mattered? How many had an older sibling with autism, had autism themselves, and had never received the MMR? Twenty-three kids. That’s it. Twenty-three kids is not very much to slam the door on whether or not “vaccines cause autism,” much less the actual question the study considered about MMR’s potential role in autism. And yet these twenty-three kids were the “proof ” that MMR doesn’t cause autism, because they had a sibling with autism, had autism themselves, and had never received the MMR vaccine. And the rest of their vaccination status was completely unknown and never discussed.

Only 23 kids …

And remember, for all the different ways I can find fault with this study, particularly its misappropriation of the word “unvaccinated,” it still only looked at a single vaccine: the MMR.

Even the Head of the NIMH Doesn’t Get It

In mid-2017 Dr. Joshua Gordon, the newly appointed head of the National Institute of Mental Health (NIMH), met with a number of parents from the autism community. As Dr. Gordon’s biography explains, he sits in a position to have a huge impact on autism science, as he now directs the agency that is the “largest funder of research into mental illness”:

Dr. Joshua Gordon

He oversees an extensive research portfolio of basic and clinical research that seeks to transform the understanding and treatment of mental illnesses, paving the way for prevention, recovery, and cure.

The parents pressed Dr. Gordon on the very issue I have raised in this post: What science was he relying on to dismiss the vaccine-autism connection? Dr. Gordon felt confident that vaccinated children had been studied versus unvaccinated children and promised he would follow up by providing evidence, and indeed he did, by sending an email on May 31 with a link to a single study titled, “Vaccines Are Not Associated with Autism: An Evidence-Based Meta-analysis of Case-Control and Cohort Studies.”

When I saw the email, I was dumbfounded. Dr. Gordon, aside from chairing the NIMH, is also the chair of the Interagency Autism Coordinating Committee (IACC), a “Federal advisory committee that coordinates Federal efforts and provides advice to the Secretary of Health and Human Services on issues related to autism spectrum disorder (ASD).” In short, he’s the single most important person in the US government to try to resolve the autism epidemic, and the study he provided that convinced him vaccines and autism were unrelated was based on the very trick I have already explained to you:

Every study in the meta-analysis (which is basically a study looking at a larger sample of other studies) Dr. Gordon provided to support his view that vaccines don’t cause autism was either a thimerosal study or an MMR study, in all cases comparing heavily vaccinated children to heavily vaccinated children. More specifically, six of the studies looked at MMR vaccine and four of the studies looked at thimerosal. Did any studies look at any other vaccine or in any way consider the mounting biological evidence implicating vaccine adjuvants in autism that I discuss here? Did any of the studies have any sample of children who had received no vaccines? No, not even a little. One of the parents to whom Dr. Gordon sent the email responded swiftly, making many of the same points I have made in this post:

The abstract/review article you sent me below highlights the concern raised that there has never been a study assessing the rela- tive risk of autism between vaccinated and unvaccinated child. To be sure, this review (and its abstract) leave the impression that the studies it relies upon compare “unvaccinated” children (no vaccines) with vaccinated children. Unfortunately, this is misleading since all 10 of the underlying studies relied upon for this review compared highly vaccinated children with highly vaccinated children. The only difference typically between the study and control groups was a single MMR vaccine or thimerosal vs. non-thimerosal vaccines. (I would be happy to provide you with a breakdown of each of the 10 studies reflecting same.) Meaning, what this review considers “unvaccinated” are vaccinated children typically only missing the MMR vaccine. Assuming the control children in these studies followed the current CDC recommended vaccination schedule, they would each have received 21 vaccine injections during the first 12 months of life excluding the MMR vaccine. Hence, these studies tell us virtually nothing about the relationship of vaccines to autism because they are not comparing vaccinated and unvaccinated children.

How did Dr. Gordon respond to a pointed email, effectively dismantling his understanding of vaccine-autism science? With this curt reply:

I appreciate you following up with me, and apologize for the delay in my response. I think the information you are seeking would be best obtained from the CDC.

I have seen this time and again, even with experts like Dr. Gordon, whom I hold—reasonably, I think—to a high standard of professionalism and curiosity. They’re quick to send a link to a study reinforcing their belief that vaccines and autism are unrelated but one that doesn’t hold up to even a minor amount of scrutiny. And when pressed, Dr. Gordon simply chose to kick the can. This is a person who, if he wanted, could fund enough science to end the autism epidemic! It’s disappointing, and disturbing. My own opinion is that people like Dr. Gordon are too scared to consider the truth and too worried about what looking for it (by funding true vaccine-autism science) might do to their careers and reputations.

What’s the Right Question?

The three questions and three studies I shared with you above come from three of the most commonly listed studies cited as “proof ” that “vaccines do not cause autism.” Yet not one of them comes close to answering the question parents of children with autism really care about, which goes something like this:

My child received thirty-eight vaccines by the time he was five, including twenty vaccines by his first birthday. Is the administration of so many vaccines causing autism in certain children?

That question, so important to the health of our children and our nation, has never been asked, so how could it be answered? Well, I should probably clarify that question, especially the part where I say “never been asked,” because the question has been asked, several times, in fact, but the answers don’t suit the Dr. Offits and Dr. Hotezes of the world, so you never hear about them, but you will in a moment, after a quick digression. I want to walk you through three simple but important concepts that will help put vaccine-autism science in proper perspective:

Biological plausibility “refers to the proposal of a causal association—a relationship between a putative cause and an outcome—that is consis- tent with existing biological and medical knowledge.”

Encephalopathy “means disorder or disease of the brain. In modern usage, encephalopathy does not refer to a single disease, but rather to a syndrome of overall brain dysfunction; this syndrome can have many different organic and inorganic causes.”

Wisdom of crowds is the notion that “large groups of people are smarter than an elite few, no matter how brilliant—better at solving problems, fostering innovation, coming to wise decisions, even predicting the future.”

No one wants to blame the childhood vaccine schedule for the autism epidemic. Vaccines were invented to save the lives of children, not harm them, and I believe most people on both sides of this debate believe they are helping children by either fighting for more vaccines or fighting for the recognition that vaccines are causing autism in a subset of children.

But blaming vaccines for the autism epidemic is the most “biologically plausible” hypothesis. Sorry, vaccines, but it’s just true. You provide some benefits to society in reducing a portion of certain acute illnesses, but you also have a very nasty underbelly: You cause brain damage in some of the kids who receive you.

Vaccine Injury Table

Don’t take my word for it—our federal government could not be clearer that vaccines cause brain damage in some children. Time and again on their own website, the Department of Health and Human Services’ National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program makes it clear that “encephalopathy” is a vaccine injury, and they define “chronic encephalopathy” in the following way:

“Chronic Encephalopathy occurs when a change in mental or neurologic status, first manifested during the applicable time period, persists for a period of at least 6 months from the date of vaccination.”

Like many children with autism, my son is suffering from a chronic encephalopathy that occurred after his vaccine appointments.

I don’t really have to use that many of my IQ points to think that there may be a correlation between a product that causes brain damage (vaccines) and my son’s brain damage. It would be enough, frankly, that brain damage is known to be a side effect of vaccines in some children to assert how biologically plausible the vaccine-autism connection is, but the argument is bolstered by two additional points: (1) As you now know, the number of vaccines given to children has nearly quadrupled since the early 1980s, and the autism rate is up more than 30,000 percent during the same time period. (2) There are tens of thousands (or more) of parental reports of regression into autism after vaccination. These reports are worldwide, in every socioeconomic level and every race. The stories are remarkably consistent. The “wisdom of crowds” is taken to an extreme when it comes to the vaccine-autism connection, according to the parents, and many of their doctors, who witnessed the regression of their children firsthand.

An Embezzler and a Whistle-Blower

Fugitive from Justice

Two authors, both affiliated with the CDC, have either led or been coauthors on a total of eight of the studies that are cited by spokespeople as “proof ” that vaccines don’t cause autism. One is an embezzler listed as a “Most Wanted” fugitive, and one became a whistle-blower due to scientific fraud he and his colleagues committed in one of the studies.

Poul Thorsen, a Danish researcher, has been the lead or coauthor of four of the studies routinely cited as proof vaccines don’t cause autism. Mr. Thorsen is wanted by the Office of Inspector General (OIG) for embezzling funds from the CDC. According to the OIG, Mr. Thorsen “executed a scheme to steal grant money awarded by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC).” They claim he “diverted over $1 million of the CDC grant money to his own personal bank account. Thorsen submitted fraudulent invoices on CDC letterhead to medical facilities assisting in the research for reimbursement of work allegedly covered by the grants.”

In 2011 Mr. Thorsen was indicted “on 22 counts of wire fraud and money laundering” and “according to bank account records, Thorsen purchased a home in Atlanta, a Harley Davidson motorcycle, an Audi automobile, and a Honda SUV with funds that he received from the CDC grants.” The subject of all the grant money he stole? Vaccines and autism.

Dr. William Thompson, a CDC researcher, has led or coauthored four papers as well, and he issued a statement through a whistle-blower attorney that the findings in one of the MMR-autism studies for which he served as the lead author were fraudulent:

I regret that my coauthors and I omitted statistically significant information in our 2004 article published in the journal Pediatrics. The omitted data suggested that African American males who received the MMR vaccine before age 36 months were at increased risk for autism. Decisions were made regarding which findings to report after the data were collected, and I believe that the final study protocol was not followed.

Congressman Bill Posey, who privately met with Dr. Thompson, said in a congressional briefing that CDC scientists met in a private room and resolved to destroy all the primary data and notes from Dr. Thompson’s MMR-autism study, which was published in Pediatrics and still quoted by many. Dr. Thompson issued the following statement about the meeting:

The co-authors scheduled a meeting to destroy documents related to the study. The remaining four co-authors all met and brought a big garbage can into the meeting room, and reviewed and went through all the hard copy documents that we had thought we should discard, and put them into a huge garbage can. However, because I assumed it was illegal and would violate both FOIA and DOJ requests, I kept hard copies of all documents in my office, and I retain all associated computer files. I believe we intentionally withheld controversial findings from the final draft of the Pediatrics paper.

An embezzler and a whistle-blower involved with eight of the crucial studies proving no link between vaccine and autism? It’s hard to believe things are this shady, but they are.

Read the article.


Epidemiological Science versus Biological Science

While embezzlers and whistle-blowers are fascinating, the purpose of this blog post is to explain that the science on the connection between vaccines and autism has barely scratched the surface, and anyone saying it’s settled is lying. Noteworthy is that the most public liars are, of course, economically intertwined with the vaccine industry; namely, Drs. Paul Offit and Peter Hotez, who are the primary spokespeople for any mainstream media you read about vaccines and autism these days. But I’d be remiss not to mention that there is science, compelling science, that has looked at vaccinated children versus unvaccinated children. This science has shown a devastatingly strong link between vaccines and autism, which is why you’ve never heard of these studies. Before I share that science with you, I want to explain two really important points.

First, all the science I have talked about so far is epidemiology. Scientists are looking at data, in this case medical records and vaccination records of children, and they’re analyzing them to look for patterns and relationships. This is what they did with tobacco. They looked at smokers. They looked at nonsmokers. They looked at lung cancer rates. At some point the correlation between being a smoker and having lung cancer was so high that the connection was undeniable. Epidemiology takes all that data, finds relationships and correlations, and concludes whether any two things might be connected; for example, being vaccinated and having autism.

… we have clear biological plausibility for how, exactly, a vaccine can cause autism in a child.

But there’s a different kind of science that’s even more revealing. It’s biological science. It’s science looking at living things and how they actually respond to other things. This was also done with tobacco when researchers painted mice with tobacco tar in the 1950s and proved, biologically, that tobacco tar can cause cancer. That biological science was devastating for tobacco, and it began the process of revealing the truth about tobacco and lung cancer.

In the vaccine-autism debate, we have a growing body of biological science. It’s compelling, and it’s all very recent. We have mice studies in which the mice are injected with vaccine ingredients, producing devastating results. And we have clear biological plausibility for how, exactly, a vaccine can cause autism in a child. That’s not the point of this post, to discuss all the biological science that has been done, but that is the point of this post, which will show you that scientists are actually very close to identifying how, exactly, a vaccine can cause autism.

Second, I want you to appreciate that most published science goes unnoticed by the public. Most scientists have no PR firm behind them, alerting the media in advance whenever a new study comes out. Most scientists don’t know the first thing about PR; they have no PR budget, and that’s not why they are publishing research. They do their research to advance science, and their audience is really other scientists.

Vaccine-autism science is uniquely different. The vaccine makers do have PR budgets and PR firms, and any vaccine-autism study that shows “vaccines don’t cause autism” makes national news. Every single one, every single time. The studies that actually compare vaccinated versus unvaccinated children? They don’t make the news, because their answers implicate vaccines. They hide in plain sight, are shared widely in the autism community, and are ignored by the mainstream press.

Seven Studies of Unvaccinated Children

The first study that compared children who had received a vaccine with children who hadn’t was published in 2000. Although autism wasn’t something the study considered, it was still revealing. Titled “Effects of Diphtheria-Tetanus-Pertussis or Tetanus Vaccination on Allergies and Allergy-Related Respiratory Symptoms among Children and Adolescents in the United States,” this study from the UCLA school of public health did look specifically at the DTP vaccine to see if it might be responsible for allergies and allergy-related symptoms, such as asthma. Looking at more than thirteen thousand children, the study found that:

DTP or tetanus vaccination in US children is associated with life- time history of asthma or other allergies and allergy-related symp- toms. . . . Assuming that the estimated vaccination effect is unbiased, 50% of diagnosed asthma cases (2.93 million) in US children and adolescents would be prevented if the DTP or tetanus vaccination was not administered.

So the first study to ever compare a group that received a vaccine with a group that didn’t found a dramatic difference in rates of asthma and allergies among the vaccinated group, so much so that they thought not getting the DTP vaccine might reduce cases of asthma by 50 percent! Note that many children with autism suffer from what are known as comorbid conditions, such as asthma, allergies, and other autoimmune conditions.
In 2008 in the second study ever looking at a group of children who didn’t receive a vaccine, public health researchers Carolyn Gallagher and Melody Goodman from SUNY Stony Brook looked at the possible relationship between the hepatitis B vaccine and special education. Were children who received the full series of hepatitis B vaccines (three separate vaccines, the first one often given on day one of life) more likely to end up in special education classes than children who didn’t receive any hepatitis B vaccines? The study, “Hepatitis B Triple Series Vaccine and Developmental Disability in US Children Aged 1–9 Years,” was published in the journal Toxicological and Environmental Chemistry, and the results were pretty clear: The full series of hepatitis B led to a ninefold greater likelihood of receiving special education:

This study found statistically significant evidence to suggest that boys in United States who were vaccinated with the triple series Hepatitis B vaccine . . . were more susceptible to developmental disability than were unvaccinated boys. . . . The odds of receiving EIS [special education] were approximately nine times as great for vaccinated boys (n = 46) as for unvaccinated boys (n = 7), after adjustment for confounders.

The same researchers from SUNY Stony Brook published another study in 2010, this time looking at the relationship between receiving the hepa- titis B series and autism. Published in the prestigious Journal of Toxicology and Environmental Health, “Hepatitis B Vaccination of Male Neonates and Autism Diagnosis” once again reached very clear conclusions: “Boys vaccinated as neonates had threefold greater odds for autism diagnosis compared to boys never vaccinated or vaccinated after the first month of life.” Journalist David Kirby appreciated the significance of the new findings, writing in the Huffington Post:

[The study] will be among the first university-based population studies to suggest an association between a vaccine and an increased risk for autism. And that would be in direct contradiction to all those MMR and thimerosal studies that purportedly found no such link.

The two Goodman and Gallagher articles about hepatitis B raise many concerns. I’ve met pediatricians who feel that the hepatitis B vaccine specifically has triggered the epidemic of neurological disorders and autoimmunity we now see in our children. Hepatitis B was the first vaccine introduced after Congress indemnified vaccine makers from liability in 1986. The vaccine has a high dose of aluminum, which you will read here is likely a primary culprit of autism, and it’s often given to babies on day one of life, which many immunologists feel is a huge mistake. These two studies raise major concerns, but I’m guessing you never knew either of these studies existed, which supports my point about scientists and PR firms.

In 2017, something amazing happened. Two separate studies comparing vaccinated and completely unvaccinated children actually got published. Unlike the Goodman and Gallagher studies above, which only explored a single vaccine (the rest of a child’s vaccine status was simply not considered), these two new studies met the “gold standard”—they found children who had never received any vaccines and looked at their health outcomes in a variety of ways. The public health researchers from Jackson State University originally planned to publish a single study, until they looked at the data on children born prematurely, noting that the data on the difference in health outcomes for vaccinated versus unvaccinated premature infants was so dramatic it deserved its own study.

Published in the Journal of Translational Science, the first groundbreaking study was called, “Pilot Comparative Study on the Health of Vaccinated and Unvaccinated 6- to 12-Year-Old U.S. Children,” and its results were so devastating to the US vaccine program that there wasn’t a single media outlet in the country that covered its release. The results of comparing vaccinated children to completely unvaccinated children were no surprise to me, my wife, or any of the autism parents I know, but perhaps would surprise others:

The vaccinated were less likely than the unvaccinated to have been diagnosed with chickenpox and pertussis, but more likely to have been diagnosed with pneumonia, otitis media, allergies and NDD [neurodevelopmental disorders]. After adjustment, vaccination, male gender, and preterm birth remained significantly associated with NDD.

Dr. Tony Mawson

Specifically, vaccinated children were found to have a fourfold higher likelihood of having autism. I’m reminded of a quote by Dr. Daniel Neides of the Cleveland Clinic who wondered if we were making trade-offs that aren’t worth it. He said, “Some of the vaccines have helped reduce the incidence of childhood communicable diseases [like chickenpox and pertussis from the study above]. That’s great news. But not at the expense of neurologic diseases like autism and ADHD increasing at alarming rates.”

Simultaneously, the Jackson State authors published a study in the same journal just looking at children born prematurely, titled “Preterm Birth, Vaccination and Neurodevelopmental Disorders: A Cross-Sectional Study of 6- to 12-Year-Old Vaccinated and Unvaccinated Children.” The results were disturbing, as the researchers found children born prematurely and vaccinated were fourteen times more likely to develop a neurodevelopmental disorder! The authors were appropriately concerned:

Preterm birth coupled with vaccination, however, was associated with a synergistic increase in the odds of NDD, suggesting the possibility that vaccination could precipitate adverse neurodevelop- mental outcomes in preterm infants. These results provide clues to the epidemiology and causation of NDD but question the safety of current vaccination programs for preterm infants.

Given what you’ve learned so far, are you surprised this study wasn’t in the news? And, adding to this analysis of vaccinated versus unvaccinated children, ON May 27, 2020 Dr. Brian Hooker and Neil Miller did something very novel: they looked at medical records within pediatric practices, and they compared health outcomes by vaccination status. Titled, “Analysis of health outcomes in vaccinated and unvaccinated children: Developmental delays, asthma, ear infections and gastrointestinal disorders,” I’m sure their conclusion won’t surprise you:

Within this study, the number of vaccines received and vaccination status early in life are related to different acute and chronic conditions. The strongest relationships observed for vaccination status were for asthma, developmental delays and ear infections.

Finally, from Japan, this study in 2020 further supported the relationship between vaccines and asthma. Titled, “Cumulative inactivated vaccine exposure and allergy development among children: a birth cohort from Japan,” the study reached a very similar conclusion to the 2000 study from UCLA:

“…this large-scale birth cohort study demonstrated that the prevalence of asthma, wheeze and eczema in children at 12 months of age was associated with the administration of a larger number of types of inactivated vaccines at the initial immunisation before 6 months of age.”

Seven separate studies, all comparing a group of children vaccinated with a group of children unvaccinated, at least for a single vaccine. I’m guessing that for most readers this is the first time you’ve read about any of these studies. I think a fair question would be, “Why?” The answer is simple:

Studies that might hurt the financial performance of pharmaceutical companies are not publicized by media outlets that derive advertising revenue from the pharmaceutical companies.

Are We Being Lied To?

Well, has it been asked and answered? Have scientists proven that vaccines do not cause autism? If you read this blog post with your mind even open a little, I know you know the answer to that question is, “not even close.” When spokespeople for the vaccine industry (who often masquerade as concerned doctors or scientists) tell you the science has been done, and when they even get a bit exasperated that they are still answering this question, perhaps remember that this is all part of the Tobacco Playbook to distract, redirect, and delay. The science hasn’t been done to “prove” vaccines don’t cause autism. In fact, the biological science is getting done, and it paints vaccines in a very different light.

Author’s note: this is an updated text from Chapter 4 of my book, How to End the Autism Epidemic.


J.B. Handley is the best-selling author of How to End the Autism Epidemic. He graduated with honors from Stanford University, and currently serves as a Managing member of Bochi Investments, a private investment firm. Recently, he has written three articles about the lockdowns that have garnered over 5 million reads, Lockdown Lunacy 1.0, 2.0, and 3.0. He is also the co-producer of the documentary film Autism Yesterday and the co-founder of the Age of Autism blog. He can be reached at

Rally in Berlin!

A Letter From a Friend in Germany

Dear Mr. Kennedy and CHD,

As you have already heard, there was a massive protest in Berlin August 1, 2020. I have been waiting to report on it until I had a complete picture about it and what happened afterwards.

Health freedom was a big part of the protest —  more and more people are waking up to the fact that they do not want to be guinea pigs for Gates’ experimental vaccine. But it was also mainly about our freedom and human rights, against draconian measures put on us by the government, against lockdown, social distancing and masks.

The numbers that were reported vary greatly. The mainstream media in collusion with the Berlin mayor tried everything to cover up and lie about it. They snapped a picture of the “protest” in the early morning, many, many hours before it actually began and used this picture to say there were “17,000 people” at the protest. The mayor himself told police that the people were acting “against the democratic principle” (?) and ordered police to end it. Mainstream media proclaimed many hours before the protest that it was made up of a few crazy “Nazis, conspiracy theorists and corona-deniers” then dispersed by the police.

What actually happened

People – normal people—concerned citizens, mothers, fathers, grandmothers, grandfathers, doctors, lawyers, business owners – streamed to Berlin by the hundreds of thousands—the official numbers from the police were 800,000 to 1.3 million, with 2-3 million people in the general vicinity.

People attending said that the energy was unbelievable and felt like “a bomb of light and love and peace and freedom” had exploded in Berlin.

In the afternoon, police came to end the protest, because “people hadn’t been adhering to distancing and wearing masks.” (Apparently this hadn’t been a problem at the BLM demos in Germany, but I guess it matters now what exactly you are protesting.) The other thing “they” did in Berlin was to interfere with everyone’s phones and cameras, so that it seemed like the protest could not be live-streamed to contradict the media narrative. But one of the organizers came from Switzerland, and his phone, for some reason, was not affected. So he live-streamed the whole protest. Even now, there is massive censorship on Youtube about the real protest images and facts.

Many hours after mainstream media had already announced it, police actually did end the protest by cutting off electricity and carrying the organizers and speakers off the stage. Two of them were arrested later, as well as some protestors, but everyone was set free, as the police had no grounds to hold them. Two lawyers co-organized the protest and made sure that nothing untoward happened. Some police acted very reluctantly that day which you can see on the police officer’s face in the video below, when he had to tell the protestors to go home. People were telling him that he didn’t have to do this; they were all there for him and his family, too, and if he did the right thing, he would go down in history as a hero. He visibly struggled for a couple minutes, but made the announcement in the end. He later said: “I was only following orders”. I think we have all heard that one before.


“We’re staying here!”

Protestors all sat down on the ground and would not leave, chanting “We’re staying here!” A part of them then proceeded to the main government building in a “human chain” and chanted “Angela, dein Volk ist da!” (“Angela, your people are here!”).

Everything was mostly peaceful, which was a big goal of the organizers—their motto was “Resist like Ghandi”. Although there were some Antifa activists there to start trouble among the protestors, and some young police officers sent to ”use violence” against some of the organizers and protestors, overall the day was calm.

The organizers themselves (“Querdenken”) were absolutely overwhelmed by the sheer number of people (at least a million in their words), as they had hoped for 500,000 tops.

They will keep organizing these protests all over Germany. The weekend of August 8-9 there were demonstrations in Stuttgart.

Politicians were panicked at the Berlin protest. It takes a lot for Germans to get off the couch and take to the streets — and no one expected those numbers.

In the aftermath, politicians are demanding that our basic human right to free and peaceful protest be severely restricted “in times of a nationwide pandemic” – We will see if that happens.

Here is the video from someone who filmed the march from a bridge for over an hour:


Which brings me to my next topic: There have been leaks from “government insiders” that the “second wave and lockdown” are already planned for mid September, and they will go on for much longer than the first. We can see politicians and media already preparing the public for this, blaming rising case numbers (due to mandatory testing) on the protests, on people returning from holidays, and people not wearing masks in public (when most people do).

The next protest in Berlin is scheduled for Saturday, August 29. I understand that people elsewhere in Europe are organizing protests as well. What about in the US? Will you join us?

Thank you so much for taking the time to read all of this.

Be safe and God bless,

A friend in Germany

‘TRUTH’ with Robert F. Kennedy, Jr.—Episode 10

In Episode 10 of our “TRUTH” series, Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. and actor Alec Baldwin had an in-depth discussion on the current status of public health and COVID-19 including:

  • Lack of placebo testing in vaccine clinical trials
  • Exaggerated annual flu death data
  • Impact upon individuals and society from prolonged lockdowns
  • Dr. Fauci’s 50-year history of favoring patentable solutions in health care
  • The history of pathogenic priming in coronavirus vaccine development attempts

(All episodes can be found on CHD’s social media, and on the CHD Channel found on Peeps TV, a network on Roku. Roku is accessible from any Smart TV and can be purchased separately for older TVs.)

Mary Holland Speaks at New York Freedom Rally

CHD’s Vice Chair and General Counsel Mary Holland addressed an enthusiastic crowd at the Freedom Rally in Albany, New York on August 3. Ms. Holland stressed that mandatory vaccination equates to the loss of vital human rights including the right to bodily autonomy, due process, equal protection, informed consent and the right to refuse unwanted medical procedures.

Dr. Fauci’s Double Standards: Polarizing the Nation on Hydroxychloroquine



I don’t know if hydroxychloroquine (HCQ) is effective against COVID. It’s disturbing that I, like many other Americans, feel that we won’t learn the truth from Dr. Fauci. A 2005 Virology Journal article by MJ Vincent and CDC’s Eric Bergeron et al, surfaced last week. The study concludes: “We report…that chloroquine has strong antiviral effects on SARS-Coronavirus infection of primate cells. These inhibitory effects are observed when the cells are treated with the drug either before or after exposure to the virus, suggesting both prophylactic and therapeutic advantage.” This conclusion implies that chloroquine functions both as a preventative “vaccine” and as a cure for strains of coronavirus.

If these results persist in human models in COVID 19, as last month’s Michigan hospital study and abundant evidence from US doctors and other nations suggest—HCQ might compete with Dr. Fauci’s vaccines including the Moderna vaccine for which his agency co-owns the patent and Dr. Fauci has invested $500 million in taxpayer dollars. Worse yet—for vaccine makers—HCQ’s patents are long expired; pills cost 30 cents. Dr. Fauci insists he will not approve HCQ for COVID until its efficacy is proven in “randomized, double-blind placebo studies.” To date, Dr. Fauci has never advocated such studies for any of the 72 vaccine doses added to the mandatory childhood schedule since he took over NIAID in 1984. Nor is he requiring them for the COVID vaccines currently racing for approval. Why should hydroxychloroquine be the only remedy required to cross this high hurdle? HCQ is less in need of randomized placebo studies than any of these vaccines since its safety is well established after 60 years of use and decades on WHO’s list of “essential medicines.”

Bill Gates, the World Health Organization and Pharma have fueled public suspicions by funding multiple studies of HCQ using protocols transparently calculated to discredit the drug. FDA condemned HCQ for COVID based on two studies in NEJM and Lancet even after the journals retracted them for fraud. Dr. Fauci’s peculiar hostility towards HCQ is consistent with his half-century bias favoring vaccines and patent medicines. Dr. Fauci’s double standards create confusion, mistrust and polarization.


Covid-19 Vaccines: An Alarming Update from Europe



As thinking Americans try to navigate the daily barrage of propaganda surrounding Covid-19 vaccination, it is all too easy to be preoccupied with the domestic situation. However, Americans who care about upholding the internationally established human right to prior, free and informed medical consent—and the right to reject being a guinea pig for medical experimentation—should be deeply concerned about unfolding developments in the European Union (EU), which—let’s not forget—represents the world’s third largest population after China and India.

As summarized in a June 26 press release  by the Belgian watchdog group Initiative Citoyenne (“Citizens’ Initiative”), the European Commission—the EU’s Brussels-headquartered executive branch—“has taken it upon itself to place an urgent order for coronavirus vaccines, without a glimmer of transparency.” According to a report in L’Echo magazine on June 11, the Commission is wrapping up advance purchase contracts with several pharmaceutical companies for Covid-19 vaccines with the aim of “vaccinating the entire European population as rapidly as possible.” The Commission has stated that it plans to obtain 300-600 million doses, “depending on whether one or two doses [of vaccine] per person are needed.” Concurrent press reports refer to the possibility of an EU-wide coronavirus vaccine mandate, quoting Belgium’s Minister of Justice as saying, “If they refuse, we’ll force them.”

To shine a light on the European Commission’s behind-closed-doors deal-making, a lawyer working on behalf of Initiative Citoyenne sent the executive body a letter  on June 24 requesting the disclosure of all public coronavirus/Covid-19 vaccine procurement contracts and related documents—information to which the public is legally entitled. The Commission must respond within 30-60 days. As spelled out in the letter, the requested documents encompass information about the procurement of coronavirus vaccines or vaccination equipment, including syringes; the scientific support documents relied on by the Commission to make its decisions; and the opinions of other administrative bodies consulted prior to preparation of the contracts.

The Initiative Citoyenne press release points out a further element of concern pertaining to the European Commission’s rushed deliberations—namely, that the EU appears poised to give vaccine manufacturers a free regulatory pass by waiving “certain environmental protection laws such as the use of GMOs.” In 2001, the EU placed a de facto moratorium on further approvals of GMO crops, but this has long rankled GMO proponents. Europeans who value the precautionary principle and their region’s restrictions on GMOs in foodstuffs and animal feed need to understand that the genetically engineered, nanoparticle-laden coronavirus vaccine concoctions headed their way are likely to make the GMOs in food seem quaint by comparison. Never has it been more urgent for citizens—whether in Europe, the U.S. or elsewhere—to insist on transparency and hold the governmental bodies making life-and-death decisions to account.


Expressing Concerns to Moderna’s Principal Investigators



Recently, Harold R Gielow, LtCol USMC (Ret) sent an email to the principal investigators in Moderna’s mRNA 1273 phase 3 trial outlining his concerns. He has yet to receive a reply.

“The article “Analysis of Pre-existing IgG and IgM Antibodies against Polyethylene Glycol (PEG) in the General Population” notes that approximately 72% of the US population has preexisting anti-PEG antibodies.  The reference further states, “…sensitive detection and precise quantitation of anti-PEG Ab levels in a clinical setting will be essential to ensuring the safe use of PEGylated drugs in all target patient populations going forward.”

As Moderna’s mRNA1273 candidate vaccine uses a pegylated LNP (lipid nanoparticle) vector , what procedures are included in the trial to mitigate this risk?”

Our country is spending billions to fast track and produce a vaccine that over 70% of the population has preexisting antibodies to – to the vaccine!  This makes no sense.  Additionally, the trial procedures I have read include no steps to mitigate this risk, either to the trial participants or the general public.

BioNTech/Pfizer’s vaccine variants also use a pegylated lipid nanoparticle vector.

… many with PEG hypersensitivity go undiagnosed, thus presenting an unreasonable hazard to administering these vaccines to a population, the vast majority of which is proven by science to have anti-PEG antibodies.

I have a severe anaphylactic response to polyethylene glycol.  It was diagnosed by Johns Hopkins.  I have had multiple ambulance rides and emergency room visits due to inadvertent ingestion/injection with medications containing polyethylene glycol.  It is classified by FDA as biologically inert/inactive.  It is anything but that. The incidences of hypersensitivity reactions to PEG are, understandably, increasing, although many with PEG hypersensitivity go undiagnosed, thus presenting an unreasonable hazard to administering these vaccines to a population, the vast majority of which is proven by science to have anti-PEG antibodies. The cited study used blood samples from 1990-1999.  The study showed a steady and dramatic increase in anti-PEG antibodies over time.

PEG is ubiquitous in our environment.  It is nearly impossible to avoid, more so as our government classifies it as biologically inactive.

I have communicated my concern to my congressman, my senator, FDA, NIH, the White House, a cousin in biomedical research, multiple scientific writers, and countless others.  Perhaps with your background and profile, you can get attention on this issue.  I frankly believe not mitigating this risk in a worldwide pandemic situation is gross negligence, Moderna’s scientists having contributed to scientific studies pointing out these issues with polyethylene glycol.”

FDA Director Peter Marks and the Ever-Shifting COVID Vaccine Narrative



After suckering us into ruinous lockdown awaiting rescue by vaccine, the Pharma grifters are frantically dialing back the expectations they inflated. During an FDA teleconference on July 8, CBER’s Director Peter Marks said FDA is now willing to license COVID vaccines with a dismal 50%–and as low as 30%–efficacy, a humiliating retreat from the Gates/Fauci promise of a vaccine they intend to give to seven billion people in order for society to get back to “normal”. Equally deflating, NIH’s Tony Fauci conceded that vaccine immunity may only last a few months …

… and joined Gates hinting that the vaccine may not even prevent transmission:


Astra Zeneca is making two billion doses of its “Oxford” jab (Gates is heavily invested) despite proof that monkeys vaccinated transmit COVID. Paul Offit told CBS that the jab may not stop transmission and may only weaken not prevent symptoms.

Marks conceded that a vaccine with 50% efficacy will not stop the virus. “We’re going to need a vaccine that’s probably in the order of 70% effective and 70%, at least, of the population is going to need to take it.”

Marks’s justified FDA’s willingness to license jabs with a pathetic 30-50% efficacy citing industry convenience. “Can we show you some calculation of how we got there? No,” he confessed, adding “If you go much lower than 50% then the lower bounds of things start to get to a place where vaccines may have very little efficacy…On the other hand, if we held that number at 70% to 80% … we may not have a vaccine until there’s herd immunity that’s occurred naturally.”

Fear that the wild virus might vanish before a vaccine is ready for human trials has prompted FDA to scrap its traditional ethical revulsion for “challenge trials” in which drug companies deliberately expose humans to wild viruses. FDA has issued new protocols for “controlled human infection models” wherein drug companies intentionally expose vaccinated volunteers to a pathogen. FDA says such trials could be necessary if COVID becomes so rare that “it is no longer possible to demonstrate vaccine effectiveness by way of conducting clinical disease endpoint efficacy studies.” When will the press call fraud on these quacks?



‘TRUTH’ with Robert F. Kennedy, Jr.—Episode 9

In Episode 9 of our weekly “TRUTH” series, Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. and Vaxxed2’s Polly Tommey discussed:

  • The new Australian government’s cancer data showing a troubling rise in cervical cancer among young Australian women;
  • Adverse events associated with the HPV vaccine;
  • The current state of the COVID crisis;
  • Pharma ads in U.S. mainstream media;
  • And much more.

(All episodes can be found on CHD’s social media, and on the CHD Channel found on Peeps TV, a network on Roku. Roku is accessible from any Smart TV and can be purchased separately for older TVs.)

Kennedy vs. Dershowitz Debate

Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. vs Alan Dershowitz: The Great Vaccine Debate!

Read Transcript

Don’t miss this historic debate between Children’s Health Defense Chairman Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. and Harvard Law Professor Alan Dershowitz.

With the current COVID crisis dominating headlines at national and local levels, the topic of vaccines is now front and center. The two attorneys debate a range of issues including vaccine mandates, the PREP Act, the lack of vaccine safety studies, Jacobson vs. Massachusetts, and HHS’s failure to act on provisions of the National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act. Are compulsory vaccines even legal? Should any government be able to force medical procedures on families?

An insightful discussion that no one contemplating vaccine safety should miss.

Gates Pushes Experimental Technology on Seven Billion Humans



Pharma has over 170 COVID vaccines in development, but Gates and Fauci pushed Moderna’s “Frankenstein jab” to the front of the line. Scientists and ethicists are sounding alarms. The vaccine uses a new, untested, and very controversial experimental RNA technology that Gates has backed for over a decade. Instead of injecting an antigen and adjuvant as with traditional vaccines, Moderna plugs a small piece of coronavirus genetic code into human cells, potentially altering DNA throughout the human body and reprogramming our cells to produce antibodies to fight the virus. It’s possible that Moderna’s genetic alterations could be passed down to future generations. In January, The Geneva Statement, the world’s leading ethicists and scientists, called for an end to this kind of experimentation.

Moderna has never bought a product to market, proceeded through clinical trials, or had a vaccine approved by FDA. The company received an astonishing $483 million in federal funds from the Biomedical Advanced Research and Development Authority (BARDA), a sister agency to Fauci’s NIAID, to accelerate development. Dr. Joseph Bolen, Moderna’s former Research and Development Chief, expressed shock at Fauci’s “bet” in supporting the company. “I don’t know what their thinking was,” he told CNN. “When I read that, I was pretty amazed.”

Moderna and Fauci launched federally-funded human trials in March in Seattle. Dr. Peter Hotez warns of potentially fatal consequences from skipping animal studies. As he said to CNN, “If there is immune enhancement in animals, that’s a showstopper.” Dr. Suhab Siddiqi, Moderna’s Ex-Director of Chemistry, told CNN, “I would not let the [vaccine] be injected in my body. I would demand: ‘Where is the toxicity data?’” As precautions, Moderna ordered trial participants to avoid unprotected sex or sperm donations and Gates is promoting that all COVID vaccines be protected by blanket immunity. He hopes to sell his experimental  technology to all seven billion humans and transform our species into GMOs.


An mRNA Vaccine against SARS-CoV-2 Preliminary Report—A Researcher Reacts

To authors of the NEJM article on COVID-19 vaccine: An mRNA Vaccine against SARS-CoV-2 — Preliminary Report

I have several points to raise with you.

Severe reaction was observed in 3 participants following the second dose. This is a textbook case of sensitization by first dose. Elicitation by second dose. An IgE mediated hypersensitivity reaction. This CANNOT be dismissed as just a dose issue and that only lower doses will be used. The reason is, upon real world virus exposure, there is no exposure dose control. These participants may develop life-threatening reactions. This has been documented in previous SARS vaccines. In fact, severe COVID-19 is caused by this same mechanism. Coronavirus-like proteins that contaminate vaccines caused allergic sensitization. Upon exposure to the virus the allergic reaction causes severe COVID-19. That is why histamine blockers such as cetirizine and famotidine help in COVID-19.1,2

At a minimum, the team should have measured specific IgE directed at protein(s) encoded in (and contaminating) the vaccine. They report no such thing. They report specific IgG which is not sufficient. They have to break down specific IgG1,2,3,4 subclass levels. They have to report how the severe reaction was treated.

This whole idea of depending on testing alone for safety, is UNACCEPTABLE.

The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC) says: Design is the dominant influence on product safety. Product safety starts in the mind of the product designers. If all the elements of manufacturing were ranked in order of their potential effect on consumer product safety, the design function would lead the list. Additionally, design importantly affects subsequent decisions and practices related to materials, production, testing, processes, labeling, packaging and distribution.3

Safety engineering dictates that vaccines must be DESIGNED and design FMEA (Failure Modes and Effects Analysis) must be published BEFORE any testing in trials. It is impossible to establish long term safety in a 3 month trial. YOU HAVE TO DESIGN FOR SAFETY, you CANNOT just TEST FOR IT.

Nothing has been learned from the Pandemrix induced narcolepsy disaster. 4, 5

No vaccine should be approved without publishing FMEA and FIXING ALL IDENTIFIED DESIGN ISSUES.

Example of the types of analysis that need to occur before human trials:

ERVEBO Ebola vaccine will create a rice allergy epidemic, add to numerous autoimmune diseases, cancer and make Ebola disease even more severe. Design for safety and vaccine safety regulation remain abject failures. Incompetence or indifference?


Vinu Arumugham,
Independent Researcher


  1. Immunological mechanisms explaining the role of IgE, mast cells, histamine, elevating ferritin, IL-6, D-dimer, VEGF levels in COVID-19 and dengue, potential treatments such as mast cell stabilizers, antihistamines, Vitamin C, hydroxychloroquine, ivermectin and azithromycin
  2. COVID-19: Famotidine, Histamine, Mast Cells, and Mechanisms
  3. Vaccine safety: Learning from the Boeing 737 MAX disasters
  4. Pandemrix and Arepanrix vaccine safety analysis and scrutiny fell short
  5. Pharmacovigilance is no substitute for good vaccine design


Letter to WV Legislators—The Moderna COVID-19 vaccine is likely to make more people sick than COVID-19


On July 14, 2020 the New England Journal of Medicine published the preliminary report of the results from the phase 1 trials of Moderna’s vaccine for COVID-19. Despite an extremely high percentage of Moderate to Severe adverse events after the second dose, the group’s conclusion was that “no trial-limiting safety concerns were identified. These findings support further development of this vaccine.”

The following was written by the West Virginians for Health Freedom group and sent to all West Virginia’s legislators.

Dear Legislator,

  • The results of Moderna’s phase 1 vaccine trial for COVID-19 were published online Tuesday in the NEJM.
  • 80% of healthy subjects (avg age 33 years old) in the 100 mcg and 250 mcg dose groups had moderate to severe adverse events after the 2nd vaccination.


Do You or Your Child Really Need an HPV Vaccine? Experts Explore the Risks

An informational series on Health Information, Data, Questions, Answers, & Risks Regarding the HPV Vaccine

Led by World Renowned OBGYN & Author Dr. Christiane Northrup

A Recording of our FREE WEBINAR from JULY 22, 2020
8:30 p.m. EST, 5:30 p.m. PST


Topics to Discuss

  • What is HPV (Human Papillomavirus)?
  • What are the statistics and odds?
  • Risks vs. Benefits of the Vaccine & the Disease
  • Parental Rights
  • Biggest Vaccine Misconceptions
  • Natural Cures
  • HPV & Cancer: what is the connection
  • Q&A


Christiane Northrup, M.D.

Christiane Northrup, M.D., visionary pioneer in women’s health, is a board-certified OB/GYN with more than thirty years of clinical experience, former assistant clinical professor of OB/GYN at the University of Vermont College of Medicine, and three-time New York Times bestselling author of Women’s Bodies, Women’s Wisdom, The Wisdom of Menopause and Goddesses Never Age. In 2013, Reader’s Digest named Dr. Northrup one of the “100 Most Trusted People in America.” In 2016, she was named one of Oprah Winfrey’s Super Soul 100, a group of leaders who are using their voices and talent to awaken humanity. And in 2020, she was included in the Watkins Spiritual 100, a list of living people that make a unique and spiritual contribution on a global scale.

Internationally known for her empowering approach, Dr. Northrup embraces medicine that acknowledges the unity of mind, body, emotions, and spirit, and teaches women to create health by tuning into their inner wisdom. After decades spent transforming women’s understanding of their sacred bodies and processes, Dr. Northrup now teaches women to thrive at every stage of life.

As a business owner, physician, former surgeon, mother, writer, speaker, and, according to Miriam Ava Ph.D., a “rebel, rock star and authority on what can go right with the female body,” Dr. Northrup acknowledges our individual and collective capacity for growth, freedom, joy, and balance.

Dr. Northrup has also hosted eight highly successful public-television specials, and her work has been featured on The Oprah Winfrey Show, the Today Show, NBC Nightly News, The View, Rachael Ray, Good Morning America, 20/20, and The Dr. Oz Show, among many others.

Don’t miss Dr. Northrup’s cutting-edge information. Join her worldwide community on, Facebook, and Twitter.

Mary Holland, J.D.

Mary Holland is Vice-Chair of Children’s Health Defense. She a former Research Scholar and Director of the Graduate Lawyering Program at NYU School of Law. Mary has written several law review articles and blog posts on vaccine law and policy and is the co-author and co-editor of the books “Vaccine Epidemic” and “HPV Vaccine on Trial: Seeking Justice for a Generation Betrayed.” She has testified to retain or expand vaccination exemptions in the California, West Virginia, Maine and Vermont legislatures. She has appeared in several documentaries and programs on vaccine issues. She is chair of the advisory board of Health Choice and a member of the advisory boards for the Elizabeth Birt Center for Autism Law and Advocacy, the Otto Specht School and Actionplay. Educated at Harvard and Columbia Universities, Holland has worked in international public and private law. Prior to joining NYU, Holland worked for six years at major U.S. law firms, with three years based in Moscow, Russia. She also worked at a U.S. human rights organization as Director of its European Program. After graduating law school, she clerked for a federal district court judge in the Southern District of New York. She has taught courses at Columbia Law School and has served as a consultant to the Aspen Institute Justice and Society Program.

Kim Mack Rosenberg. Esq.

Kim Mack Rosenberg is the co-author of “HPV Vaccine on Trial: Seeking Justice for a Generation Betrayed” and a contributing editor and chapter author of “Vaccine Epidemic.” She is also the author of “The Parent’s Autism Sourcebook.” Kim is litigator in private practice working on healthcare and insurance issues nationwide as well as issues relating to vaccines, including the Robi Gardasil litigation in California, and represents families and providers of individuals with autism to fight for insurance coverage for treatment. She has worked with many nonprofits focusing on autism and/or vaccine safety issues for many years including Children’s Health Defense, Health Choice, the National Autism Association, and the Elizabeth Birt Center for Autism Law and Advocacy. She recently relocated from Manhattan to New Jersey. Kim is the mother of a medically-complex 20-year-old son who is vaccine injured.

‘TRUTH’ With Robert F. Kennedy, Jr.—Episode 8

In Episode 8 of our weekly “TRUTH” series, Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. and Vaxxed2’s Polly Tommey covered a wide range of topics including Dr. Fauci’s failures and dialed-back vaccine promises, toxic vaccine adjuvants, Bill Gates’ GAVI and loss of individual freedom, annual flu death exaggerations and more. (All previous episodes can be found on social media, and on the CHD Channel found on Peeps TV, a network on Roku. Roku is accessible from any Smart TV and can be purchased separately for older TVs.)

‘Anti-vax’ labelling and the mainstream media: Who is coordinating this?



International vaccination policy is being manipulated to develop massive vaccine markets. It’s time to throw a spotlight on conflicts of interest, and identify who is behind the demonising and censoring of people who question vaccination policy.

The mainstream media has been shown to be unreliable, biased, and often conflicted, and is failing to critically analyse and report on international vaccination policy for the global community.

Is the highly conflicted Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation shaping the media’s reporting on vaccination issues? This article published in February 2013 provides some interesting background on the Gates’ historical influence on the media, noting that in 2012, the Foundation gave out $25 million in media grants the previous year, which was less than 1% of the organization’s budget.

In regards to biased media, see for example this article in The Guardian which includes references to Robert F. Kennedy, Jr., Children’s Health Defense, and Stop Mandatory Vaccination. The piece points out to readers that “Anti-vaxxers’ influence and power could affect Americans’ willingness to take a Covid-19 vaccine, experts warn.”   Note that The Guardian receives funding from the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, which is driving “the race” for coronavirus vaccines.

This is yet another propaganda piece attempting to discredit and marginalise people who legitimately question international vaccination policy and the burgeoning number of vaccines being added to international vaccination schedules. People with valid concerns about vaccinations are labelled “anti-vaxxers” and are described as being in the “anti-vaxxer movement” in a manner that seeks to marginalise them in broader society and to alienate them as “untouchables”.

The lobbying of coercive vaccination groups such as Friends of Science in Medicine in Australia, and similar lobbying internationally, must be investigated to understand the big picture.

Who is coordinating this?

It’s been going on for years, starting with the demonising of Andrew Wakefield, (via the Murdoch Sunday Times newspaper and The BMJ), central to the narrative, and has since widened to encompass others. For those who follow such things, it’s obvious this is being orchestrated, but by whom? 

We know The Vaccine Confidence Project headed by Heidi Larson is a key entity in monitoring global dissent on vaccination, and that this organisation has been funded by the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation in the past. But there are others in the network of monitoring dissent including academics such as Julie Leask and Katie Attwell in Australia.

The lobbying of coercive vaccination groups such as SAVN and Friends of Science in Medicine in Australia, and similar lobbying internationally, must be investigated to understand the big picture.

Biased international media is cranking up yet again, with the current coronavirus crisis being used to demonise people questioning vaccination, and information is being twisted and ignored to suit the purposes of vested interests. …

 Reaching a crescendo

We’ve seen the deliberate hindrance of discussion on vaccination going on for years, but it’s reaching a crescendo now, with censorship on social media interfering with citizens’ rights to discuss vaccination. It remains to be seen what will be the outcome of Donald Trump’s Executive Order on Preventing Online Censorship.

Biased international media is cranking up yet again, with the current coronavirus crisis being used to demonise people questioning vaccination, and information is being twisted and ignored to suit the purposes of vested interests, see for example:

See also Tracking the Anti-Vaccination Movement, an article published by the National Press Foundation (US), which reports on “a new digital tool called Project VCTR that can track anti-vax messengers and messages across Twitter, Facebook, popular websites and other platforms”.  And who is behind the official sounding “National Press Foundation”? Have a look at the list of funders which includes vaccine manufacturer GSK and a host of others who may have significant conflicts of interest.

Questionable agendas/questionable vaccines

Citizens questioning vaccination policy must be heard, and governments, vaccine manufacturers, and academics with conflicts of interest, must be stopped from executing Bill Gates mission to take away the fundamental human right of informed consent.

The ante has been upped considerably with the arrival of COVID-19, and Bill Gates’ insistence that a coronavirus vaccine be made “available to almost every person on the planet”. In the space of a few months, we’ve seen another disease pop up as a global threat as the result of SARS-CoV-2, a virus of still undetermined origin.

There are many unknowns about SARS-CoV-2/COVID-19, and yet it’s reported that over a hundred groups are involved in the “race for the vaccine” with highly questionable vaccine trials underway. Even with all of these unknowns, already there are calls for mandatory vaccines when they become available. It’s shocking to see how this is being fast-tracked, without any real consideration of data from the current crisis. In this regard, see Dr. Malcolm Kendrick’s blog post: COVID deaths – how accurate are the statistics?

[Bill] Gates is an unelected individual who is wielding his enormous wealth and political influence to impose his will on the global community.

The Gates factor

The driver of the current race for coronavirus vaccine products is Bill Gates, who has been manipulating international vaccination policy for years. His Foundation is now the top financial donor to the World Health Organisation after the recent withdrawal of the US by President Donald Trump.

Gates is an unelected individual who is wielding his enormous wealth and political influence to impose his will on the global community. See for example Bill and Melinda Gates personal phone call with Boris Johnson, Bill Gates Seeks EU Help on Vaccine AidEU-led telethon raises 7.4 billion for vaccine financing – without US, and Australia pledges $350 million to EU coronavirus vaccine research fund.

James Corbett’s recent series of documentaries on Gates provides valuable history and analysis: Meet Bill GatesBill Gates’ Plan to Vaccinate the WorldHow Bill Gates Monopolized Global Health and Bill Gates and the Population Control Grid. Corbett’s documentaries also include references to Gates buying the media including The Guardian, NPR and the BBC.

There must be an investigation into how international vaccination policy is being manipulated to develop massive vaccine markets. We must throw the spotlight on conflicts of interest and those who are behind the demonising and censoring of people who question vaccination policy.

The mainstream media has been corrupted and is failing the global community; it’s worse than useless. It’s time for citizens around the world to forge a new way ahead if we are to retain our basic human rights.



Gates and Fauci Back Down on Vaccine Promises



Bill Gates and the World Health Organization (see video) say they have confidence in the two leading COVID vaccines: the AstraZeneca (Oxford) vaccine and Moderna’s. Gates is invested in both. Their endorsement of these two lemons should worry anyone hoping that Operation Warp Speed, its billionaire patron and global regulators are capable of yielding a safe or effective shot.


Since February, Gates, Fauci, and WHO have been promising a jab that will induce immunity in 7 billion people, prevent transmission, and impose minimal side effects (see video.) Their current race to lower expectations cannot keep pace with the poor performances of their troubled products. Gates is now hinting that the vaccine may not prevent transmission. Fauci will now settle for 70% immunity (see video.)


Despite animal trials proving the Oxford vaccine ineffective against COVID-19, Astra-Zeneca nevertheless launched human trials. While vaccine developers have never dared to conduct testing against a true inert placebo as such tests would likely reveal safety problems, lead Oxford developer Andrew Pollard will now give trial participants a notoriously reactogenic meningitis vaccine  as a “control”– a common ploy to mask injuries from experimental vaccines. Among the 50 listed side effects from meningitis vaccines are: Guillain-Barré; convulsions; Kawasaki’s Disease; acute disseminated encephalomyelitis; appendicitis; pneumonia; staphylococcal infection; vitello-intestinal duct remnant; Cushing’s syndrome; viral hepatitis; seizure; palsy; suicidal depression; sepsis and death.

Moderna passed over animal trials altogether, and then saw 20% of the high-dose group and 6% of low-dose group experience serious adverse events in its Phase 1 human trial. Following these dismal results, Moderna CEO Steve Bancel and four other executives in the company dumped more than $89 million in stock.

Both pathetic vaccines share a sole hope: They are both too big to fail. The Oxford jab got £111 million from the British government, and is already manufacturing billions of doses. Moderna got $500 million from Fauci and has 2 billion doses in production.  Poor us!



Forget Cecil Rhodes, We’ve Got Bill Gates: Oxford University is Exploiting Africans and Africa Now!



The Black Lives Matter protests which followed the killing of George Floyd in the United States spilt over the Atlantic and sent shock waves through British society as well. One of the most prominent targets of discontent has been the statue of the late 19th century diamond mining magnate, Cecil Rhodes, which stands above the entrance to Oriel College in Oxford, which the college has voted to remove. But, manifestly, what the university is actively doing now in Africa poses more serious questions than Rhodes’s largesse to the university in a much earlier time.

In the past days reports have been appearing about protests across Africa over vaccine trials. Seth Berkley, the director of the vaccine industry cartel organization GAVI is quoted as saying that anti-vaccine sentiment is “the worst” he has “ever seen”. If so, discontent has been boiling up for a long time and may be now finding a focus round the trials of the Oxford Vaccine Group/Jenner Institute/Astra Zeneca coronavirus vaccine. The Oxford based Jenner Institute also receives funding from the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation.

We believe they are manipulating the vulnerable.

The organizer of a demonstration at the University of Witwatersrand, Phapano Phasha, told Associated Press:

“The people chosen as volunteers for the vaccination, they look as if they’re from poor backgrounds, not qualified enough to understand…We believe they are manipulating the vulnerable.”

Oxford University are said to have recruited 2000 volunteers for trials in South Africa which have gone ahead despite a complaint by the African Centre for Biodiversity (further trials to be held in Kenya, Brazil and the United States). ACB categorize five areas of inadequacy in the Oxford application to conduct trials:

  • Non-disclosure of vital safety data and information, which have been redacted as ‘confidential business information’;
  • Lack of literature references throughout to substantiate health and ecosystem safety claims, making it difficult to evaluate some of the claims being made as to safety;
  • Lack of evidence of efficacy of the trials;
  • Lack of information on the test procedures being used;
  • Concerns regarding the safety claims made.

The authors Dr  Eva Sirinathsinghji and Dr Maryam Mayet (executive director of the centre) note that key information has been redacted in the application as “confidential business information” making it impossible for the public to assess risk, although important information has been disclosed in other places, for instance in the BioRxiv pre-print: van Doremalen et al ‘ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 vaccination prevents SARS-CoV-2 pneumonia in rhesus macaques’ which was not disclosed in the application i.e. in animal testing the Oxford vaccine may have helped prevent pneumonia but did not stop the monkeys from catching the virus or reduce transmission.

Sirinathsinghji and Mayet note about the trial design:

“Unfortunately, there appears to be a lack of protocols to address the potential shedding of infectious virus, and protocols to distinguish between infectious and non-infectious virus RNA. Patients will only be tested for the virus upon showing two or more symptoms.”

Does this mean that we will not know if they are contagious or not?

… the immunized animals were not protected from the viral challenge, instead they experienced adverse effects like enhanced hepatitis, increased morbidity, and stronger inflammatory responses.

Further, the most critical first line of defence against SARS-CoV-2 infection is the local immunity on the respiratory tract mucous membranes. This fact is not reflected in this application, nor the article published on the monkey experiments. With regards to safety concerns, there also appears to be no methods included in the trial to assess the threat of Antibody Dependent Enhancement (ADE). It is therefore surprising that methods to assess whether this appears in trial participants are not included in the application.

Finally, the vaccine virus expresses the full-length S protein. It would be interesting to hear the applicant’s reaction to the statement by Yong et al:

“Vaccine candidates against SARS-CoV were initially developed based on the full length S protein. However, these vaccines were later demonstrated to induce nonneutralizing antibodies which did not prevent infection, and the immunized animals were not protected from the viral challenge, instead they experienced adverse effects like enhanced hepatitis, increased morbidity, and stronger inflammatory responses.” (Yong et al. Frontiers in Microbiology, August 2019, volume 10, article 1781)

Regarding safety Sirinathsinghji and Mayet critique the claim that the viral vector cannot replicate because the “essential E1 gene region – which is essential for viral replication – has been deleted”, pointing out that this could still cause problems in cases of cross infection. And they also note an absence of healthcare provision for those taking part in the trial after it is over, including the especially vulnerable HIV group.

Earlier this year the World Health Organization was censured by Peter Doshi in British Medical Journal for a failure to meet standards of informed consent for the Mosquirix vaccine trial underway in Malawi, Ghana and Kenya, in which the risk of contracting meningitis was 10 times as high in the vaccinated, and the risk of death for girls doubled. Here too the Oxford Jenner Institute and the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation were also involved. If human experimenters and health officials are not trusted perhaps they should look to themselves before they look to their critics.

Australian Data: Cancer Epidemic in Gardasil Girls



The verdict is now inescapable: Gardasil is killing girls.

The Australian government’s cancer data show the dramatic rise in cervical cancer in young girls vaccinated with Gardasil. Merck markets Gardasil as a prophylactic against cervical cancers despite the company’s own pre-licensing studies that showed a 44.6% INCREASE in cervical cancers among girls exposed to HPV virus prior to vaccination (up to 30% may be exposed in the birth canal).

Government numbers show a 16% cancer increase in 25-year-olds, a 28% increase in 30-year-olds, several years post vaccination.

The obsequious global press have widely quoted and credited the claims of the Gardasil vaccine’s inventor, Ian Fraser (who collects millions in Gardasil royalty payments), that Gardasil is poised to abolish cervical cancer in Australia. The official data put the lie to Fraser’s chicanery. Since 2007, all girls and women up to age 26 have been offered the HPV vaccine in Australia. Government numbers show a 16% cancer increase in 25-year-olds, a 28% increase in 30-year-olds, several years post vaccination. The 30-year-old’s rate increased from 5.4/100k to 6.9/100k. The 25- year-old’s rate rose ‪from 3.2 to 3.7 per 100k.

Meanwhile, deaths in older women (unvaccinated) are decreasing possibly due to successful early Pap screening. This points to the vaccine as the clear culprit in vaccinated women—either from 1) vaccine failure, 2) reduced Pap screening (likely due in some cases to confidence in the HPV vaccine), 3) type replacement (the 9 HPV strains targeted by the vaccine are replaced by more virulent strains) or from 4) pathogenic priming. Fraser also dismisses the stories of tens of thousands of girls globally who blame Gardasil for their catastrophic autoimmune diseases. “Those girls would have gotten those autoimmune diseases in any case,” Fraser told me last month. “They have nothing to do with the vaccine.”


RFK, Jr. talks with Dr. Andy Wakefield about his new movie, 1986: The Act.

For thousands of parents with vaccine-injured children, the 1986 National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act (NCVIA) conjures up sadness, betrayal of trust, disappointment and anger. But what does the rest of the public think? Most people don’t even realize the NCVIA exists! They are still under the rosy misconception that vaccines are safe and effective and that our legislators and public health officials would never do anything that would knowingly hurt America’s children.  We need to educate them. That is where 1986: The Act comes in.

Viewers will learn how “The Act” turned fairness and the US court system on its head. Touted at the time as a helpful, non-adversarial alternative to long, protracted court battles, it actually turned into anything but; where the vaccine-injured linger without help, parents rack up medical bills and wait years for monetary relief which seldom comes, and government lawyers take home fat paychecks for their efforts against families.  This corrupt system ensures that consumers pay the tab and vaccine manufacturers laugh all the way to the bank.

The film is available to stream on demand.

Measles Vaccination and Autism: The Inexcusable Suppression of a Long-Documented Link



Before a humble coronavirus became the planet’s viral scapegoat, the virus most often used to promote fear—and vaccination—has been measles. In fact, measles has provided public health officials with recurrent opportunities to fine-tune the CDC’s strategic “recipe” for fostering high vaccine demand: stir up “concern, anxiety, and worry” about disease; promote vaccination frequently and visibly; and craft dumbed-down messages that, above all, avoid troublesome “nuance.”

In this regard, parental reports linking autism spectrum disorder (ASD) to measles-mumps-rubella (MMR) vaccination have long been a thorn in officialdom’s side, giving rise to the aggressive and unnuanced media mantra that the MMR “does not cause autism.” Through constant repetition, many members of the public continue to swallow this official dogma, but the reality is that biological evidence on the ground has—from the beginning—told a very different story. The Institute of Medicine (IOM) even admitted as much in 2001 when it stated that it could neither disprove “proposed biological models linking MMR vaccine to ASD” nor dismiss the “possibility that MMR vaccine could contribute to ASD in a small number of children.”

Among the biological models developed to explain autism, one particularly fruitful area of research has focused on ASD and immune dysregulation. Researchers have pointed to “autoantibodies”—immune proteins that react with the body’s own cells, tissues or organs instead of fighting external pathogens—as key indicators of an immune system that has lost its ability to differentiate between “self” and “non-self.” Autoantibodies are the hallmark of autoimmune disease and, in autism, they tend to react with proteins expressed in the brain. In a surprisingly candid systematic review of the autoantibody literature just published in Research in Autism Spectrum Disorders, authors from Harvard and other American universities cite long-standing evidence that viral vaccines—and explicitly the MMR—are one of the culprits capable of knocking the immune system off its game.

… brain autoantibodies are something that those with ASD have in common with individuals suffering from autoimmune diseases such as lupus, multiple sclerosis and rheumatoid arthritis.

Brain autoantibodies and autoimmunity

There are numerous proteins important for a healthy brain. As the 2020 review article in Research in Autism Spectrum Disorders points out, children with ASD manifest autoantibodies to a wide spectrum of brain proteins. For example, researchers have identified autoantibodies in autistic individuals that are reactive to:

As this list shows, brain autoantibodies are something that those with ASD have in common with individuals suffering from autoimmune diseases such as lupus, multiple sclerosis and rheumatoid arthritis. In fact, not only is there a large body of evidence suggesting that ASD has an autoimmune component, but autoimmune illnesses have exploded over roughly the same time frame as autism.

… evidence of an ‘inappropriate antibody response’ to the measles component of the MMR in autistic children and a ‘strong association’ between the MMR and central nervous system autoimmunity.

Brain autoantibodies and the MMR

One of the benefits of systematic reviews is that they allow researchers to examine newer studies alongside older studies that have been sidelined or memory-holed. One of the studies included in the review, a 1998 study out of the University of Michigan, also reminds us just how long it has been since researchers began hypothesizing that virus-induced autoimmunity—and notably autoimmunity induced through MMR vaccination—might be a cause of ASD.

In the Michigan study (the first-ever to link “virus serology and brain autoantibody in autism”), the researchers measured exposure, via antibodies, to measles virus and human herpesvirus-6 in 48 autistic children and 34 controls, and simultaneously assessed levels of two key brain autoantibodies. What they found—unusually high levels of autoantibodies in the autistic children suggestive of an autoimmune response—particularly held true in association with measles virus, and “the higher the virus antibody titer the greater the chance of brain autoantibody.” Addressing the question of how exposure to measles virus occurred in the first place, the authors remarked, “virtually all subjects in the study had their MMR immunizations and none had any history of wild-type measles virus infection.”

The 2020 review also cites several subsequent studies by some of the same authors—studies that produced similar findings. For example:

  • A 2002 study presented evidence for an “inappropriate antibody response” to the measles component of the MMR in autistic children and a “strong association” between the MMR and central nervous system autoimmunity.
  • A 2003 study reported a “hyperimmune response to measles virus” in four out of five autistic children, “which in the absence of a wild type of measles infection might be a sign of an abnormal immune reaction to the vaccine strain or virus reactivation.”
  • A 2009 study presented findings showing MBP autoantibodies and elevated levels of measles antibodies (measles virus and MMR vaccine) in many autistic children.

Although the authors of the 2020 review are cautious overall, they outline some important clinical implications in their conclusions. While deeming the evidence “currently insufficient” to recommend routine autoantibody testing, they nevertheless state:

Although there is currently no evidence between vaccine administration and ASD in general, if the ASD disease onset or progression is temporally correlated with episodes of viral infection or MMR vaccine administration, one may opt to assay for measles antibodies and anti-MMR antibodies.

Never mind the evidence—more denial and lies

The fact is that there is ample evidence of a link, not just between the MMR and autism, but between vaccines, autism and autoimmunity more broadly. With their uniquely immune-altering configuration of antigens, adjuvants and preservatives (including aluminum and mercury), it is astonishing that vaccines are still so under-recognized as a trigger.

Unfortunately, public health officials continue to find it more convenient to ignore longstanding scientific evidence. In April 2019, when New York City’s health commissioner ordered Brooklyn residents to get the MMR, she claimed, with a straight face, that vaccines generally—and measles vaccines, in particular—result in “relatively few, if any, serious adverse effects.” Likewise, Dr. Anthony Fauci has repeatedly misrepresented vaccine risks, telling Americans in 2009 that serious adverse events from the disastrous H1N1 influenza vaccine were “very, very, very rare” and lying under oath to Congress in 2019 (before being corrected by a junior colleague) about the grave adverse event of encephalitis, which is listed in the MMR vaccine package insert. If these authority figures are the sources that the American people are relying on for accurate risk information about future coronavirus vaccines, we should be very worried.



New Docs: NIH Owns Half of Moderna Vaccine



New documents obtained by Axios and Public Citizen suggest that the National Institute of Health (NIH) owns half the key patent for Moderna’s controversial COVID vaccine and could collect half the royalties. In addition, four NIH scientists have filed their own provisional patent application as co-inventors. Little known NIH regulations let agency scientists collect up to $150,000.00 annually in royalties from vaccines upon which they worked. These rules are recipes for regulatory corruption.

NIH’s stake in the jab may explain why Anthony Fauci moved Moderna’s vaccine to the front of the line and to let Moderna skip animal trials despite the experimental technology and the inherent dangers of Coronavirus vaccines. Every prior coronavirus vaccine has proven problematic and can be lethal to animals due to COVID’s unique penchant for “pathogenic priming.” Death occurs only after a vaccinated animal encounters the wild virus.

Public health advocates and scientists criticized Fauci’s decision to skip animal trials as reckless. It may also explain why Anthony Fauci arranged a $483 million grant to Moderna from a sister NIH agency, BARDA, despite the fact that Moderna has never brought a product to market or gotten approval.

… Fauci publicly announced he was ‘encouraged’ by Moderna’s catastrophic Phase 1 clinical trials despite the fact that groups of super healthy volunteers had Grade 3 ‘severe or medically significant’ reactions following vaccination.

Fauci’s infusion made Moderna CEO Steve Bancel a billionaire and further enriched Fauci’s mentor and co-investor Bill Gates. It may also explain why Fauci publicly announced he was “encouraged” by Moderna’s catastrophic Phase 1 clinical trials despite the fact that 20% of the high dose and 6% of the low dose groups of super healthy volunteers had Grade 3 “severe or medically significant” reactions following vaccination. Those results would have spelled DOA for any other medical product. After getting the abysmal news, Bancel and four other Moderna executives immediately dumped more than $89 million in stock and Fauci was forced to make his optimistic public assessment to save Moderna’s plummeting shares from death spiral.

Fauci knows from experience that no matter how dangerous a vaccine, the easy part is convincing people to take it. Pharma, after all, controls the media.

Fauci painted lipstick on that lame donkey and now he’s trying to convince everyone it’s a thoroughbred. Moderna and NIH began manufacturing the first of 1 billion doses of the deadly vaccine this month. Fauci knows from experience that no matter how dangerous a vaccine, the easy part is convincing people to take it. Pharma, after all, controls the media.


1986: The Act

It was four years in the making, but the time has come for Andy Wakefield to announce the release of his next film, “1986: The Act“, streaming online July 8, 2020.

Man and microbe, from Polio to COVID19… a never more relevant forensic examination of the 1986 National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act and its consequences. What happens when an ancient wisdom – a mother’s intuition – is pitted against powerful interests in a race against time? More information. Watch the trailer:


Italy: Sold to Big Pharma

A letter to Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. by Dr. Antonietta M. Gatti

Dear Robert,

I don’t know if you are completely aware of the Italian situation. Summarizing everything in a few words, Italy was sold to Big Pharma and has become a huge laboratory where experiments are carried out on the population: adults, children, old, healthy, sick people … it makes no difference, we are all guinea pigs. Now the business, and not just an economic one, is to force 60 million Italians to get vaccinated against COVID, so much so that tens of millions of doses of a product have already been purchased, a product that, in fact, is unknown both in terms of effectiveness and, above all, in terms of side effects. In the meantime, while waiting to receive the goods, a law is being passed according to which everyone, including children, must be vaccinated against the flu (why?), and this in addition to the 10 vaccines that are already mandatory.

As if that were not enough, many personal freedoms, although guaranteed by the Constitution, have been brutally canceled.

As you know, for years we have been analyzing vaccines, finding them always dangerously polluted and we are contacted daily by families of children damaged by vaccines.

Now, in our parliament there is no longer any difference between majority and opposition and, if the situation remains that of today, we will have no escape.

For some months, a group of highly educated people has formed a political party called MOVIMENTO 3 V (Movement We Want the Truth about Vaccines). Neither Stefano nor I are members of the party but we have been asked to help them from a scientific point of view, and this is what we are doing.

We would all be very grateful if you could inform your people of what is happening in Italy and if you could write an appeal to encourage the Italians to support the party which, at the present time, is the only possibility of making a voice heard that is different from that of the regime.

Thank you very much and best regards,


P.S. During the lockdown we had no “sudden infant death Syndromes”. After the lockdown, baby vaccination started again  and we had a dead baby in Turin and another child in two twins died and the girl survived but she is an emergency therapy.


Dr. Antonietta  M. Gatti

International Fellow USBE

Visiting Professor to  Int.  Clean Water Institute (Washington, USA),

President of Health, Law and Science Association

Past-Consultant to the Governmental Commission on the depleted Uranium (XVI legislatura)

The Injection Fraud – It’s Not a Vaccine



I am not a scientist. I am not a doctor. I am not a biotech engineer. I am not an attorney. However, I read, listen, appreciate, and try to understand those who are.

I was an investment banker until politics made it impossible to continue to practice my art. I was trained as a portfolio strategist—so I map my world by watching the financial flows and allocation of resources. I was also trained as a conspiracy generator and foot soldier—conspiracies being the fundamental organizing principle of how things get done in our world. It was not until I left the establishment that I learned that those not in the club had been trained to disparage and avoid conspiracies—a clever trick that sabotages their efforts to gather power.

My response to living at war with agencies of the U.S. government for a time was to answer the questions of people who were sufficiently courageous and curious to solicit my opinion. Over many years, that response transformed into two businesses. One was The Solari Report, which continues to grow as a global intelligence network—we seek to help each other understand and navigate what is happening and contribute to positive outcomes. The other was serving as an investment advisor to individuals and families through Solari Investment Advisory Services. After ten years, I converted that business to doing an ESG screen. What those who use it want—that is not otherwise readily available in the retail market—is a screen that reflects knowledge of financial and political corruption. Tracking the metastasizing corruption is an art, not a science.

Many of my clients and their children had been devastated and drained by health care failures and corruption—and the most common catalyst for this devastation was vaccine death and injury.

When you help a family with their finances, it is imperative to understand all their risk issues. Their financial success depends on successful mitigation of all the risks—whether financial or non-financial—that they encounter in their daily lives. Non-financial risks can have a major impact on the allocation of family resources, including attention, time, assets, and money.

Many of my clients and their children had been devastated and drained by health care failures and corruption—and the most common catalyst for this devastation was vaccine death and injury. After their lengthy and horrendous experiences with the health care establishment, they would invariably ask, “If the corruption is this bad in medicine, food, and health, what is going on in the financial world?” Chilled by the thought, they would search out a financial professional who was schooled in U.S. government and financial corruption. And they would find me.

The result of this flow of bright, educated people blessed with the resources to pay for my time was that, for ten years, I got quite an education about the disabilities and death inflicted on our children by what I now call “the great poisoning.” I had the opportunity to repeatedly price out the human damage to all concerned—not just the affected children but their parents, siblings, and future generations—mapping the financial costs of vaccine injury again and again and again. These cases were not as unusual as you might expect. Studies indicate that 54% of American children have one or more chronic diseases. Doctors who I trust tell me that number is actually much higher, as many children and their families cannot afford the care and testing necessary to properly diagnose what ails them.

One of the mothers featured in VAXXED—a must-watch documentary for any awake citizen, as is its sequel VAXXED II: The People’s Truth—estimated that a heavily autistic child would cost present value $5MM to raise and care for over a lifetime. When my clients who were grandparents insisted that they would not interfere with their children’s vaccine choices because it was “none of their business,” I would say, “Really? Who has the $5MM? You or your kids? When your kids need the $5MM to raise their vaccine-injured child, are you going to refuse them? You are the banker, and it is your money that is at risk here, so it is your business. Do you want to spend that $5MM on growing a strong family through the generations or on managing a disabled child who did not have to be disabled?” Often, that $5MM in expenditures also translates into divorce, depression, and lost opportunities for siblings.

My clients helped me find the best resources—books, documentaries, articles—on vaccines. You will find many of them linked or reviewed at The Solari Report, including in our Library.

Why . . .

Of all the questions that I had, the one that I spent the most time researching and thinking about was why. Why was the medical establishment intentionally poisoning generations of children? Many of the writers who researched and wrote about vaccine injury and death assumed it was an aberration—resulting from the orthodoxy of a medical establishment that could not face or deal with its mistakes and liabilities. That never made sense to me. Writings by Forrest Maready, Jon Rappoport, Dr. Suzanne Humphries and Arthur Firstenberg have helped me understand the role of vaccines in the con man trick of saving money for insurance companies and the legally liable.

Here is one example of how the trick may play out. A toxin creates a disease. The toxin might be pesticides or industrial pollution or wireless technology radiation. The toxin damages millions of people and their communities. Companies or their insurance provider may be liable for civil or criminal violations. Then a virus is blamed. A “cure” is found in a “vaccine.” The pesticide or other toxic exposure is halted just as the vaccine is introduced, and presto, the sickness goes away. The vaccine is declared a success, and the inventor is declared a hero. A potential financial catastrophe has been converted to a profit, including for investors and pension funds. As a portfolio strategist, I admit it has been a brilliant trick and likely has protected the insurance industry from the bankrupting losses it would experience if it had to fairly compensate the people and families destroyed.

Thanks to the work of Robert Kennedy and Mary Holland of Children’s Health Defense, I now understand the enormous profits generated by so-called “vaccines” subsequent to the passage of the National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act of 1986 and the creation of the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program—a federal no-fault mechanism for compensating vaccine-related injuries or deaths by establishing a claim procedure involving the United States Court of Federal Claims and special masters. Call a drug or biotech cocktail a “vaccine,” and pharmaceutical and biotech companies are free from any liabilities—the taxpayer pays. Unfortunately, this system has become an open invitation to make billions from “injectibles,” particularly where government regulations and laws can be used to create a guaranteed market through mandates. As government agencies and legislators as well as the corporate media have developed various schemes to participate in the billions of profits, significant conflicts of interest have resulted.

The Public Readiness and Emergency Preparedness Act (PREPA or the PREP Act) became law in 2005, adding to corporate freedoms from liability. The Act “is a controversial tort liability shield intended to protect vaccine manufacturers from financial risk in the event of a declared public health emergency. The act specifically affords to drug makers immunity from potential financial liability for clinical trials of . . . vaccine at the discretion of the Executive branch of government. PREPA strengthens and consolidates the oversight of litigation against pharmaceutical companies under the purview of the secretary of Health and Human Services.” (~ Wikipedia)

The engineering of epidemics

Over time, this has evolved to the engineering of epidemics—the medical version of false flags. In theory, these can be “psyops” or events engineered with chemical warfare, biowarfare, or wireless technology. If this sounds strange, dive into all the writings of the “Targeted Individuals.”

I learned about this first-hand when I was litigating with the Department of Justice and was experiencing significant physical harassment. I tried to hire several security firms; they would check my references and then decline the work, saying it was too dangerous. The last one took pity and warned me not to worry about electronic weaponry, letting me know that my main problem would be low-grade biowarfare. This biowarfare expert predicted that the opposing team would drill holes in the wall of my house and inject the “invisible enemy.” Sure enough, that is exactly what happened. I sold my house and left town. That journey began a long process of learning how poisoning and nonlethal weapons are used—whether to move people out of rent-controlled apartments, sicken the elderly to move them to more expensive government-subsidized housing, gangstalk political or business targets, or weaken or kill litigants—and the list goes on. Poisoning turned out to be a much more common tactic in the game of political and economic warfare in America than I had previously understood.

Americans increasingly looked like a people struggling with high loads of heavy metals toxicity.

After I finished my litigation, I spent several years detoxing from heavy metal toxicity—including from lead, arsenic, and aluminum. As I drove around America, I realized it was not just me. Americans increasingly looked like a people struggling with high loads of heavy metals toxicity. In the process of significantly decreasing my unusually high levels of heavy metals, I learned what a difference the toxic load had made to my outlook, my energy, and my ability to handle complex information.

This brings me to the question of what exactly a vaccine is and what exactly is in the concoctions being injected into people today as well as the witches’ brews currently under development.

Aborted fetal tissue, animal tissue, aluminum, mercury, genetically altered materials—and what else?

What, exactly, is a vaccine?

In 2017, Italian researchers reviewed the ingredients of 44 types of so-called “vaccines.” They discovered heavy metal debris and biological contamination in every human vaccine they tested. The researchers stated, “The quantity of foreign bodies detected and, in some cases, their unusual chemical compositions baffled us.” They then drew the obvious conclusion, namely, that because the micro- and nanocontaminants were “neither biocompatible nor biodegradable,” they were “biopersistent” and could cause inflammatory effects right away—or later.

Aborted fetal tissue, animal tissue, aluminum, mercury, genetically altered materials—and what else?

Whatever the ingredients of vaccines have been to date, nothing is more bizarre and unsettling than the proposals of what might be included in them in the future. Strategies—already well-funded and well on the way—include brain-machine interface nanotechnology, digital identity tracking devices, and technology with an expiration date that can be managed and turned off remotely. One report indicates that the Danish government and U.S. Navy had been paying a tech company in Denmark to make an injectible chip that would be compatible with one of the leading cryptocurrencies.

I was recently reading Mary Holland’s excellent 2012 review of U.S. vaccine court decisions (“Compulsory vaccination, the Constitution, and the hepatitis B mandate for infants and young children,” Yale Journal of Health Policy, Law, and Ethics) and I froze and thought, “Why are we calling the injectibles that Bill Gates and his colleagues are promoting ‘vaccines’? Are they really vaccines?”

Surveillance capitalism is underway

Most people are familiar with how Bill Gates made and kept his fortune. He acquired an operating system that was loaded into your computer. It was widely rumored that the U.S. intelligence agencies had a back door. The simultaneous and sudden explosion of computer viruses then made it necessary to regularly update your operating system, allowing Gates and his associates to regularly add whatever they wanted into your software. One of my more knowledgeable software developers once said to me in the 1990s—when Microsoft really took off—”Microsoft makes really sh***y software.” But of course, the software was not really their business. Their business was accessing and aggregating all of your data. Surveillance capitalism was underway.

The Department of Justice launched an antitrust case against Microsoft in 1998, just as the $21 trillion started to disappear from the U.S. government—no doubt with the help of specially designed software and IT systems. During the settlement negotiations that permitted Gates to keep his fortune, he started the Gates Foundation and his new philanthropy career. I laughed the other day when my tweet of one of Robert Kennedy Jr.’s articles from Children’s Health Defense—describing the gruesome technology Gates is hoping to roll out through “injectibles”—inspired a response: “Well, I guess he is finally fulfilling his side of his antitrust settlement.”

If you look at what is being created and proposed in the way of injectibles, it looks to me like these technological developments are organized around several potential goals.

The first and most important goal is the replacement of the existing U.S. dollar currency system used by the general population with a digital transaction system that can be combined with digital identification and tracking. The goal is to end currencies as we know them and replace them with an embedded credit card system that can be integrated with various forms of control, potentially including mind control. “De-dollarization” is threatening the dollar global reserve system. The M1 and M2 money supply have increased in the double digits over the last year as a result of a new round of quantitative easing by the Fed. The reason we have not entered into hyperinflation is because of the dramatic drop in money velocity occasioned by converting Covid-19 into an engineered shutdown of significant economic activity and the bankrupting of millions of small and medium-sized businesses. The managers of the dollar system are under urgent pressure to use new technology to centralize economic flows and preserve their control of the financial system.

Just as Gates installed an operating system in our computers, now the vision is to install an operating system in our bodies and use “viruses” to mandate an initial installation followed by regular updates.

A colleague once told me how Webster’s Dictionary came about. Webster said that the way the evildoers would change the Constitution was not by amending it but by changing the definitions.

A legal sneak attack

Now I appreciate why Gates and his colleagues want to call these technologies “vaccines.” If they can persuade the body politic that injectible credit cards or injectible surveillance trackers or injectable brain-machine interface nanotechnologies are “vaccines,” then they can enjoy the protection of a century or more of legal decisions and laws that support their efforts to mandate what they want to do. As well, they can insist that U.S. taxpayers fund, through the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program, the damages for which they would otherwise be liable as a result of their experiments—and violations of the Nuremberg Code and numerous civil and criminal laws—on the general population. The scheme is quite clever. Get the general population to go along with defining their new injectible high-tech concoctions as “vaccines,” and they can slip them right into the vaccine pipeline. No need to worry about the disease and death that will result from something this unnatural delivered this quickly. The freedom from liability guaranteed by the PREP Act through the declaration of an emergency—and the ability to keep the emergency going through contact tracing—can protect them from liability for thousands if not millions of deaths and disabilities likely to follow such human experimentation. Ideally, they can just blame the deaths on a virus.

A colleague once told me how Webster’s Dictionary came about. Webster said that the way the evildoers would change the Constitution was not by amending it but by changing the definitions—a legal sneak attack.

I believe that Gates and the pharma and biotech industries are literally reaching to create a global control grid by installing digital interface components and hooking us up to Microsoft’s new $10 billion JEDI cloud at the Department of Defense as well as Amazon’s multibillion cloud contract for the CIA that is shared with all U.S. intelligence agencies. Why do you think President Trump has the military organizing to stockpile syringes for vaccines? It is likely because the military is installing the roaming operating system for integration into their cloud. Remember—the winner in the AI superpower race is the AI system with access to the most data. Accessing your body and my body on a 24/7 basis generates a lot of data. If the Chinese do it, the Americans will want to do it, too. In fact, the rollout of human “operating systems” may be one of the reasons why the competition around Huawei and 5G telecommunications has become so fractious. As Frank Clegg, former President of Microsoft Canada has warned us, 5G was developed by the Israelis for crowd control.

In the face of global “de-dollarization,” this is how the dollar syndicate can assert the central control it needs to maintain and extend its global reserve currency financial power. This includes protecting its leadership from the civil and criminal liability related to explosive levels of financial and health care fraud in recent decades.

We need to stop allowing these concoctions to be referred to by a word that the courts and the general population define and treat as medicine and protect from legal and financial liability.

Which brings me back to you and me. Why are we calling these formulations “vaccines”? If I understand the history of case law, vaccines, in legal terms, are medicine. Intentional heavy metal poisoning is not medicine. Injectible surveillance components are not medicine. Injectible credit cards are not medicine. An injectible brain-machine interface is not a medicine. Legal and financial immunity for insurance companies does not create human immunity from disease.

We need to stop allowing these concoctions to be referred to by a word that the courts and the general population define and treat as medicine and protect from legal and financial liability.

The perpetrators of this fraud are trying a very neat trick—one that will help them go much faster and cancel out a lot of risk—at our expense. I understand why they are doing it.

What I don’t understand is why we are helping them. Why are we acquiescing in calling these bizarre and deeply dangerous concoctions “vaccines”? Whatever they are, they are not medicine.

So, what shall our naming convention be? What name shall we give to the relevant poisons, neurologically damaging metals, and digital shackles?



Solari Report Interviews:
Central Bank Stimulus: Quantitative Easing 5.0 with John Titus
Deep State Tactics 101 Part III

Solari Special Reports:
VAXXED II: The People’s Truth with Polly Tommey
Special Solari Report: Vaccine Mandates with Mary Holland, J.D

Solari Book Reviews:
The Autism Vaccine by Forrest Maready
unvaccinated by Forrest Maready
Crooked: Man-Made Disease Explained by Forrest Maready

Great Articles & Videos:
Childrens Health Defense: COVID-19: The Spearpoint for Rolling Out a “New Era” of High-Risk, Genetically Engineered Vaccines
Compulsory Vaccination, the Constitution, and the Hepatitis B Mandate for Infants and Young Children by Mary Holland
Hero of the Week: March 12, 2020 – Former President Of Microsoft Canada, Frank Clegg
Corbett Report: Bill Gates x 5
Collection Cup: Building a List of Best Sources on Vaccine Risks

Related reading:
Children’s Health Defense
VAXXED II: The People’s Truth
Jon Rappoport at



Historical Lapses in Public Health Ethics: Will Gates-Funded COVID Vaccine Human Trials Be Business as Usual?

In mid-April, the CDC announced that black Americans—about 13% of the U.S. population—“might be disproportionately affected by COVID-19.” Among roughly six hundred hospitalized COVID-19 patients with known race/ethnicity, CDC found that one-third (33%) were black. In New York City, the one-time COVID-19 epicenter, death rates have also been substantially higher among both black Americans and Hispanic/Latino Americans than among whites or Asians. A June survey (which lumped COVID-19 with other respiratory illnesses) seemed to further confirm these trends, reporting that since March 1st, 11% of black Americans versus 5% of all Americans had experienced the death of a family member or close friend due to “COVID-19 or respiratory illness.”

In a June interview with TIME magazine, Melinda Gates referenced these findings and the pandemic’s uneven impact on different racial/ethnic groups. While reiterating her husband’s talking point that “the way out of COVID-19 will be a vaccine,” Gates embellished her remarks with a race-riots-timed twist, stating that a COVID-19 vaccine “needs to go out equitably.” In her view, “equitably” means that “black people . . . and many other people of color” need to be near the top of the vaccine waiting list.

Among observers who understand that coronavirus vaccines are, by definition, experimental and who are familiar with the Gates family’s vaccine agenda, Madam Gates’ remarks immediately sparked concerns. Although the media have tried to dismiss these as silly “conspiracy theories,” U.S. medical history provides reasons not to take Mrs. Gates’ statements at face value. In the era of COVID-19, two historical examples—the infamous Tuskegee syphilis study and the forced sterilization of Carrie Buck—seem worth reviewing.

From the outset, the researchers were comfortable not only withholding treatment but also actively working to keep the men in the dark about available treatments.

The Tuskegee syphilis study

Many commentators acknowledge the shadow cast by the Tuskegee syphilis study, which helped foster black Americans’ longstanding mistrust of the public health establishment. Tuskegee—one of the core case studies analyzed in modern bioethics and research ethics courses—is noteworthy in numerous respects, not least of which is its astounding duration and the fact that it only ended because journalists finally exploded the story and made it impossible to continue.

The “unquestionably illegal” Tuskegee study, carried out by the U.S. Public Health Service (PHS) of which the CDC is a part, began in 1932 and continued for four decades. The government researchers coldly used the study to assess the “natural history” of syphilis in 399 black men with latent syphilis to whom the agency denied both informed consent and treatment. (The study also included a control group of 201 men.) An after-the-fact timeline currently on the CDC website shows that it was in 1936 that the investigators made the decision to “follow the men until death.” From the outset, the researchers were comfortable not only withholding treatment but also actively working to keep the men in the dark about available treatments.

In 1950, around the time that the therapeutic benefits of penicillin were becoming increasingly evident, senior PHS administrator Oliver Wenger had the audacity to discuss morals, stating: “We know now . . . that we have contributed to their ailments and shortened their lives. I think the least we can say is that we have a high moral obligation to those that have died to make this the best study possible” (p. 9). By 1972, only 74 men from the original group survived; along the way, 128 men died directly of syphilis or related complications, at least 40 spouses were infected and 19 children were born with congenital syphilis. In 1969, three years before a PHS whistleblower helped the media expose the study, the CDC was still “reaffirm[ing]” the need for the study and “gain[ing] local medical societies’ support.”

… the Tuskegee study had moved from being a singular historical event to a powerful metaphor symbolizing racism in medicine, misconduct in human research, the arrogance of physicians, and government abuse of Black people.

In 1997, Vanessa Northington Gamble, MD, PhD (now at George Washington University) led a successful campaign to extract an apology for the Tuskegee study from President Clinton. By that time, there were only eight survivors. In a commentary that same year in the American Journal of Public Health, Gamble suggested that the Tuskegee study had “moved from being a singular historical event to a powerful metaphor” symbolizing “racism in medicine, misconduct in human research, the arrogance of physicians, and government abuse of Black people.” Gamble also described “why African Americans’ historically based fears of medical research persist,” citing the post-Tuskegee example of a Los Angeles County Health Department study conducted in the late 1980s and early 1990s. The study administered an experimental measles vaccine to hundreds of “mostly Black and Latino” infants without informing the babies’ parents “that the vaccine was not licensed in the United States or that it had been associated with an increase in death rates in Africa.” One infant died (although Gamble hastened to clarify that it was apparently “for reasons not related to the inoculations”).

Buck v. Bell

Medical historians have described strong “affinities” between eugenics and public health, affinities that helped justify decades of involuntary sterilization of women and men of all races and ethnicities throughout the U.S. One of the most famous examples (Buck v. Bell) came into view in the Supreme Court in 1927, when the Court endorsed the sterilization of Carrie Buck, a poor, young white woman arbitrarily and untruthfully deemed by the state of Virginia to be “feebleminded.” Buck was one of an estimated 70,000 Americans forcibly sterilized in the 20th century after Indiana set state sterilization laws into motion in 1907. Today, forced sterilization is a war crime under the Rome Statute for the International Criminal Court (article 2.b.xxii). The author of a 2016 book about eugenics has noted that America’s “cutting-edge” eugenics sterilization ideas and practices provided a template that the Nazis were later only too happy to borrow. He also has observed that when the Supreme Court rendered its “uglyBuck v. Bell decision—still on the books today—the Court radically distanced itself from being a “temple of justice.”

One of the reasons that the Buck v Bell decision continues to reverberate is that the Justices relied heavily on the legal precedent established by Jacobson v. Massachusetts, the 1905 case that allowed mandatory smallpox vaccination. As avowed eugenicist Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes put it at the time, “The principle that sustains compulsory vaccination is broad enough to cover cutting the Fallopian tubes.” Referring to Buck, her mother and the child that Buck had prior to her forced sterilization, Holmes also cavalierly wrote in his decision, “Three generations of imbeciles are enough.”

In a 1997 paper appearing in the same issue of the American Journal of Public Health as Gamble’s Tuskegee commentary, medical historian Martin Pernick, PhD noted how the 1927 Court relied on three “key values” in making the connection between compulsory sterilization and mandatory vaccination under a state’s police powers. Pernick summarized the Court’s three assumptions as follows:

First, preventing disease was better than coping with its consequences. Second, the collective well-being of society could outweigh the interests of individuals who posed an alleged health menace. And third, state power could compel compliance with health measures when persuasion alone appeared inadequate.

The three assumptions have disturbing ramifications in the current COVID-19 context—particularly because modern-day jurists are now attempting to lasso the narrow 115-year-old Jacobson decision into providing the rationale for forced coronavirus vaccination. Pernick’s 1997 paper also made another important point that resonates with current events. According to the historian, the intertwining of public health and eugenics goals became possible in major part due to the messianic early-20th-century conviction—fostered by Louis Pasteur’s germ theory and August Weismann’s theory of heredity—that “disease could be not just reduced but eradicated.” Bolstered by this view, the two theories enabled “eugenics and public health to promise ‘final solutions’ to both infectious and hereditary diseases.” Should it trouble us that Bill Gates recently told Stephen Colbert that COVID-19 vaccines are “the final solution”?

It is . . . unethical when people championing the cause of vaccines are the same ones who are also investing in vaccine development.

Historical aberrations or business as usual?

In 1966, leading Harvard physician Henry K. Beecher decried widespread “ethical lapses in research carried out by physician-scientists in renowned universities” and “demonstrated that poor treatment of human subjects was not confined to the barbaric practices of Nazi doctors.” Over thirty years later, World Health Organization researchers republished Beecher’s 1966 paper, describing it as “the most influential single paper ever written about experimentation involving human subjects.” In the paper, Beecher provided almost two dozen examples of “unethical or questionably ethical studies” and emphasized that informed consent “has little meaning unless the subject or his guardian is capable of understanding what is to be undertaken and unless all hazards are made clear.” Beecher also noted that “An experiment is ethical or not at its inception; it does not become ethical post hoc – ends do not justify means.”

An article published in India’s The Economic Times in 2014—describing disastrous Gates-funded trials of HPV vaccines in thousands of young girls in India—could easily serve as an addendum illustrating Beecher’s timeless statements. After the girls began falling ill and seven died, a committee on health and family welfare investigated and discovered shockingly unethical informed consent procedures. The committee also revealed that neither the children nor their parents had any idea “about the nature of the disease or the vaccine.” An activist who later submitted a petition to India’s Supreme Court zeroed in on the Gates Foundation’s role as funder, arguing that the foundation “has to take full responsibility” and stating, “It is . . . unethical when people championing the cause of vaccines are the same ones who are also investing in vaccine development.”

The 2014 article also quoted a Delhi professor of social medicine and community health. Condemning the Gates Foundation’s vaccine agenda, she commented, in particular, on the funder’s willingness to “dilute safety testing criteria and cut short on time required to conduct proper observation studies.” These remarks deserve careful consideration at present, with Gates-funded, rushed human trials of experimental vaccine technologies that are more “Silicon Valley” than “medicine.” If Gates’ wanton vaccine track record is any indication, the Tuskegee study and the forced sterilizations of the last century should not be dismissed as historical aberrations—and the would-be recipients of Bill and Melinda’s “equitable” technologies have every right to be concerned.

For the Attention of David Kaye, on Freedom of Opinion and Expression

On May 1, 2019, David Kaye Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of the right to freedom of opinion and expression for the United Nations wrote a letter to Facebook’s co-founder and CEO Mark Zuckerberg. He wrote to provide preliminary reactions to Facebook’s initiative to create an Oversight Board for Content Decisions (“the Board”).

In his letter he used as examples “anti-vaccination disinformation campaigns” and “vaccine misinformation:

Measures Facebook has adopted, for instance in the face of anti-vaccination disinformation campaigns, are often understandable responses to unfolding crises, but their ad-hoc development may be susceptible to criticisms of bias and arbitrariness. Aligning these measures with human rights standards, however, can place them on a more principled footing. Under Article 19(3), restrictions on expression may be validly imposed if they are “provided by law” and “necessary” to serve a legitimate objective, such as the protection of public health. The Human Rights Committee has found that “law” must be “formulated with sufficient precision to enable an individual to regulate his or her conduct accordingly.” Even though Facebook does not make laws, the general principles of legality should nevertheless guide Facebook’s development of its rules and policies. In the context of its response to vaccine misinformation, for example, these principles would at least require Facebook to provide more information about how it defines “vaccine misinformation,” the processes it has developed for flagging such content, and the types of consultations it conducted in developing these measures and with whom it consulted. These are also the kinds of considerations that the Board, to provide genuine oversight, should be equipped to assess in reviewing appeals of content decisions.

Article 19(3) also provides concrete metrics for assessing the impact of particular forms of expression on its platform, and calibrating a proportionate response to address such impacts. Under the requirement of legitimacy of objectives, it is incumbent on those advocating for restrictions to explain the “precise nature of the threat” and assess whether there is a “direct and immediate connection between the expression and the threat.” (CCPR/C/GC/34) In this example, these principles should lead Facebook to assess and explain how the spread of vaccine misinformation on its platforms raises public health concerns. Under the requirement of necessity, restrictions on expression must be “appropriate to achieve their protective function,” the “least intrusive instrument amongst those which might achieve their protective function” and “proportionate to the interest to be protected.” (Id.) Considerations of proportionality provide Facebook with a principled and internationally recognized framework for evaluating its decision to demote and de-emphasize anti-vaccination content rather than categorically ban such content on its platforms. Again, these are also the kinds of questions that the Board could be authorized to address in its review of content decisions.


On May 29, 2020 I wrote the following letter to David Kaye.

To: David Kaye, ‘UN Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of the right freedom of opinion and expression

RE: Your letter to Mark Zuckerberg

Dear Mr. Kaye,

I wonder if I can prevail upon you to elucidate an issue in your letter to Mark Zuckerberg of 1 May 2019 concerning vaccination. I find your comments not altogether unhelpful but the premise in itself is not directly challenged i.e. that their are “anti-vaccination campaigns” which deliberately spread “misinformation”. In the first place it strikes me that “misinformation” is a slippery term and not necessarily at all the same as “false information”.

It should be evident that anyone deliberately dispensing false information regarding any subject (or just being careless) is being irresponsible, but by and large I do not believe that this is what we are talking about; the term “misinformation” has an Orwellian ambiguity. If the information was false the matter would be simple, but the reality is we are talking about information which is disapproved of in certain powerful quarters which may be perfectly true.

Secondly, the attribution of motive in terminology like “anti-vaccination campaign” is misleading. We create an unfortunate problem if anyone criticising a particular branch of technology or the lobby which promotes it (not to mention governments or global organizations) is simply held to be malicious by virtue of doing so.

For instance, I note the article in on-line Spectator in 2017 by Seth Berkley of the Global Alliance for Vaccines and Immunisation (which includes all the manufacturers) calling rather crudely for “anti-vaxxers” to be banned from social media, which effectively meant banning criticism of any kind – which suits both the manufacturers and the governments who enact the policies, but is also dangerously totalitarian. Indeed, nothing could ensure un-safety in the products as no one being permitted to  discuss or criticize them.

It might seem that we live in a perilous time and that therefore people should be careful about criticizing official policies, but it could more credibly be argued that with hundreds of potential products against coronavirus being rushed at breakneck speed to the market – with huge financial and reputational investments – that allowing free speech over such matters is particularly essential.

I look forward to your guidance. Sincerely, John Stone

Trying again…

Having not received a reply I recently sent this second letter:

17 June 2020

Dear Mr Kaye

I was perturbed not to receive a reply from you for my letter of 29 May (conveyed to you by various means). In it I brought to your attention the dangers of ad hominem labelling of people dissenting from official viewpoints and equivocal terminology like “misinformation” to cover information which may well be true but fails to coincide with governmental or global agendas. In this regard I draw to your attention the recent communique of the Council of Europe i.e. the 27 heads of government of the European Union on ‘Shaping Europe’s Digital Future’ article 36 in which the Council:

“EXPRESSES the importance of fighting against the spread of misinformation related to 5G networks, with special regard to false claims that such networks constitute a health threat or are linked to COVID-19.”

So, with a wave of the hand, the Council apparently dismisses the rights of citizens to argue for caution in the expansion this technology despite many dissenting (often expert) opinions about safety, while favouring the plans of global corporate interests (also at the financial expense of citizens). It is not even remotely clear why such projects should be necessary, except perhaps for totalitarian ends.

It seems now that at “warp-speed” global citizens are having their rights to discuss their future stripped away from them by politicians using Orwellian strategies. Now, every time that global corporate interests are called into question, governments only have to wheel out terms like “misinformation” or “disinformation” and they are safe from public scrutiny or accountability. This bodes ill both for democracy and the safety of citizens.

Given your role it would be very troubling if you have nothing to say.

Yours sincerely, John Stone (UK Editor, Age of Autism)


And now we wait.



Is There a Relationship Between Influenza Vaccination and COVID-19 Mortality?

A randomized placebo-controlled trial in children showed that the influenza vaccine increased fivefold the risk of acute respiratory infections caused by a group of non-influenza viruses, including coronaviruses. 1, 2

A study of US military personnel confirms that those who received an influenza vaccine had an increased susceptibility to coronavirus infection. The study concluded “Vaccine derived virus interference was significantly associated with coronavirus.” 3, 4, 5

European Union numbers show a correlation between influenza vaccine and coronavirus deaths. The countries with highest death rates (Belgium, Spain, Italy, UK, France, Netherlands, Sweden, Ireland and USA) had all vaccinated at least half of their elderly population against influenza. 6

In Canada, 82% of deaths attributed to COVID-19 occurred in long-term care settings.

In many countries, health care providers in seniors care facilities are required to receive the influenza vaccine annually, and the uptake of the vaccine by seniors in those homes is very high or even required.

It would be interesting to know how many of the deaths attributed to COVID-19 occurred in individuals vaccinated with the influenza vaccine in recent years.

Given the known risks of disease enhancement associated with a coronavirus vaccine, the relationship between influenza vaccination and COVID-19 mortality ought to be seriously examined.






[5] Wolff GG. Influenza Vaccination and Respiratory Virus Interference Among Department of Defense Personnel During the 2017-2018 Influenza Season. Vaccine 2020;38 (2):350-354.




RFK, Jr. Discusses Aborted Fetal DNA and Vaccines with Dr. Theresa Deisher

On June 15th, Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. interviewed the founder and president of Sound Choice Pharmaceutical Institute, Dr. Theresa Deisher, on the use of aborted fetal DNA in vaccines. Mr. Kennedy and Dr. Deisher covered a wide range of topics including which vaccines contain human fetal DNA, what the existing research tells us in terms of health risks, and what alternatives might be used in place of human DNA in vaccines.

Taking it to the Streets—Peaceful Protest in Albany As NYSBA Walks Back COVID-19 Vaccine Mandate Recommendation.

Saturday, June 13, was a good day. Several hundred members of the health freedom community gathered peacefully in Albany, NY to commemorate the first anniversary of the repeal of the religious exemption to vaccination, to protest the proposal of the New York State Bar Association (NYSBA) to mandate Covid-19 vaccines, and to participate in #ExposeBillGates day. By any measure, the day was a success.

All of the speakers below (see poster) participated, as well as Michael Sussman, the New York lead lawyer appealing the repeal of the religious exemption, and pediatrician Dr. Lawrence Palevsky. The speakers eloquently addressed many issues about the recent lockdown, the NYSBA’s proposed mandate, the importance of free exercise of religion and solidarity among people of all political, economic, racial, ethnic and religious communities.


You can watch the speakers’ remarks made in front of Governor Cuomo’s mansion here or here. In addition to the hundreds assembled from all over New York State and elsewhere, over 110,000 people watched live on the Children’s Health Defense and The Highwire with Del Bigtree social media websites.

Rethinking the recommendation

The NYSBA’s vaccination recommendation was a shot across the bow to mandate COVID-19 vaccines. As advocate John Gilmore has pointed out, every regime craves legitimacy, and it seems likely that Governor Cuomo, who has spoken favorably about COVID-19 vaccines, encouraged NYSBA’s recommendation behind the scenes. That this Association’s effort was met with strong and effective resistance is likely to echo around the world as other Pharma-affiliated groups seek to give cover to industry and government to use the police power for vaccination.

On June 12, the day before the annual meeting, NYSBA radically altered its pro-mandate stance, changing its recommendation from a blanket mandate for every man, woman and child in New York “when the efficacy of a COVID-19 vaccine has been confirmed,” except if “the person’s physician deems vaccination for his or her patient to be clinically inappropriate” to a more moderate recommendation as follows:


Note that the new recommendation mentions testing, evidence, safety, availability, Phase 3 trials including diverse representation and encouragement of vaccine uptake—all concerns not included in its initial report. Note that this recommendation still includes the recommendation of a mandate, but as a last vs. a first resort.

Of course even this recommendation is extremely problematic, leaving to “public health authorities” and not to individuals or even duly-elected legislatures the decision to override informed consent, bodily integrity, privacy, parental rights, free exercise of religion, equal protection and due process. The revised recommendation proposes no balancing of the competing interests at stake, and much like the public health officials who have presided so far, eyes solutions to COVID-19 with the tunnel vision of “consensus science.” But the fact that the Health Law Section substantially walked back its initial bald endorsement of state and national vaccine mandates is not even the best news.

The chair of the Trial Lawyers Section was particularly concerned that the report had little input on how vaccination mandates and access to vaccines affect minority communities.

Prevailing voices

The best news is that after robust dialogue (see video of NYSBA’s annual meeting available here), NYSBA’s House of Delegates decided to postpone consideration of the 84-page report, as amended regarding vaccinations on June 12, 2020, to its regularly scheduled meeting in November. The vote postponing consideration of the report was 53%-45% with 2% abstaining. In other words, a fairly wide margin acknowledged that it was unwise to rush through such an important and controversial report.

Although the members who worked most closely on the report urged the delegates to vote on it by the end of June, other voices prevailed, including several past Association presidents. Several past presidents voiced concern about the fact that a COVID-19 vaccine does not yet exist, so to endorse it is inappropriate. Many made the point that key Association committees had not yet weighed in on the wide-ranging report. These included committees on trial law, elder law, trusts and estates, diversity, criminal law and civil rights. One past president went so far as to describe the Health Law Section Task Force report as a “wish list of the health care industry,” suggesting that patients’ rights attorneys and medical malpractice plaintiffs’ attorneys would likely find many provisions objectionable.

The debate also focused on controversial liability protection provisions for healthcare workers in the context of end-of-life decision making. Some speakers noted that although the context of the report is COVID-19, the implications would be far broader. The chair of the Trial Lawyers Section was particularly concerned that the report had little input on how vaccination mandates and access to vaccines affect minority communities. She called for input from Black and Hispanic medical associations.

He stated that the staff had received “thousands, thousands of phone calls and emails on a daily basis.

The immediate past president of the Association, Hank Greenberg, specifically spoke to those who had voiced opposition to the NYSBA report. He asserted that “a very disciplined, very effective group of lobbyists” had “besieged the staff.” He stated that the staff had received “thousands, thousands of phone calls and emails on a daily basis.” “It has been like nothing I have ever, ever seen.” He claimed that such opposition was “intimidation of our leaders” and should not be rewarded. He urged members not to postpone the report, but rather to conclude the vote in June. His argument lost the day.

What was wonderful—both in the gathering of protesters and in the videotaped NYSBA meeting—was genuine communication. People of differing views coming together to debate, consider, reflect and listen to one another. Healthcare responses to COVID-19 need debate—indeed, presumably this is what NYSBA sought, although it apparently did not expect such a strong response as what it received.

NYSBA’S Health Law Section changed its vaccine recommendation and its House of Delegates did not endorse its report, unquestionably in part because the health freedom community put them on notice. A huge thanks to all who spoke up, showed up and voiced opposition to COVID-19 vaccine mandates.


Analysis and Critique of The CDC’s Handling of The Thimerosal Exposure Assessment Based on Vaccine Safety Datalink (VSD) Information

The CDC’s approach to analysis of the VSD database demonstrates a pervasive pattern of bias and conscious manipulation of samples, statistics and findings to produce a negative finding regarding the dangers of thimerosal exposure to children.

Despite significant problems with study design and data quality and contrary to public statements by the CDC, the VSD analyses of autism, NDDs and speech delay provide support for a causal relationship between thimerosal exposure and childhood developmental disorders.

View/Download PDF

‘TRUTH’ with Robert F. Kennedy, Jr.—Episode 3

In Episode 3 of ‘TRUTH’, RFK, Jr. spoke with Polly Tommey about the health epidemics of children, flu vaccines, mRNA vaccines, media censorship and took questions from the viewers. (All episodes can also be found on the CHD Channel on Peeps TV, a network on Roku. Roku is accessible from any Smart TV and can be purchased separately for older TVs.)

Episode 2

Episode 1

Vaccinated vs. Unvaccinated—Part 10

Vaccinated children are more likely to be diagnosed with developmental delays, asthma, and ear infections. A new peer-reviewed study by Hooker and Miller in the journal SAGE Open Medicine compares the health outcomes of vaccinated versus unvaccinated children from three large pediatric practices in the United States. The study concludes that unvaccinated children are healthier than their vaccinated peers.  The researchers examined medical records for over 2000 children born between November 2005 and June 2015.  The scientists followed the children continuously for a minimum of 3 years from birth. The research team determined each child’s vaccination status based on any vaccination received prior to one year of age. The unvaccinated group represented 30.9% of the total. Results show that vaccination before one year of age led to significantly increased odds of medical diagnoses for developmental delays, asthma and ear infections. Read the full press release with links to the study at I have now posted over 60 vaccinated/unvaccinated studies on this site. All of them show dramatically better health in unvaccinated children. We have found no studies that show superior health outcomes in vaccinated children.

(See full-sized Part 10 slides or see the complete Vaxxed-Unvaxxed presentation, Parts 1-12.

Slides and Summaries from Part 10:

Slide 1 and Summary:

Vaccination during the first year of life increases the odds of developmental delays by 2.18x.

Slide 2 and Summary:

Vaccination during the first year of life increases the odds of asthma by 4.49x.

Slide 3 and Summary:

Vaccination during the first year of life increases the odds of ear infections by 2.13x.

Slide 4 and Summary:

Vaccination during the first year of life increases the odds of gastrointestinal disorder by 2.48x.

Mothers of Vaccine-Injured Children: Modern Day Cassandras

Some days I feel like Cassandra, the Greek woman who could see the future, but not articulate it in a way that gave her credibility. In the tragedy Agamemnon, Apollo promised Cassandra the gift of prophecy if she would be his lover. She accepted the gift, then rebuffed Apollo when he desired sexual favors. Apollo got revenge by ordaining her predictions would be rejected. She predicted the Trojan horse battle and Agamemnon’s bloody death, but no one believed her.

Parents of children with complex chronic illness must also feel like Cassandras.  Hundreds of times I have taken detailed histories from parents in which seemingly healthy children deteriorated or regressed within 24-48 hours of a vaccine, often ending up in the Emergency Department, only to be told that it was a “coincidence” and that the vaccine could not be the cause. This seems to be in direct opposition to the usual course of events when a clinician is presented with a new symptom and we are taught to ask about any new or different events, exposures or experiences. Concerns raised by intelligent parents that their child is getting too many vaccines at once are typically dismissed. The bar to get compensation in Vaccine Court is incredibly high, with restrictions based on original “vaccine injury tables” despite a significant expansion of the number and types of vaccines introduced since the 1986 National Vaccine Compensation Program legislation. The injuries are often lifelong and change the trajectory of family life completely.

In 1997, my experience with a patient I vaccinated opened my eyes to the possibility that CDC recommended vaccines were causing significant harm to at least a subset of children who received them. Five years later, I took my concerns to the University that trained me, where I was taught basic rules of pediatrics: 1) first do no harm 2) listen to the mama 3) look at the child. I delivered Pediatric Grand Rounds, sharing my concerns about the exponentially increasing rates of autism and other neurodevelopmental disorders, the gastrointestinal symptoms of my patients with autism including digestion, dysbiosis and digestive enzyme problems, and emerging data implicating gut-brain interactions. I hypothesized that the rapidly expanding vaccine schedule might be related. It was a message the audience of pediatric faculty and residents did not want to hear.

Ironically, the problems with digestive enzymes I discussed have now been confirmed by Buie and Kushak at Harvard in multiple peer reviewed published studies. The role of gastrointestinal problems in autism and understanding the gut brain connection now form the backbone of functional medicine and offer a pathway to improving the lives of chronically ill children and their families.  Articles on the communication between gut, brain, and endocrine systems populate highly respected medical journals.

Sadly, the rates of autism reported as 34 per 10,000 in 2002 and dismissed as due to better recognition and diagnosis (another speculation not borne out by the data) have continued to rise exponentially at6-15% per year to the current rates of 1 in 54 children (185 per 10,000) who have autism and one in six who have other developmental or behavioral problems. It is crucial to remember that the analysis published in March 2020 (and largely overlooked by the media in the Age of COVID) was based on a birth cohort from 2008 (8-year-old children were studied in 2016 for the statistics published 4 years later).

This week, Hooker and Miller published data from three geographically distinct pediatric practices. The real-life data, collected over 10 years, examined the relationship between the number and timing of vaccines and presence of chronic illnesses, including neurodevelopmental problems, asthma, gastrointestinal problems and ear infections. Younger ages at vaccination and increasing number of vaccines were associated with more developmental delays, asthma and ear infections. In fact, for ear infections subdivided by quartile of number of vaccines, there was a linear relationship between more vaccines and more ear infections.

I predict the mainstream media and the American Academy of Pediatrics will try to cast doubt on the findings in this study.  Yes, there are limitations to retrospective practice-based research, which Hooker articulates quite well. I would argue that, if the AAP or CDC or NIH had agreed to the comparison studies of vaccinated vs. unvaccinated children that the parents of children with chronic disease have been asking for since the dawn of the current century, we would have prospective, controlled studies by now. The burden would not have fallen upon clinicians busy taking care of complex chronic illness to be unfunded clinical researchers.

What makes this data compelling is the wealth of scientific information that has accumulated in the past two decades about mechanisms involved in neurodevelopmental disorders, immune dysregulation, mitochondrial dysfunction, environmental toxicity and metabolic derangements. Such research includes but is not limited to:

  • Jill James and Richard Deth’s body of published science about methylation biochemistry: how it is disrupted by environmental triggers, how it influences gene expression and how often it is abnormal in children with chronic illness.
  • Chris Shaw and colleagues’ body of published science about the effects of aluminum on human tissue and its presence in the brains of people with neurodegenerative diseases.
  • Bob Naviaux’s highly ranked published science about the crucial role of the mitochondria and the downstream effects on health when mitochondria change from making energy to “battening down the hatches” in the cell danger response.
  • Chauhan, McGinnis and multiple other scientists’ published papers delineating the biochemistry and cellular effects of prolonged oxidative stress on tissues and human illness.
  • Jim Adams and colleagues on deficient nutritional status and potential value of fecal microbial transplants in children with autism.
  • Van de Water and Ashwood’s body of published work on Maternal Immune Activation and increased inflammatory cytokines in intestinal biopsies of children with autism vs. controls.
  • MacFabe’s studies about the role of propionic acid in neurodevelopmental disorders.
  • Rossignol and Frye’s published work on folate receptor antibodies and mitochondrial dysfunction in neurodevelopmental problems.

Many people assume that vaccine safety trials must be exceptionally well designed and executed, since they are given to populations at large. They are shocked to find out that Hepatitis B vaccine studies tracked side effects for four or five days before the decision was made to vaccinate every newborn in the US. After concerns about the role of MMR and inflammatory bowel disease, 23 different post-licensing trials were conducted on the MMR-II vaccine—no patient was followed for more than 42 days post-vaccination. You cannot find what you do not look for.

The Institute of Medicine, trusted to make evidence-based recommendations, examined the current scientific literature, and found inadequate evidence to accept or reject a causal relationship between 135 of 158 relationships between vaccines and adverse events. Among the remaining 23 adverse events, 18 were found to be associated with vaccination and five were not.

Hooker’s analysis used a cohort study design with strata for medical practice, year of birth and gender. DTaP and MMR were counted as a single vaccine even though each contained 3 vaccines in one injection.

In the Hooker publication, it should be noted that a patient receiving even just one vaccine in the first 380 days of life would fall into the “vaccinated” category.  “Unvaccinated” patients had no vaccine doses on record prior to their first birthday plus 15 days. In my view, this design makes the data even more compelling. The data showed that children were more likely to be diagnosed with developmental delays, asthma and ear infections if they received a higher number of vaccines versus fewer immunizations.

As a pediatrician who was taught little about mechanisms of vaccine efficacy or adverse events in medical school or residency, I was expected to follow the CDC/AAP revisions to the schedule without questioning. Recent legislative action removing medical or religious exemptions are taking away the physician’s ability to consider vaccine administration in the context of the individual patient. It is ironic that, during this age of personalized, integrative and functional medicine in which people wear devices to collect precise individualized data, we seem to be doubling down on a “one size fits all” vaccine policy.

In the Cassandra analogy, mainstream medicine and university pediatric curriculums are the Apollos to which I should owe my allegiance. However, I would argue that my allegiance is to my patients. I would argue that the purpose of rigorous medical school and residency training is not to teach us a bunch of facts (which we know will change as science evolves) but to teach us to be analytic thinkers. I would argue that my parents, college professors and debate team coach instilled in me important critical thinking skills that are fundamental to my ability to make informed decisions in partnership with the parents who trust me with their children. If all I need to do when ordering a vaccine is to follow a published schedule, I could delegate all immunization decisions to my medical assistant.

To question medical dogma does not end well for many of us, until we find meaning in the search for truth, which should be the essence of every scientific endeavor.


‘TRUTH’ with Robert F. Kennedy, Jr.—Second Episode Now Available

In Episode 2 of TRUTH,  RFK, Jr. spoke with Polly Tommey about the health epidemics of children, delving even deeper into the specific injuries caused by vaccinations, including those listed on the product inserts. Discussion surrounded the fact that there is essentially no safety testing for vaccines; and, once citizens know this information and do their research, they become steadfast advocates who can’t turn away. The episode closed with a discussion of rights to refuse vaccinations and that parents shouldn’t be bullied!

One in Every 16 Irish Boys has Autism: Crisis Worse than COVID-19 and Nobody Cares

According to National Health data released last week, autism incidence among Irish children is now at 4.3%, an 82% rise in five years. One in 16 boys is affected. US rates trail Ireland’s slightly only because CDC lies to minimize the crisis.

In 2016, Judith Pinborough-Zimmerman, CDC’s Utah Principal Investigator for the Autism and Developmental Disabilities Monitoring Network (ADDM) filed a federal whistleblower lawsuit after reporting research fraud and intentional data manipulation by the CDC. The CDC routinely uses multiple strategies to hide the Autism Pandemic. “The autism explosion is an acute embarrassment to the CDC as they have totally failed to address environmental factors involved in causality.”

The autism crisis dwarfs COVID-19. Bill Gates’ Institute for Health Metrics predicts 81,766 deaths from COVID. The average age of death is 75. In contrast, autism attacks infants presaging a lifetime of nightmarish agony. Half will never go on a date, write a poem, hit a baseball, join the military, pay taxes, cast a vote, run for office, speak, or use a toilet. Their cost of care is over 1/4 trillion U.S. dollars annually and rising.

… children receiving the Hep B vaccine in their first 30 days had an 1135% increased risk for an autism diagnosis.

EPA scientists say the epidemic began in 1989, the year the CDC dramatically expanded the childhood vaccine schedule, multiplying infant exposures to neurotoxins like mercury and aluminum. CDC’s massive 1999 study of the VSD—America’s largest medical database—showed that children receiving the Hep B vaccine in their first 30 days had an 1135% increased risk for an autism diagnosis. CDC and Pharma knew at that moment that vaccines were causing the epidemic.

They hid the VSD study, closed the database to independent scientists and commissioned a sketchy cabal of tobacco scientists, grifters, felons and Pharma biostitutes to gin up dozens of fraudulent vaccine studies purporting to “prove that vaccines don’t cause autism.” They blocked studies of all vaccines given to children under six months. Tony Fauci played a key role in the cover up. Fauci distributes $5 billion annually in research grants and assured that studies of autism’s environmental causes never get funded. When in 2008 NIH’s Autism Coordinating Committee voted $16 million to study the links between autism and vaccines, Tom Insel killed those studies. Fauci and Insel have committed some of the most consequential criminal conspiracies in history. Children’s Health Defense will bring these criminals to justice.


Further Anomalies of the Oxford Coronavirus Vaccine

On 27 April a New York Times article reported excitedly the result animal trials of the Oxford Coronavirus vaccine:

“Scientists at the National Institutes of Health’s Rocky Mountain Laboratory in Montana last month inoculated six rhesus macaque monkeys with single doses of the Oxford vaccine. The animals were then exposed to heavy quantities of the virus that is causing the pandemic… But more than 28 days later all six were healthy, said Vincent Munster, the researcher who conducted the test..”

This would have be just as well because just four days earlier on 23 April Oxford Vaccine Group under the leadership of Andrew Pollard amid immense publicity had begun experimenting on human subjects. On 30 April a contract was announced with AstraZeneca to manufacture the vaccine, promising to deliver an entirely new vaccine to the market at unprecedented speed by September. The only trouble was that when the results of the animal trial came to light in mid-May it was disclosed that on the contrary all the monkeys had  become ill. The Daily Mail reported:

“In the latest animal trials of the vaccine carried out on rhesus macaques, all six of the participating monkeys went on to catch the coronavirus.

“Dr William Haseltine, a former Harvard Medical School professor, revealed the monkeys who received the vaccine had the same amount of virus in their noses as the three non-vaccinated monkeys in the trial.

This suggests the treatment, which has already received in the region of £90 million in government investment, may not halt the spread of the deadly disease.”

Haseltine also commented in Forbes:

“There is a second troubling result of the Oxford paper. The titer of neutralizing antibody, as judged by inhibition of virus replication by successive serum dilutions as reported is extremely low. Typically, neutralizing antibodies in effective vaccines can be diluted by more than a thousand fold and retain activity. In these experiments the serum could be diluted only by 4 to 40 fold before neutralizing activity was lost.”

Manifestly, human testing proceeded both against an entirely misleading background, and prematurely – which poses the most serious ethical questions. And now that we know that though the product was defective everything ploughs on regardless – Oxford/AstraZeneca now have contracts for hundreds of millions of rounds of the vaccine from both the British and the United States government. The British government has both a huge financial investment in the product and a reputational one, but it may help that Prof Pollard is both an adviser to the British regulator and chair of the committee recommends vaccine for public use.

New Research Study Clarifies Health Outcomes in Vaccinated versus Unvaccinated Children



Brian Hooker, Ph.D.
Children’s Health Defense
(509) 366-2269

Unvaccinated children are less likely to be diagnosed with developmental delays, asthma, and ear infections.

Redding CA— A new peer-reviewed study in the journal SAGE Open Medicine details the health outcomes of vaccinated versus unvaccinated children from three pediatric practices in the United States concludes that unvaccinated children have better health outcomes than their vaccinated peers.

Children in the study were followed continuously for a minimum of 3 years from birth.  The study was based on medical records of over 2000 children enrolled in three pediatric practices and born between November 2005 and June 2015.  Vaccination status was determined based on any vaccination received prior to one year of age which yielded 30.9% of the children in the unvaccinated group. Results show that vaccination before one year of age led to significantly increased odds of medical diagnoses of developmental delays, asthma and ear infections in children.

In a separate analysis, based on the number of vaccines received by one year of age, children receiving more vaccines were more likely to be diagnosed with gastrointestinal disorders compared to those who received no vaccines within the same timeframe.  In temporal analyses, children vaccinated prior to six months of age showed significant risks of each of the disorders studied as compared to unvaccinated children in the same timeframe.

The study, coauthored by Dr. Brian Hooker and Mr. Neil Miller, is unique in that all diagnoses were verified using abstracted medical records from each of the participating pediatric practices.  Lead author of the study, Dr. Hooker, stated, “The results definitely indicate better health outcomes in children who did not receive vaccines within their first year of life.  These findings are consistent with additional research that has identified vaccination as a risk factor for a variety of adverse health outcomes.  Such findings merit additional large-scale study of vaccinated and unvaccinated children in order to provide optimal health as well as protection against infectious diseases.”

Children’s Health Defense (CHD) has assembled nearly 60 studies that find vaccinated cohorts to be far sicker than their unvaccinated peers. CHD is a non-profit organization dedicated to ending the recent epidemic of chronic health conditions affecting 54% of children. The organization recognizes a variety of harmful environmental exposures contributing to an overall decline in children’s health.



View/Download PDF

Robert Kennedy Jr. Destroys Big Pharma, Fauci & Pro-Vaccine Movement

Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. recently provided yet another wonderful interview taking on Big Pharma, corrupt health agency officials, censorship and more with Patrick Bet-David.

In the current climate of pushing mandates for vaccines being rushed to market, it’s more important than ever to share this information with friends and family who need to be educated on the corruption going on behind the scenes. They won’t see this in mainstream media.

Vaccinated vs. Unvaccinated—Part 9

This is my ninth installment in CHD’s series of studies comparing health outcomes in vaccinated vs unvaccinated populations. Despite CDC’s and NIH’s (Tony Fauci’s) efforts to prevent the creation of these studies, courageous and independent university and government scientists have found ways to perform vaccinated/ unvaxxed studies. We have now assembled nearly 60 studies- all published in previous installments on my Instagram page and on CHD’s website. All of these studies found vaccinated cohorts to be far sicker than their unvaccinated peers. CDC blocks access by independent scientists to the largest vaccine database, the Vaccine Safety Datalink, which Congress created expressly for the purpose of performing this kind of study.
(See full-sized Part 9 slides or see the complete Vaxxed-Unvaxxed presentation, Parts 1-12.)

Slides and Summaries from Part 9:

Slide 1 and Summary:

The increased risk of narcolepsy after vaccination with ASO3 adjuvanted pandemic A/HlNl 2009 vaccine indicates a causal association, consistent with findings from Finland.


Slide 2 and Summary:

In sum, this study demonstrates that trivalent influenza virus vaccine (TIV) elicits a measurable inflammatory response during pregnancy, and that considerable variability is seen between women in the magnitude of this response.


Slide 3 and Summary:

Together with an inflammatory reaction, influenza A vaccine induced platelet activation and sympathovagal imbalance towards adrenergic predominance … The vaccine-related platelet activation and cardiac autonomic dysfunction may transiently increase the risk of cardiovascular events.


Slide 4 and Summary:

Vaccinating pigs with whole inactivated H1N2 (human-like) virus vaccine (WIV-H1N2) resulted in enhanced pneumonia and disease after pHlNl infection.


Slide 5 and Summary:

In assessing the effectiveness of the TIV for preventing hospitalization with influenza in all subjects, there was an overall trend towards higher rates of hospitalization in subjects who got the TIV as compared to the ones who did not get the TIV( OR:2.97,CI: 1.3,6.7).


Slide 6 and Summary:

Cardiorespiratory events were associated marginally with receipt of multiple injections {OR, 3.62; 95% Cl 0.99-13.25) and significantly with gastroesophagealreflux {GER) {OR, 4.76; 95% Cl 1.22-18.52).



Gates’ Globalist Vaccine Agenda: A Win-Win for Pharma and Mandatory Vaccination

By Robert F. Kennedy Jr., Chairman, Children’s Health Defense


Vaccines, for Bill Gates, are a strategic philanthropy that feed his many vaccine-related businesses (including Microsoft’s ambition to control a global vaccination ID enterprise) and give him dictatorial control of global health policy.

Gates’ obsession with vaccines seems to be fueled by a conviction to save the world with technology.

Promising his share of $450 million of $1.2 billion to eradicate polio, Gates took control of India’s National Technical Advisory Group on Immunization (NTAGI), which mandated up to 50 doses (Table 1) of polio vaccines through overlapping immunization programs to children before the age of five. Indian doctors blame the Gates campaign for a devastating non-polio acute flaccid paralysis (NPAFP) epidemic that paralyzed 490,000 children beyond expected rates between 2000 and 2017. In 2017, the Indian government dialed back Gates’ vaccine regimen and asked Gates and his vaccine policies to leave India. NPAFP rates dropped precipitously.

The most frightening [polio] epidemics in Congo, Afghanistan, and the Philippines are all linked to vaccines.

In 2017, the World Health Organization (WHO) reluctantly admitted that the global explosion in polio is predominantly vaccine strain. The most frightening epidemics in Congo, Afghanistan, and the Philippines, are all linked to vaccines. In fact, by 2018, 70% of global polio cases were vaccine strain.

In 2009, the Gates Foundation funded tests of experimental HPV vaccines, developed by Glaxo Smith Kline (GSK) and Merck, on 23,000 young girls in remote Indian provinces. Approximately 1,200 suffered severe side effects, including autoimmune and fertility disorders. Seven died. Indian government investigations charged that Gates-funded researchers committed pervasive ethical violations: pressuring vulnerable village girls into the trial, bullying parents, forging consent forms, and refusing medical care to the injured girls. The case is now in the country’s Supreme Court.

South African newspapers complained, ‘We are guinea pigs for the drug makers.’

In 2010, the Gates Foundation funded a phase 3 trial of GSK’s experimental malaria vaccine, killing 151 African infants and causing serious adverse effects, including paralysis, seizure, and febrile convulsions, to 1,048 of the 5,949 children.

During Gates’ 2002 MenAfriVac campaign in Sub-Saharan Africa, Gates’ operatives forcibly vaccinated thousands of African children against meningitis. In the village of Gouro, located in northern Chad, approximately 50 of the 500 children vaccinated developed paralysis. South African newspapers complained, “We are guinea pigs for the drug makers.” Nelson Mandela’s former senior economist, Professor Patrick Bond, describes Gates’ philanthropic practices as “ruthless and immoral.”

In 2010, when Gates committed $10 billion to the WHO, he said  “We must make this the decade of vaccines.” A month later, Gates said in a TED Talk that new vaccines “could reduce population.” And, four years later, in 2014, Kenya’s Catholic Doctors Association accused the WHO of chemically sterilizing millions of unwilling Kenyan women with a  “tetanus” vaccine campaign. Independent labs found a sterility formula in every vaccine tested. After denying the charges, WHO finally admitted it had been developing the sterility vaccines for over a decade.  Similar accusations came from Tanzania, Nicaragua, Mexico, and the Philippines.

A 2017 study (Morgenson et. al. 2017) showed that WHO’s popular DTP vaccine is killing more African children than the diseases it prevents. DTP-vaccinated girls suffered 10x the death rate of children who had not yet received the vaccine. WHO has refused to recall the lethal vaccine, which it forces upon tens of millions of African children annually.

[Global public health officials] say he has diverted agency resources to serve his personal philosophy that good health only comes in a syringe.

Global public health advocates around the world accuse Gates of steering WHO’s agenda away from the projects that are proven to curb infectious diseases: clean water, hygiene, nutrition, and economic development. The Gates Foundation spends only about $650 million of its $5 billion dollar budget on these areas. They say he has diverted agency resources to serve his personal philosophy that good health only comes in a syringe.

In addition to using his philanthropy to control WHO, UNICEF, GAVI, and PATH, Gates funds a private pharmaceutical company that manufactures vaccines and is donating $50 million to 12 pharmaceutical companies to speed up development of a coronavirus vaccine. In his recent media appearances, Gates appears confident that the Covid-19 crisis will now give him the opportunity to force his dictatorial vaccine programs on all American children – and adults.



An Unwelcome Milestone: Payouts for Influenza Vaccine Injuries Exceed $900 Million

Merriam-Webster Dictionary defines a “milestone” as “a significant point in development.” Unfortunately, the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program (NVICP) is approaching a milestone not suitable for celebration. Rather, it is a moment to pause and reflect on the number and severity of injuries that influenza vaccines have caused.

Vaccine scientists have been developing inactivated influenza vaccines (IIVs) for decades, formulating the first bivalent (two-strain) IIV in the early 1940s and the first trivalent (three-strain) IIV in 1978. In 2003 , the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approved the first three-strain live attenuated influenza vaccine (LAIV) for use in children and adults aged 5-49 years old, extending its approval to those aged 2-49 years old in 2007. Since then, numerous influenza vaccines using different technologies and targeting different age groups have entered the market, including four-strain vaccines (both live and inactivated), ultra-potent vaccines for those over age 65, pandemic vaccines and recombinant (genetically engineered) vaccines. The FDA approves some influenza vaccines using accelerated approval mechanisms.

The NVICP began covering injuries resulting from trivalent influenza vaccines in 2005, expanding its coverage to all seasonal influenza vaccines in 2013. The Program does not cover non-seasonal influenza vaccines. By 2010, influenza vaccination had become a prevalent catalyst for vaccine injury petitions to the NVICP, and by 2015, it was the dominant vaccine in the Program for injuries and death, accounting for more than seven out of ten petitions filed. Influenza vaccination is the very reason why the program designed by Congress as a National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program is no longer primarily for children’s injuries but has become a program where compensation is more often for adult vaccine injuries.

Over 2,000 influenza petitions alone are pending. Not even a year ago, that figure was 50% less.

Types of injuries and extent of payouts

Today, the most common severe injuries reported following influenza vaccination are “shoulder injury related to vaccine administration” (SIRVA), Guillain-Barré syndrome (GBS), transverse myelitis (TM), chronic inflammatory demyelinating polyneuropathy (CIDP), acute disseminated encephalomyelitis (ADEM) and death.

As of mid-March 2020, the total NVICP payout for all injuries and death from seasonal influenza vaccines was approximately $897,967,381.38 (based on my analysis of all decisions posted at the United States Court of Federal Claims website). In other words, just shy of $900 million dollars for damages, attorney fees and medical expert costs—for vaccines that have only been part of the compensation program for the last 15 years.

Another statistic that is concerning is the ever-growing number of petitions filed in the NVICP that await medical reviews or decisions. Over 2,000 influenza petitions alone are pending. Not even a year ago, that figure was 50% less.

Injuries to children versus adults

Although payouts for adult influenza vaccine injuries predominate, this does not mean that children do not experience influenza vaccine injuries. However, children generally receive flu vaccines at the same time as multiple other vaccines, making it challenging to tease out influenza vaccination’s adverse effects. Adults tend to receive the influenza vaccine by itself.

When adverse events can be linked specifically to influenza vaccination, we observe that shoulder injuries (SIRVA) seem to prevail in adult NVICP reports whereas children’s injuries tend to be more serious, meaning more GBS, ADEM, CIDP and TM. Although only 3.7% of compensated influenza cases are for children, their average award for influenza injuries is more than double that of adults—approximately $545,000. The vast majority (96.3%) of compensated influenza cases are for adults, who receive an average award of $240,000. Unfortunately, in the growing backlog of influenza-vaccine-related petitions to the NVICP, we have no clear understanding of how the injuries break down by age group (adults versus children) or by injury type.

It is a distinct possibility that we will witness the Program awarding compensation that will exceed the $1 billion amount before the end of this calendar year.

Payouts challenging to estimate

Due to a couple of factors, the $900 million number represents an estimate only. First, there are some 150 or so petitions that the NVICP has adjudicated but which have not been announced or posted on the Federal Court of Claim’s website. Second, it is important to understand how annuities are used in the Program. It is not uncommon for several severe injuries to include an annuity to cover future medical costs. With an annuity, the trick is to determine the present value (PV), that is, the current value of future payments. The Secretary of Health and Human Services (HHS) sells the annuity for the benefit of the petitioner to a life insurance company. The life insurance company, in turn, buys the annuity and pays out the anticipated medical expenses of the petitioner. Most of the time, the PV is not announced in the final decision for privacy concerns.

Although the final decision hopefully includes the items to be covered by the annuity and the interest rate for future growth, sometimes this is not provided. In that situation, we have to compare the case with similar cases to come up with our best estimate of the PV of the annuity. It is conceivable that the total PV of annuities for influenza vaccines could be around $200 million dollars. We really do not know for certain. The HHS Secretary refuses to comply with Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) requests asking for the total amount sold or in force.

Keeping these caveats in mind, we arrive at a figure just short of $900 million for all damage awards for all forms of seasonal influenza vaccine. It is a distinct possibility that we will witness the Program awarding compensation that will exceed the $1 billion amount before the end of this calendar year. This is not a milestone to celebrate or applaud, but something that we need to examine. Above all, we should be asking, why are we damaging so many of our fellow citizens, both children and adults?



What We Can Learn From A Pandemic “Tabletop Exercise”?

We are living in unfamiliar times. We are frightened by the highly infectious coronavirus CoV-2019 or COVID-19, and our hearts go out to those who have been directly affected. We are in a global “lockdown,” “sheltering in place,” against an invisible but potentially deadly enemy. Our world has changed rapidly and dramatically since the World Health Organization (WHO) declared a pandemic on March 11, 2020.

Most of us are still in a kind of shock usually limited to wartime. It remains hard to believe that countries around the world are ordering businesses and schools to shut down, citizens to stay home, and pausing all communal life to preserve the public health. We have moved to a world of physical isolation and only virtual connection to friends and community. The world’s economy is on the brink of a depression to avert the worst-case public health scenario.

Event 201: A Pandemic Simulation

Although most of us have been caught by surprise, some in business and government circles have been preparing for just such a pandemic for a long time. On October 18, 2019, the Johns Hopkins Center for Health Security, the World Economic Forum, and the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation together convened a group of fifteen participants from leading industries and global institutions to participate in a fictional pandemic exercise entitled “Event 201.” This invitation-only “tabletop exercise,” a term typically used for wargames, occurred at the Hotel Pierre in New York City.

After the day-long exercise, the consortium produced several high quality videos of their deliberations. “Event 201” has six segments: an 11-minute “highlights” video and five additional segments of about an hour each on 1: Countermeasures, 2: Trade and Travel, 3: Finance, 4: Communications, and 5: Hotwash and Conclusion.

Who’s Who

Key participants at the table were representatives of the Johns Hopkins Center, the Gates Foundation and the World Economic Forum, which were the institutions sponsoring the exercise. The corporate and government participants’ names and affiliations are below. (Governments also conduct their own simulation exercises; the press recently reported on a Trump Administration drill called “Crimson Contagion.”)

Missing from Event 201 were legislators; representatives of small and medium-sized businesses; labor; social media; religious leaders; and civil society unaffiliated with intergovernmental and corporate organizations. In short, the participants were a heavyweight group of corporate executives, policymakers, and health officials. Left out were representatives from many sectors likely to be hardest hit by such a scenario.

The participants included:

  • Latoya Abbott, Risk Management & Global Senior Director Occupational Health Services, Marriott International
  • Sofia Borges, Senior Vice President, UN Foundation
  • Brad Connett, President, U.S. Medical Group, Henry Schein, Inc.
  • Christopher Elias, President, Global Development division, Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation
  • Tim Evans, Former Senior Director of Health, World Bank Group
  • George Gao, Director-General, Chinese Center for Disease Control and Prevention
  • Avril Haines, Former Deputy Director, Central Intelligence Agency; Former Deputy National Security Advisor
  • Jane Halton, Board member, ANZ Bank; Former Secretary of Finance & Former Secretary of Health, Australia
  • Matthew Harrington, Global Chief Operations Officer, Edelman
  • Martin Knuchel, Head of Crisis, Emergency and Business Continuity Management, Lufthansa Group Airlines
  • Eduardo Martinez, President, The UPS Foundation
  • Stephen Redd, Deputy Director for Public Health Service and Implementation Science, US CDC
  • Hasti Taghi, Vice President & Executive Advisor, NBCUniversal Media
  • Adrian Thomas, Vice President, Global Public Health, Johnson & Johnson
  • Lavan Thiru, Chief Representative, Monetary Authority of Singapore

Yesterday’s Simulation Mirrors Today’s Reality

Coincidentally, the participants addressed a simulated global pandemic from a coronavirus that initially showed up in bats, then pigs, and finally  jumped to humans before spreading rapidly around the world despite the players’ best efforts. The simulation imagined no available vaccine. In the background, rhythmic music pulsated in a minor key.

The pandemic scenario had the following parameters:

The scenario ends at the 18-month point, with 65 million deaths. The pandemic is beginning to slow due to the decreasing number of susceptible people. The pandemic will continue at some rate until there is an effective vaccine or until 80-90 % of the global population has been exposed. From that point on, it is likely to be an endemic childhood disease.

The organizers pulled vignettes from the five plus hours for the “Highlights” below.

Travel Bans

The participants first address travel advisories and bans as they learn that travel industry revenues have dropped 45%. The World Bank Group representative explains that to rely on the United Nations in such a situation would be “delusional.” The world must turn to the private sector for “efficient leadership.” The Gates Foundation representative notes that only the private sector has the knowledge to negotiate the complex supply chain issues, underscoring the need for a “new kind of public-private collaboration.”

Economic Collapse

The participants learn from a news report that the stock market has fallen 20-40%. The discussants wonder if there are institutions that they “cannot allow to fail.” They see governments as the best source of financing and discuss tax breaks and subsidies to “escalate entrepreneurship.” The U.S. CDC representative adds that “it’s really a war footing we need to be on.”

The banker also questions whether there might be a technological answer to the problem, perhaps implying online censorship.

Disinformation and Misinformation

Next, the participants tackle the question of intentional “disinformation” and accidental “misinformation.” They note that “limited internet shutdowns are being implemented to quell panic.” They worry that “misinformation is undercutting efforts to control the panic.” The representative from Edelman, a global PR behemoth, notes that social media companies must now step up as “broadcasters” and no longer just see themselves as technology platforms. They must “counteract, if not flood the zone” with accurate information based on partnering with “the scientific and health communities.” The representative of the Monetary Authority of Singapore wonders whether governments might not step up their enforcement actions against “fake news.”

By contrast, the private sector banker at the table remarks that it is “neither practical nor desirable” to shut down information, but agrees that the “flood strategy” is promising, capitalizing on “trusted sources of information.” The banker also questions whether there might be a technological answer to the problem, perhaps implying online censorship.

Effects of the Pandemic

In the video epilogue, the narrator states that 65 million people died in the first 18 months. While the numbers at first seemed controllable, the disease spread to densely populated, impoverished megacities where the death toll exploded. Within six months, cases occurred in nearly every country, and the “global economy was in a freefall.” She explained that the economic effects “lasted for years, perhaps a decade.” But even more significantly, she outlined that the societal impact – “loss of faith in government, distrust of news, breakdown of social cohesion – could last even longer.” Finally, she asked if we could have done anything differently, and answered, “yes.” She concluded, “Are we as a global community now finally ready to do the hard work to prepare for the next pandemic?”

Just two months after the Event 201 New York simulation, China announced the first case of COVID-19…

The Real Coronavirus Crisis

Many aspects of the Event 201 simulation ring true today. The coronavirus pandemic; new public-private partnerships; travel bans; markets in freefall; a wartime footing; and flooding the information zone with controlled messaging. That the video sponsors are now some of the central actors in the real world crisis only amplifies the simulation’s significance.

Just two months after the New York simulation, China announced the first case of COVID-19 on December 31, 2019. Chinese scientists identified and isolated the virus on January 7, 2020. On January 22, 2020, the WHO Emergency Committee “expressed divergent views on whether this event constitutes a Public Health Emergency of International Concern (PHEIC) or not.”

At around the same time, the World Economic Forum met in Davos, Switzerland, January 21-24, 2020. WHO Director General Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus as well as other Event 201 participants were there. On January 24, another Gates Foundation entity engaged in vaccine development, the The Coalition for Epidemic Preparedness and Innovations (CEPI), held a press conference at the World Economic Forum in Davos to provide an update on the outbreak, and announced a new partnership to develop vaccines for the virus as quickly as possible – before the outbreak b a global epidemic.

Some speculate that the WHO decision to declare the emergency was made on the sidelines of the Davos meeting, perhaps in connection with the CEPI decision to prioritize coronavirus vaccines. The WHO Emergency Committee meeting in Geneva occurred in the same time frame on January 22. While any direct connection remains uncertain, Director General Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus declared the Public Health Emergency of International Concern on January 30, 2020. The World Economic Forum immediately pledged its assistance, creating the COVID Action Platform, thus turning the fictional exercise into a high level working group behind the WHO. On January 31, 2020, the U.S. announced a travel ban on China, and events have evolved quickly since then.

WHO’s Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus

Mr. Ghebreyesus has been the WHO Director General since 2017. He’s the first African director and the first Director General who is not a physician. As Ethiopia’s Minister of Health, Mr. Ghebreyesus chaired the Global Fund to Fight AIDS, Tuberculosis and Malaria that the Gates Foundation co-founded. Today, the Gates Foundation is the WHO’s largest donor after the U.S., and the major funder behind the Global Alliance for Vaccination and Immunization (GAVI), another WHO funder.

Is There Any “Benefit” to the Catastrophe?

The Event 201 tabletop exercise shows us the kind of thinking going on as this crisis unfolds. It begs the question whether there can be any “benefit” from such a catastrophe.

According to the August 2019 Gallup poll below, before the crisis, the healthcare industry, the federal government, and the pharmaceutical industry were at the very bottom of the public’s esteem. Negative perceptions ranged from minus 48% for healthcare, minus 52% for the federal government, to a stark minus 58% for pharma. The only other sector in negative territory was the advertising and public relations industry, also represented at the Event 201 table.


The public may have held negative perceptions for a number of possible reasons:

The COVID-19 virus has played a stunning role, shifting public perceptions almost overnight, lifting up the sectors that had been just months ago at the bottom.

Remarkably, the pandemic seems to have pushed a “global reset” button. Pharma and biotech companies are racing to produce new coronavirus vaccines, with the expectation that the world’s population will clamor for them. Media follows the healthcare sector’s every move, creating genuine heroes among the doctors, nurses and other healthcare workers on the frontlines. Even this Administration, long plagued by low popularity ratings, has reached its highest approval rating ever.

In a crisis, people want strong leaders and want to be on their teams, regardless of political leaning. In the new age of COVID-19, people are tuning in to federal health authorities, Congress, and the President, and grateful for whatever drugs and potential vaccines pharma and the healthcare industries put out. The COVID-19 virus thus has played a stunning role, shifting public perceptions almost overnight, lifting up the sectors that had been just months ago at the bottom.

Not to say that people are not critical – they are – but pharma and healthcare stocks are rising, literally and figuratively, while most every other sector is plummeting, and Congress and the President are addressing the crisis and communicating with the public on a daily basis, and people are listening.

Despite all the shifts, one thing is certain: change is the dynamic constant. Who knows what will happen in a month, or two months, or eighteen? “Event 201” offers some important insights into public-private crisis management and what could lie ahead.



Does the Coronavirus Pandemic Serve a Global Agenda?

Health Authorities Remain Silent on Efficient Covid-19 Treatment

For those who follow the global immunization agenda and its implementation on different continents, the announcement of a new pandemic didn’t come as a surprise.  “Pandemic preparedness” has been well-funded and a buzz word for a long time before becoming a priority at the last G7 summits, the Davos World Economic Forum and other meetings of global governance. The latest simulation for preparedness was Event 201,[1] a rehearsal of a coronavirus pandemic organized on October 18, 2019 in New York by Johns Hopkins University, the Gates Foundation and the World Economic Forum.

The Presidential election campaign in the United States and the controversial mandatory measles vaccination law in Germany provided perfect timing. What better than viral terror to influence public opinion and health policies on vaccine battles raging on both sides of the Atlantic?

They agreed on the priority to achieve 90% measles vaccination coverage around the globe and to use arguments of “health emergencies” and “security threats” to bypass informed consent laws and constitutional rights.

To the majority who have never heard about this, one should remember that in 2014, the first Global Health Security Agenda (GHSA) meeting [2] was held at the White House, a few months after the whistleblower William Thompson raised the alarm on fraud committed by the CDC in the MMR vaccine safety study. That revelation led to increasing distrust in vaccination and public health institutions.  So at the GHSA meeting, the US Health and Human Services Department, the World Health Organization (WHO), the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, the Global Alliance for Vaccination and Immunization (GAVI) and health officials from dozens of countries  decided to create a “health security” agenda for the world.  Its main goal was to vaccinate the entire population of the planet and drive changes in national legislation to do so. They agreed on the priority to achieve 90% measles vaccination coverage around the globe and to use arguments of “health emergencies” and “security threats” to bypass informed consent laws and constitutional rights.

Soon after that meeting, the big “measles scare” campaign started in Disneyland in December 2014, leading to the removal of vaccine exemption rights in California. Meanwhile, Italy, which had been designated to be the forerunner of this agenda in Europe, set things in motion to mandate eight additional childhood vaccines.

The movie Vaxxed then came out in April 2016, during the Presidential campaign.  Many American families voted for Donald Trump, hoping that he would create a commission to investigate vaccine safety, as he seemed to have a particular interest. Hillary Clinton, on the other hand, repeated that “the science is clear, the earth is round, the sky is blue and vaccines work” throughout her campaign. A few days before the November 2016 vote,[3] President Obama signed major US funding for the GHSA, together with the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation.

Unfortunately, after the election, the vaccine safety commission that was supposed to be led by Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. never came to pass. On the contrary, draconian vaccine legislation made its way to several states. California, for example, which had already abolished personal belief exemptions, stripped away almost all medical exemptions in 2019, commencing a medical inquisition against doctors who put their patients first.[4]  Many Californians, realizing that their Eldorado had become a gilded cage, moved to freer states for vaccine choice, like Texas or Idaho.[5]

Sadly, informed consent and the Nuremberg Code may now exist only in the museum of democratic values. 

A vaccine war

In 2020, vaccines could weigh even more heavily in US elections. In fact, one could almost say that a vaccine war is going on across the US.  After California, states like New Jersey, Maine, Connecticut, Virginia, Hawaii, Colorado and many others are trying to adopt harsher vaccine laws.  But vaccine freedom advocates are getting more organized, too, putting pressure on elected officials and candidates and even introducing their own legislation. For example, after the New Jersey legislature twice failed to pass a repeal of the religious exemption, even though Speaker Steven Sweeney vowed to “go to war” to get it passed, legislators proposed several vaccine safety bills.[6] The Maryland legislature refused to allow pharmacists to administer vaccines, and in South Dakota, the legislature considered, although rejected, a bill that would have completely prohibited all medical mandates of any kind.[7]

Europe too is undergoing a similar wave of coercive legislation and pushback.  In Germany, compulsory measles vaccination has just come into force in early March, even though the country has one of the highest coverage rates — 97% one dose, 93% two doses — and very few cases of illness or death.  This vote comes two years after Chancellor Angela Merkel announced that there would be no mandatory vaccinations in Germany,[8] as informed consent had “solid historical reasons.”

Everywhere in Europe — in Great Britain, Austria, Belgium, Romania, Slovenia, from Ukraine to Spain — mandatory vaccination bills are being introduced.

Sadly, informed consent and the Nuremberg Code may now exist only in the museum of democratic values.  The new German law is particularly restrictive.  There is no option for home schooling, and the measles vaccine obligation applies to adults working in the health and education sectors as well. But German citizens may be ready to fight back.  Families and doctors are fighting the mandates in courts,[9] and protests were planned all over the country for March 21, including a major event in Munich with Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. and activists from all over Europe – until the coronavirus pandemic intervened.[10] Everywhere in Europe — in Great Britain, Austria, Belgium, Romania, Slovenia, from Ukraine to Spain — mandatory vaccination bills are being introduced. Faced with the violation of human rights that their Constitutions guarantee, people have filed complaints with the European Court of Human Rights.  The Court, whose jurisdiction covers 49 countries throughout Europe and Eurasia, will hear cases on mandatory vaccination on April 30, 2020 arising from the Czech Republic.

It is undeniable that the coronavirus epidemic has come on the scene at a crucial moment, when people everywhere are in revolt against the power of international financial institutions and multinational pharmaceutical corporations, whose stranglehold on governments is no longer hidden. Many scandals have shaken confidence. The bankruptcy of an aberrant economic system is accelerating, and attempts to start a third world war are multiplying. While it is impossible to know how the “coronavirus pandemic” will influence the redistribution of power, it is certain that many are seeking to have Covid-19 serve the political interests of a global governance project.


Interestingly, the second largest outbreak started in Iran, a country which, like China, does not bend to the West’s dictates. It is also currently involved with Syria and Russia in a tug-of-war with Turkey, NATO, and its traditional allies.  After having refused all outside help in the management of the pandemic, Iran made a complete about-face by inviting the WHO to its rescue. It seems that the virus had contaminated a number of high-ranking government officials, including those close to Ayatollah Khamenei, and the former Iranian ambassador to Syria, who died in the early days of the epidemic.  Taking an unusual sanitary measure, the Iranian government released  85,000 “uncontaminated” prisoners to avoid contagion in prisons.  At the same time, officials blamed US sanctions, which were reimposed on Tehran after Washington abandoned the Iran 2015 nuclear deal, for “hampering their efforts to fight the coronavirus.”  Iran called again for lifting the ban and asked the International Monetary Fund for a $5 billion loan to fight the outbreak.[11]

At the beginning of the disease outbreak, the Italian authorities considered it unnecessary to impose a two-week school quarantine on children returning from a trip to China, in order not to “stigmatize” them. (By contrast, unvaccinated children are stigmatized and prohibited from attending school year round.)


In Europe, as luck would have it, the pandemic first affected northern Italy, namely Lombardy and Veneto, which have by far the largest number of vaccine hesitant people in Europe and probably the world.  Veneto strongly opposed the expansion of vaccine mandates.  Activists demonstrated for months, with rallies of more than 50,000 people. As a result, the regional government appealed to the Council of State, arguing that the law violated constitutional freedoms and demanded autonomy in health matters. Of note, the WHO then decided to move its European headquarters to Venice, the capital of Veneto.

At the beginning of the disease outbreak, the Italian authorities considered it unnecessary to impose a two-week school quarantine on children returning from a trip to China, in order not to “stigmatize” them. (By contrast, unvaccinated children are stigmatized and prohibited from attending school year round.) Officials disagreed on Covid-19 diagnosis and “crisis measures,” reflecting conflicts between regional parties and medical experts. But the WHO soon managed to take control of the situation[12] and appointed a special advisor, Dr. Gualtiero Ricciardi, who had been forced to resign earlier from the Italian HHS due to a long list of undeclared conflicts of interest, to steer the coronavirus crisis.

Since then, panic and alarm have escalated continuously, as have the Veneto region’s accusations of “anti-scientific”[13] management. Although the country has been in a complete lockdown for weeks, cases keep increasing and the estimated number of deaths is now nearing 3,000. This sends a frightening signal, but these numbers need to be seen with caution. First, one of the major reasons why Italy is “overwhelmed,”  is because of the crisis its public hospitals were already facing before the epidemic. The number of intensive care units has dropped by half over the last 20 years, dropping from the highest to the lowest number of beds per capita in Europe to around 230 per 100,000 inhabitants. In other words, the situation was already disastrous.

Second, there is a lot of controversy about the number of deaths that can really be ascribed to the epidemic. Testing is not very reliable and suffers many biases. According to Dr. Wolfgang Wodarg, who had chaired the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe Health Committee that called an emergency debate on the influence of the pharmaceutical industry in the declaration of the H1N1 flu pandemic by WHO in 2009,  “the tests are currently not measuring the incidence of coronavirus diseases, but the activity of the specialists searching for them.”[14] Many experts also disagree on the mortality rate of Covid-19. While the WHO gives estimates as high as 3.4%, renowned epidemiologists such as John Ioannidis[15] consider the risk is probably much lower, perhaps 0.125%, for which there are no reasons to take such draconian measures.


In France, too, declarations of the Covid-19 pandemic seemed to have a flair for strategic time and place. When Minister of Health Agnes Buzyn suddenly left office to replace a candidate who was running for mayor of Paris (he had to step down after a sex scandal), the coronavirus crisis seemed to be reasonably manageable. But the Covid-19 threat arose again at an opportune time — to ban large protests against a highly unpopular law that slashed pensions and on the eve of local March elections. After the first round of voting, a complete lockdown was announced. The former health minister, who wasn’t elected mayor, expressed her regret for leaving office during the coronavirus crisis, saying that she knew from the start that the epidemic would escalate and soon turn into a major catastrophe…

But a disaster in France is easy to predict, as the situation is very similar to Italy. 1,300 public hospital doctors have been on administrative strike for almost a year. They refused to share the responsibility and decisions of a state that no longer provides minimal funds to run public health services. In the last two decades, the available number of beds has been reduced by 100,000 and the remaining facilities are largely understaffed. Patients who died after waiting endless hours in the emergency room were already frequently reported by the media long before the coronavirus epidemic.

So the former health minister, who had received fierce criticism for her inability to solve this lingering hospital crisis, knew perfectly well that the coronavirus situation would further exacerbate the problem. Recently, when President Macron visited doctors fighting the epidemic to show his support, medical staff took the opportunity to express their anger towards his disastrous health policies in front of the camera.

… [health authorities] replied that there was not enough scientific evidence to prove efficacy and warned against potential side effects of the [Chloroquine or Plaquenil], preferring to focus their efforts to find new molecules and develop a new vaccine, with France’s Sanofi Pasteur included in the coronavirus vaccine competition.

The silent war in the treatment against Covid-19 

Finally, the Coronavirus epidemic reveals the huge discrepancy between the WHO health strategies and the reality for scientists and doctors who put patients’ lives first.

The current power struggle in France about coronavirus strategies between health officials and the country’s leading expert is truly eye opening.  Professor Didier Raoult, who is one of the world’s top 5 scientists on communicable diseases and leads the high tech research center on infectious diseases,  IHU – mediterranée Marseilles, argued that the approach of mass quarantine is both inefficient and outdated and that large scale testing and treatment of suspected cases achieves far better results.

Early on, Dr. Raoult suggested the use of hydroxychloroquine (Chloroquine or Plaquenil), a well-known, simple, and inexpensive drug that has shown efficacy with previous coronaviruses such as SARS.  By mid-February, clinical trials at his institute and in China already confirmed that the drug could reduce the viral load and bring spectacular improvement. The Chinese scientists published their first trials on more than 100 patients and announced that the Chinese National Health Commission would recommend Chloroquine in their new guidelines to treat Covid-19.[16]

…last October, the French minister of health suddenly decided to put this long used over-the-counter drug on the list of  “controlled substances” and make it a prescription drug.

As a member of a similar French committee, Dr. Raoult immediately shared the great news with health authorities.  But they replied that there was not enough scientific evidence to prove efficacy and warned against potential side effects of the drug, preferring to focus their efforts to find new molecules and develop a new vaccine, with France’s Sanofi Pasteur included in the coronavirus vaccine competition.

But Dr. Raoult and 600 members of his institute continued their work and confirmed similar results in a trial of 24 patients that was published March 3, 2020.[17] Dr. Raoult has recorded daily videos[18] to share his research and knowledge, sometimes reaching half a million views in a couple of days. Hospitals and general practitioners started to treat their patients with the drug until it quickly went out of stock.

In fact, for an unknown reason, last October, the French minister of health suddenly decided to put this long used over-the-counter drug on the list of  “controlled substances” and make it a prescription drug.

While the WHO has repeatedly praised China and South Korea, for their “efficient response” using draconian quarantine measures, there has been no mention of the fact that those countries are using Chloroquine as an efficient Covid-19 treatment.

Now, a month later, under the growing pressure of doctors and the media, the government has finally decided to “consider more trials” of this protocol, and Sanofi Pasteur has announced that it will offer enough doses to potentially treat 300,000 patients.[19]

Although Chloroquine was cited second on the WHO’s original list of drugs to be evaluated for coronavirus treatment as a drug on its list of “essential medicines,” the WHO has not yet released any information about it and has not even mentioned the four clinical trials that received official European Union approval.  While the WHO has repeatedly praised China and South Korea, for their “efficient response” using draconian quarantine measures, there has been no mention of the fact that those countries are using Chloroquine as an efficient Covid-19 treatment. But having used Chloroquine together with quarantine, China is nearing the end of its epidemic.

Interestingly, on February 26, the United Kingdom put Chloroquine on its list[20] of drugs that can no longer be exported outside the country. In the United States, a white paper,[21] published on March 13 by researchers from the National Academy of Science and Stanford Medical School, proposes that “the United States of America and other countries should immediately authorize and indemnify medical doctors for prescribing chloroquine to treat COVID-19.”

Obviously, there is no real interest in using a generic drug that can provide immediate treatment and prevention for a price around $5.

But so far, the only words we hear from the WHO and Western health officials are “quarantine,” “fast tracking vaccines,” and “the search for new drugs.”  Obviously, there is no real interest in using a generic drug that can provide immediate treatment and prevention for a price around $5. As a financial consultant recently asked in an article, “If a Covid-19 Therapy Doesn’t Benefit A Stock, Does It Even Exist?”[22] The answer, sadly, is obviously not.

It looks as if the WHO and our Western governments have decided to keep fueling the panic and raising the alert level, pushing the “Global Health Security Threat” narrative to the hilt.  How much longer will we have to wait for effective treatment? How much longer with this global lockdown last? Officials say “until a new vaccine has been developed,” which will probably be in fast track mode by a well-known philanthropist after most courts in the world have ruled that mandatory vaccination does not violate human rights.

Or perhaps until the economy has completely crashed and can be rebuilt on a “healthy basis”? Here is a clue: the European Central Bank has launched a “Pandemic Emergency Purchase Program”[23] that will last until “the coronavirus Covid-19 crisis phase is over, but in any case not before the end of the year”!

Anything can happen now. No one can know for sure if we will emerge out of the coronavirus crisis as subjects of a techno-communist global government or if a new freedom virus will derail such a program. Certainly the world will not be the same.


* Senta Depuydt is a Belgian freelance journalist with a degree in communications. In 2016, she organized the first European Congress on biomedical treatments in Paris and has hosted debates on the biology of autism and vaccine safety in many French-speaking countries. She arranged for premieres of “Vaxxed” in Brussels, Paris and Cannes and an event at UNESCO. She is a board member of the French League for Free Choice in Vaccination and in the European Forum for Vaccine Vigilance. She works with health freedom organizations across Europe.



  1. Event 201.
  2. Global Health Security Agenda (GHSA) meeting.
  3. Executive Order — Advancing the Global Health Security Agenda to Achieve a World Safe and Secure from Infectious Disease Threats.
  4. California vaccine bill exemption rules agreed to by Newsom and lawmakers.
  5. ‘California refugees’ move to Idaho for lax vaccine laws. They want lawmakers to know why.
  6. ‘We’re ready to go to war on this’: N.J. lawmakers pledge to reintroduce failed vaccine bill.
  7. South Dakota Considers First State Bill To Outlaw All Vaccine AND Medical Mandates.
  8. Genèse de l’obligation vaccinale contre la
    rougeole en Allemagne
  9. Erste Verfassungsbeschwerden in Karlsruhe übergeben.
  10. Invitation to european protest for medical freedom.
  11. Coronavirus: Iran frees 85,000 prisoners to combat spread of infection.
  12. Joint WHO and ECDC mission in Italy to support COVID-19 control and prevention efforts.
  13. Coronavirus, Ricciardi (OMS): “Il Veneto si è comportato in maniera antiscientifica”.
  14. W.Wodarg “Without PCR-Tests There Would Be No Reasons For Special Alarms”, 1.3.20,
  15. A fiasco in the making? As the coronavirus pandemic takes hold, we are making decisions without reliable data.
  16. Expert consensus on comprehensive treatment of coronavirus disease in Shanghai 2019.
  17. Chloroquine and hydroxychloroquine as available weapons to fight COVID-19.
  20. Medicines that cannot be parallel exported from the UK.
  21. March 13 White Paper
  22. If a COVID-19 Therapy Doesn’t Benefit a Stock, Does it Even Exist?.
  23. The Governing Council will terminate net asset purchases under PEPP once it judges that the coronavirus Covid-19 crisis phase is over, but in any case not before the end of the year.

The Science is NOT Settled!

We are experiencing a meteoric rise in childhood chronic diseases including neurodevelopmental disabilities, learning and behavioral problems, autism, immunological disorders including autoimmune disease, allergies, asthma and ectopic conditions, gastrointestinal and reproductive disorders. Importantly, the trajectory of the increased incidence of all of these diseases has tracked parallel with the rising number of doses of vaccines added to the childhood schedule over the last 60 years.

People my age born in the 1950’s, received up to 8 doses of vaccines by age 18. Now, kids get 72 doses, with 36 of those doses by 18 MONTHS of age! And, those 36 doses contain an enormous amount of aluminum, a potent neurotoxin (5,280 micrograms to be exact), along with many other chemicals and drugs. At some “well-visits”, children may get up to as many as 8 doses of vaccines at once! All of this is complete insanity!

We have heard vaccine proponents say that the science is settled on vaccines. What an arrogant and ridiculous statement! First of all, science is never settled on anything because new discoveries are always being made. That is the nature of science. Secondly, when it comes to vaccines, the science that REFUTES what the public is being told about vaccines is far more plentiful, credible and convincing. That is a bold statement, but one that can easily be defended.

…when it comes to vaccines, the science that REFUTES what the public is being told about vaccines is far more plentiful, credible and convincing. That is a bold statement, but one that can easily be defended.

In fact, a free eBook called 1200 Studies – Truth Will Prevail not only defends that statement, it goes on the offense and attacks the pharma talking points about the safety and effectiveness of vaccines. It is the most comprehensive expose on vaccines to date, taking 2 ½ years and over 2,500 hours to research and compile, the 718 page e-document now contains excerpts and summaries of over 1,400 studies, published in reputable journals representing 45 different medical and scientific disciplines and contradicting the industry talking points about vaccines. These are unbiased and objective studies, produced by thousands of researchers and scientists who are not funded by vaccine manufacturers.

Designed as a PDF, 1200 Studies features easy to use navigation tools, including key word and phrase search capability. In addition, every topic in the table of contents is a link transporting you directly to page where the topic and study is found in the document, And on that page you will find a link directly to the abstract or full study on PubMed, or the source journal itself. No more flipping pages or tedious scrolling.

1200 Studies – Truth Will Prevail can be downloaded free at The only stipulation is that you share it widely. Help others make an educated and informed choice for themselves and their families. Also please like, follow and share the 1200 Studies Facebook page.

The Jig Is Up

As a GP with more than 50 years experience in treating children and their families, I feel it my duty to speak out against the new vaccine mandates, for three main reasons. The first is that there is no emergency to justify vaccinating children against their parents’ wishes, let alone keeping them out of school if they refuse. The second is that the research cited to prove that vaccines are safe and effective falls far short of the rigorous standards that valid medical science must follow. The third is that the Nuremberg Code and the Helsinki Declaration, both of which we helped write and still profess to abide by, explicitly forbid any medical procedure, treatment, or experiment undertaken without the fully-informed consent of the recipient.

There is no emergency

I’ll take the easy one first. The public hysteria that has led a number of states to declare an emergency arose largely in response to measles outbreaks in 2016 and 2019. While a little larger than in the recent past, these were still quite small, localized, and in most respects similar to those recorded in every year since the vaccine was introduced, numbering just over 1000 cases in 2019, compared to a few hundred in the years since 2000, when the CDC prematurely declared the disease eliminated from the United States,1 and anywhere from 400,000-800,000 cases annually in the pre-vaccine era.2 If the CDC would just admit that they were a little hasty, and that such outbreaks are bound to occur, they could still claim a historic victory over this formerly ubiquitous disease. It’s also worth remembering that virtually everyone of my generation came down with measles in grade school and recovered without complications; nobody thought it an emergency back then, so there was no urgent need for a vaccine in the first place.

Although public health officials rarely admit it, the vast majority of the cases of measles, mumps, chicken pox, whooping cough, and influenza in both past and recent outbreaks, typically from 75-95%, have been in vaccinated individuals …

In any case, the hysteria behind the present campaign to eliminate all religious and philosophical exemptions is utterly disproportionate to the facts on the ground. My own state of Massachusetts has seen 0-3 measles cases per year for the last 5 years, and only 44 cases in the past decade,3 with 97% of our kindergarteners and 99% of our seventh-graders already vaccinated with the MMR,4 well above the official target of 95% for the stricter new mandate that it has in mind.

The alleged emergency rests on two assumptions so widely regarded as self-evident that they are rarely challenged:

  1. that these measles outbreaks are spread mainly by the unvaccinated, and
  2. that vaccines are so effective that only the unvaccinated are still susceptible and thus capable of transmitting the disease to others.

But, there is ample scientific evidence that exactly the opposite is true.

Although public health officials rarely admit it, the vast majority of the cases of measles, mumps, chicken pox, whooping cough, and influenza in both past and recent outbreaks, typically from 75-95%, have been in vaccinated individuals;5 in the case of mumps, the figure is typically 95-100%.6   So even if everyone were vaccinated, and all non-medical exemptions eliminated, as the new laws require, similar outbreaks are virtually certain to continue.

We also know that individuals receiving the “live” vaccines (measles, mumps, rubella, chickenpox, rotavirus, and oral polio) “shed” them for weeks afterward, and are contagious to family members, friends, and close contacts.7  As for the “non-living” vaccines, recent studies show that current outbreaks of whooping cough are likewise being spread mainly by vaccinated individuals, through the development of vaccine-resistant strains,8 while analogous mutations have been documented in the case of HiB, pneumococcus, IPV, HPV, and other non-living vaccines as well.9  In short, the push to vaccinate everybody, and the bullying that typically accompanies it, actually help to propagate the diseases that the vaccines were meant to eradicate.

The only scary feature of the 2019 outbreaks is that a large number of those infected have been shown to bear the genotype of the vaccine virus, rather than the wild type,10 so that for the first time a significant proportion of the cases are unvaccinated, providing still more convincing proof that the vaccine is spreading the disease, because the disease itself has mutated in response to it, an ominous sign for the future.

A more imminent threat is whooping cough, which …  has reappeared with a vengeance in the last 20 years, again mainly in vaccinated individuals, and involving, in addition to the wild type, a mutant strain resistant to the vaccine, and a wholly new species that strikes mainly the vaccinated.

Claims that vaccines are safe and effective are deceptive

My second reason for writing is to show that vaccines are much less safe and effective than we’ve been led to believe. Keep in mind that they’re given purely on the basis of long-term health policy, rather than in response to a genuine public-health emergency. Most of them are directed against:

  1. diseases that were once life-threatening, but already declining in incidence and mortality before the vaccines were introduced, thanks to improvements in sanitation, water quality, and other public-health measures (diphtheria, pertussis, tetanus);11
  2. ordinary diseases of childhood that most people contracted and recovered from without complications or sequelæ (measles, mumps, rubella, flu, rotavirus, chickenpox);12 or
  3. sporadic illnesses linked to mutant strains of organisms that are part of our normal flora and relatively seldom cause invasive disease (pneumococcus, HiB).13

To be pronounced effective, vaccines need satisfy just two narrow criteria: a significant reduction in the incidence, morbidity, and mortality of the corresponding illnesses following their use; and significant, prolonged increases in the level of serum antibodies against the micro-organisms targeted by them.

Vaccines achieving these objectives often prove to have been much less successful when investigated more systematically. For two reasons, the flu vaccine, for example, is virtually predestined to fail, even when it succeeds in preventing many cases of the strain it is directed against: first, because the extreme mutability of the influenza viruses virtually guarantees that a different vaccine will be needed every year, and sometimes even within the same season, with different specifications that cannot be known in advance; and second, because the generic illness we know as “the flu” is linked to many different viruses, by no means restricted to the influenza group for which it is named.

Some version of the same issue hovers over the other vaccines as well. Even when they satisfy both criteria, the viruses and bacteria they are directed against reliably mutate into different strains of the same or closely-related organisms, which are not counted in the statistics, a process which is greatly accelerated by these determined and systematic attempts to eliminate them.

The pneumococcus and HiB organisms, for example, are linked to sporadic cases of pneumonia, meningitis, endocarditis, and septicemia involving mutant strains of bacteria that normally reside in the nasopharynx of most healthy people, so that the vaccines targeting them have already elicited new, resistant, and even more pathogenic strains that are altering and will continue to alter that important ecosystem in ways that the CDC and the drug industry cannot foresee and indeed seem myopically unconcerned about.14

A more imminent threat is whooping cough, which was rapidly declining in incidence and mortality before the pertussis vaccine was introduced the 1940’s, but has reappeared with a vengeance in the last 20 years, again mainly in vaccinated individuals, and involving, in addition to the wild type, a mutant strain resistant to the vaccine, and a wholly new species that strikes mainly the vaccinated.15

Another is polio, against which both the oral and injectable vaccines have been somewhat effective in preventing large-scale outbreaks like those of the 1950’s. In India, which uses the cheaper live, oral version, an even more virulent form of paralytic disease, clinically indistinguishable from the original, has become prevalent in recent years, and was conveniently named Non-Polio Acute Flaccid Paralysis, or NPAFP, lest anyone suspect that the vaccine is to blame.16  In the United States, which declared polio officially eliminated years ago, and has reverted to the original injectable or killed vaccine, another very similar disease has emerged, named Acute Flaccid Myelitis (AFM) for the same reason, with the related enterovirus D-68 widely suspected as the cause.17

Likewise, the level of specific antibodies in the blood has dismally failed to provide an accurate measure of immune status after vaccination. Even their advocates admit that vaccines are never completely effective, since most targeted diseases continue to break out and even predominate in highly-vaccinated populations, as we saw.18

These alleged “vaccine failures” are then invoked to impose additional booster doses, based on the assumptions:

  1. that they represent “bad batches,” and nothing more;
  2. that low antibody levels in the vaccinated mean that the vaccines have simply “worn off,” leaving behind nothing but a “blank slate;”
  3. that the titer can be ratcheted up to the desired level by simply adding more shots; and
  4. that the antibody level is an accurate measure of immune status, of the extent to which the vaccinated are resistant to infection with the natural disease.

Unfortunately, none of these assumptions stands up to careful scrutiny.

First, we already know but choose to forget that the titer can’t be simply manipulated at will by adding more boosters. In 1980, Dr. James Cherry, a leading vaccine advocate, discovered that children receiving the MMR who later developed low titers responded to a booster dose only minimally and for an unacceptably short time.19 A few years later, when measles outbreaks in highly-vaccinated populations generated pressure to do something drastic, Cherry’s research was quietly shelved, the booster was mandated, and it remains in force to this day.

Then in 1986, a clustering of several hundred measles cases were reported in the Midwest, of which 94% were in vaccinated schoolchildren, and a sizable number were unusually mild, with a paler rash, no fever, and minimal discomfort, fatigue, or other systemic involvement.20  The scientists researching the outbreak were startled to learn that the milder version was commonest in vaccinated cases with no antibodies at all, while the typical acute illness affected mainly vaccinated kids with high titers in the supposedly “immune” range.21

Indicating viral activity in both subgroups that serological testing had failed to detect, these findings led me to wonder if vaccinees with low levels of antibody were being misidentified as susceptible, inappropriately revaccinated, and thus subjected to further complications that were also overlooked. Soon after, I chanced to witness just such a misfortune when asked to review a damage compensation claim following the Hep B vaccine.  The claimant was a young lab tech who developed a nasty cough lasting for many months after a series of three Hep B shots as required for her training. When she applied for a job four years later, her serum showed zero antibodies to the virus, and her new employer, supposing her to be still susceptible, insisted on a second round. This time she relapsed almost immediately, with an even more intense version of the same cough, followed by a sequence of new complaints, including nodular goiter, Hashimoto’s thyroiditis, esophageal reflux, palpitations, and anxiety, requiring maintenance doses of several drugs and medical supervision all year round; and her claim was denied without even a hearing, because none of her complaints were officially-approved complications of the vaccine.22

The vaccine manufacturers design the safety trials

As to safety, vaccine safety trials, virtually without exception, are funded, conducted, and micromanaged by the manufacturers themselves, and then rubber-stamped by the government agencies that are supposed to be regulating them, a more blatant style of corruption pithily summarized by a former Vice-President of Pfizer who had witnessed and indeed helped to perpetrate it:

Everybody is out there begging for money. The big international corporations have lots of money. They give grants for research, pay doctors and researchers thousands to travel around, speak at conferences, and establish educational programs, all to make profits for their products. The safety trials are supposed to be third-party and independent, but the money won’t keep coming unless they say what you want them to say. The insiders know this is how things work. Only the public doesn’t know it.23

The basic strategies developed to conceal or minimize adverse reactions include the following:

  1. instead of inert placebo, the so-called “control” groups are given the toxic chemical ingredients of the vaccines under study, or a different vaccine entirely;24
  2. to qualify as vaccine-related, adverse reactions must occur within hours, or days, or at most a week or two after the shot, thus arbitrarily ruling out the entire chronic dimension, within which the majority of them occur.25
  3. they must appear on the vanishingly small list already recognized by the industry, thereby excluding the possibility of discovering new ones; and
  4. adverse effects reported by the recipients but not specifically asked about by the research team are subject to numerous restrictions, with the lead investigator given complete authority to disqualify them, based on criteria that are never specified.26

Naturally, the upshot of these shenanigans has been massive under reporting of adverse reactions, estimated at somewhere between 1% and 0.1% of the true figure.27

The manufacturers have been in command of the process ever since the 1980’s, when multiple lawsuits resulted in large payouts for brain damage following the DPT vaccine, whereupon they threatened to stop making vaccines entirely unless Congress excused them from all further liability.28  In 1986, Congress  acceded to their ultimatum by passing the National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act, which created the taxpayer-funded VICP program for compensating claims, and deprived patients and experimental subjects of their right to sue the manufacturer for damages,29 a free ride granted to no other industry. In 2011, the Supreme Court actually signed off on this devil’s bargain, ruling that vaccines are “unavoidably unsafe,” so that the industry must indeed be excused for whatever deaths or injuries may result from them!30

Many studies have shown that children who come down with and recover from acute diseases with fever, like measles, mumps, rubella, chickenpox, and influenza, are significantly less likely to develop chronic autoimmune diseases and cancer later in life than those merely vaccinated against them.

Evidence of harm

As a GP caring for families, I’ve always felt uneasy about giving vaccines routinely, because the diseases they’re designed to prevent are acute illnesses, with high fever and a massive, concerted outpouring of immune mechanisms that succeed in expelling the invading organism from the body, whereas vaccination, by contrast, is by definition a chronic process, involving long-term antibody production as an isolated phenomenon that requires the vaccine organism to remain inside the cells of the host for years, with no obvious path or mechanism for getting rid of it.31

In light of the industry’s successful campaign for concealing the harm done by vaccines, the simplest way to approximate the extent of it is to look at it in reverse, at the major health benefits to be acquired by not vaccinating, and simply allowing our children to acquire the ordinary diseases that most of them would naturally be exposed to. Many studies have shown that children who come down with and recover from acute diseases with fever, like measles, mumps, rubella, chickenpox, and influenza, are significantly less likely to develop chronic autoimmune diseases and cancer later in life than those merely vaccinated against them.32

Another important finding is that the risk of death, hospitalization, and major adverse reactions following vaccines depends much less on which one, than the total number of individual vaccines administered, both simultaneously at the same visit,33 and cumulatively over the patient’s lifetime.34  That purely quantitative threat makes it clear that these worst outcomes are not simply idiosyncratic aberrations or genetic mutations of a very few hypersensitive individuals, but regular, predictable consequences of some fundamental property built into the vaccination process itself.

All by themselves, these studies provide ample justification for questioning and doubting the prevailing assumptions that vaccines are uniformly safe and effective, that they save vast sums of money from not having to care for patients suffering from the corresponding diseases, and that it is OK and even desirable to pile on as many different ones as the traffic will bear.

According to the CDC’s current guidelines, children are mandated or strongly recommended to receive a total of 70 doses of individual vaccines by the age of 18,35 and 149 by age 65.36  That doesn’t even count the 200-plus vaccines still in the pipeline,37 and the others sure to follow, with no regulation or restraint, and often for no better reason than that we possess the technical capacity to make them. Incentivized with a blank check of that size, it becomes ever more unlikely that children who obey these guidelines will get to live out a full lifespan, with no autoimmune diseases and cancers to make them suffer and die before their time.

Human rights under attack

Another bottom line of the fake emergency, and the bad science cited to justify it, is the aggressive campaign by the drug industry, the CDC, and the doctors who follow their lead to dispense with fundamental human rights that have long been inseparable from our democratic way of life, upheld in our courts, and still loudly proclaimed even by those most determined to take them away.

Without a real emergency, forcing parents to vaccinate their children against their will, their best judgment, and their deepest instincts:

  1. denies them the right to choose the form of health care that they feel is best for their children;
  2. forces them to accept an unnecessary and unsafe medical procedure without their fully-informed consent; and
  3. forfeits their children’s right to an education if they persist in refusing the procedure.

In contemporary case law, the legal right of parents to decide which form of health care will be given to their children is not absolute, and has been suspended temporarily in life-threatening situations where courts have granted physicians and hospitals temporary custody to perform emergency surgery, for example, when their parents refused to allow it on religious grounds.38 But most vaccinations are given routinely, to prevent diseases that are not imminent, only rarely dangerous, and may never even be in the vicinity.

In any case, the right of medical patients and experimental subjects to refuse any medical intervention or procedure without their fully-informed consent was unequivocally affirmed in both the Nuremberg Code, which the United States helped write and almost all developed nations adopted in the wake of atrocious Nazi medical experiments in World War II, and the Helsinki Declaration, “Ethical Principles for Medical Research Involving Human Subjects,” which elaborates on the same issues in a passage that could almost have been written with the vaccine mandates in mind:

In medical research involving competent human subjects, each potential subject must be adequately informed of the aims, methods, sources of funding, any possible conflicts of interest, institutional affiliations of the researcher, anticipated benefits and potential risks of the study and the discomfort it may entail, and any other relevant aspects of the study.

The potential subject must be informed of the right to refuse to participate in the study, or to withdraw consent to participate at any time without reprisal. After insuring that the potential subject has understood the information, the physician or another appropriately qualified individual must then seek the potential subject’s freely-given informed consent, preferably in writing.39

Regarding children’s right to an education, the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) sums it up perfectly:

All children living in the United States have the right to a free public education. The Constitution requires that all be given equal educational opportunity, regardless of race, ethnicity, religion, or sex, and whether rich or poor, citizen or non-citizen. Even those in this country illegally have the right to go to public school.40

It is not difficult to imagine a genuine public health emergency, such as a deadly plague or imminent bioterrorist attack, in which it might be necessary to suspend all of these rights temporarily. But small, localized outbreaks of ordinary childhood diseases are no such emergency, and don’t justify depriving children of their right to an education for the rest of their lives.

…even the fiercest critics of Big Pharma shy away from questioning their motives when it comes to vaccines, and even recycle their favorite talking points…

The upside-down politics behind the mandates

I have always felt that protecting the rights of parents and children by defeating the new mandates should logically be a popular, winning issue for liberal and progressive politicians, as well as organizations protecting civil liberties, public radio and TV stations, and a majority of the news media.

At the moment, however, the strictest of the new laws have been enacted or proposed in the blue-est of blue states, while their main opponents seem more closely aligned with the GOP, claiming descent from Ronald Reagan and seeing government regulation itself as the problem. As for the Democrats, even the fiercest critics of Big Pharma shy away from questioning their motives when it comes to vaccines, and even recycle their favorite talking points.41, 42  Meanwhile, as if in lockstep, the New York Times, the Washington Post, the Boston Globe, and various NPR radio and TV stations have likewise maintained a united front on the issue, uncritically accepting the alleged emergency as settled fact, stigmatizing “anti-vaxxers” as deluded or ignorant crazies, and declining to publish or give credence to dissenting views.43,44  Some like Congressman Adam Schiff have gone even further, directing Facebook and Google to censor all content opposing vaccines or questioning the mandates, in overt defiance of the First Amendment.45

Yet the politicians, the news media, and the general public deserve blame mainly for believing without questioning, for taking on faith what they’re being told by medical and and scientific “experts” in a position to know, that vaccines are safe and effective, that the science is settled, that the emergency is real, and that vaccinating everybody is the only solution. In an ideal world, or even the well-functioning democracy that we habitually claim to be, we should be able to trust our doctors to know and speak the truth, and to be open to changing our minds when new facts are brought to light. The fact that we aren’t shows that we continue to believe because we need to believe, because we want to have faith in the religion of modern medicine,46 even when it forbids the questions and doubts that true science requires.47

… caring parents are much better judges of what really happened to their children than those giant multinationals who make and sell vaccines, profit so lavishly from them, and cannot even be sued for the tragedies that result.

The jig is up

In any case, a number of signs and portents lead me to prophesy that this topsy-turvy politics may be on the verge of total collapse. The most obvious reason is the sheer aggressiveness of the campaign to enforce the stricter mandates, as if knowing that the end is near. A good example is the CDC’s much-heralded agenda item, Healthy People 2020, which is widely rumored to be planning to extend the existing mandates to adults, although their website so far makes no mention of it.  If true, it may well backfire, since having to stand in line and roll up their own sleeves might stimulate parents to think about vaccines in a new way, to walk the talk they now righteously impose on their children.

Another is the sheer number of vaccines that are out there, with all the boosters and multiple vaccines being given together at the same visit, which have meant and will continue to mean more and more casualties, each with his or her own little ecosystem of grieving parents, relatives, and friends, not to mention the skyrocketing costs of medical care and special education in the schools that must follow in their wake.

Even though still largely “under the radar,” unacknowledged as legitimate or vaccine-related by most doctors, hospitals, schools, and even some family members and friends, the sheer numbers of aggrieved parents convinced that vaccines were responsible have already mobilized a formidable online presence, demonstrated and testified before state legislatures, and even persuaded some of them to leave their religious and philosophical exemptions in place. The increased number and volume of such casualties have also brought about a subtle change in the attitude of and coverage by the news media, including more objective reporting of anti-vaccination protests by nurses refusing to take the flu and Hep B shots that some hospitals are requiring as conditions of their employment,48 which suggests that the religious aspect may slowly be wearing thin and giving way.

Similarly, many of the women asserting the right to control their own bodies, whether by demanding access to abortions and birth control, or by exposing sexual abuse and harassment, will eventually want to have children, and will then have to fight for the right to decide on what kind of health care to give them. Whether or not to vaccinate will thus finally, inevitably, and rightly come to be recognized as a woman’s issue, a mother’s issue, and ultimately a father’s, too, one supremely worth demonstrating, protesting, and otherwise fighting for, engaging with politicians about, and even running for office themselves, to make it happen.

So in the end it comes back to parents as the spearhead or leading edge for change. If the industry, the CDC, and most doctors are right that vaccines are truly safe, then those thousands upon thousands of aggrieved parents who claim that vaccines have killed or crippled their children and must live every day in the shadow of those tragedies, whatever may have caused them, must be either lying, deluded, ignorant, or stupid. Having cared for many such children over the years, I can attest to the fact that their parents are none of these. By no means ignorant “anti-vaxxers,” the derogatory term meant to ridicule and defame them, their only mistake was to have done exactly what they were told, and now they want answers — to learn the truth about vaccines, and to insure that they be made as safe as possible: “ex-vaxxers” would be a more accurate label.

After 52 years of practicing family medicine, I can also say with complete assurance what should have been obvious all along—that caring parents are much better judges of what really happened to their children than those giant multinationals who make and sell vaccines, profit so lavishly from them, and cannot even be sued for the tragedies that result.


  1.   “Measles Elimination in the United States,” CDC,, 2019.
  2. “Graph of Reported Measles Cases, 1956-2008,” College of Physicians of Philadelphia,, 2015.
  3. “Vaccine-Preventable Diseases: Measles,”, 2019.
  4. Ibid.
  5. Cf., for example, Matson, D., et al., “Outbreak of Measles in a Fully-Vaccinated School Population,” Pediatric Infectious Diseases 12:292, 1993.
  6. Cf. “Mumps Outbreak at Harvard,” NBC News, April 2016.
  7. Cf., for example, Payne, D., et al., “Sibling Transmission of Vaccine-Derived Rotavirus,” Pediatrics 125:938, 2010, and Murti, M., et al., “Case of Vaccine-Associated Measles 5 Weeks Post-Immunisation,” Eurosurveillance 18:12, 2013.
  8. Cf., for example, Althouse, B., and Scarpino, S., “Asymptomatic Transmission and the Resurgence of Bordetella pertussis,” BMC Medicine 13:1186, 2015.
  9. Cf., for example, Cantekin, E., Letter, New England Journal of Medicine 344:1719, 2001, and Greninger, A., et al., “Enterovirus D-68 Strain Associated with Acute Flaccid Myelitis,” Lancet Infectious Diseases 15:671, 2015.
  10. Roy, F., et al., “Rapid Identification of Measles Virus Vaccine Genotype by Real- Time PCR,” Journal of Clinical Microbiology,, 2017.
  11. Cf., for example, Dauer, C., “Reported Whooping Cough Morbidity and Mortality in the United States,” Public Health Report 58:661, 1943.
  12. Cf., for example, “Varicella,” American Academy of Pediatrics Brochure, 1996.
  13. Cf., for example, Cantekin, op. cit.
  14. Ibid.
  15. Cf. Althouse and Scarpino, op. cit.; Martin, S., et al., “Pertactin-Negative Bordetella pertussis Strains,” Clinical Infectious Diseases 60:223, 2015; and Long, G., et al., “Acellular Pertussis Vaccination Facilitates Bordetella parapertussis Infection,” Proceedings of the Royal Society of Biological Sciences 10:1098, 2010.
  16. Cf., for example, Vashisht, N., and Puliyel, J., “Polio Programme: Let Us Declare Victory and Move On,” Indian Journal of Medical Ethics 9:1146, 2012.
  17. Cf. Greninger, et al., op. cit.
  18. Vide supra, notes 5, 6.
  19. Cherry, J., “The New Epidemiology of Measles and Rubella,” Hospital Practice, July 1980, p. 52 et seq.
  20. Edmondson, M., et al., “Mild Measles and Secondary Vaccine Failure During a Sustained Outbreak in a Highly-Vaccinated Population,” JAMA 263:2467, 1990.
  21. Ibid.
  22. T. O. vs. Secretary of HHS, VICP Claim #99-635V.
  23. Dr. Peter Rost Interview, in Gardasil Documentary, One More Girl, posted by Arjun Walia,, July 2015.
  24. Cf. vaccine package inserts, and “How Are Vaccines Evaluated for Safety?”
  25. Ibid.
  26. Ibid.
  27. Kessler, D., “Introducing MEDWatch,” JAMA 269:2765, and “Guerilla RN,”, October 22, 2015.
  28. Holland, M., “Unanswered Questions from the Vaccine Injury Compensation Program,” Pace Environmental Law Review 28:480, 2011.
  29. Holland, M., and Krakow, R., “The Right to Legal Redress,” Vaccine Epidemic, Holland, M., and Habakus, L., eds. Skyhorse, 2012, pp. 39-40.
  30. Bruesewitz vs. Wyeth, 2011.
  31. Cf., for example, Moskowitz, R., Vaccines: a Reappraisal, Skyhorse, 2017, Chapter 1, pp. 9-12.
  32. Cf., for example, Albonico, H., et al., “Febrile Infectious Childhood Diseases and the History of Cancer Patients and Matched Controls,” Medical Hypotheses 51:315, 1998.
  33. Cf. Goldman, G., and Miller, N., “Relative Trends in Hospitalization and Mortality Among Infants by the Number of Vaccine Doses and Age,” Human Experimental Toxicology 31:1012, 2012.
  34. Cf. Glanz, J., et al., “A Population-Based Cohort Study of Under-Vaccination in 8 Managed-Care Organizations across the United States,” JAMA Pediatrics 167:284, 2013.
  35. “Recommended Immunization Schedule for Persons Age 0-18 Years,” ACIP,, 2016.
  36. “Recommended Adult Immunization Schedule,” ACIP,, 2016.
  37. “Medicines in Development: Vaccines,” Press Release, PhRMA,, September 11, 2013.
  38. Cf. Black, L., “Limiting Parents’ Rights in Medical Decision-Making,” AMA Journal of Ethics, October 2006, pp. 676-80.
  39. “Ethical Principles for Research Involving Human Subjects,” World Medical Association, Helsinki, 1964, amended 2008, 24, p. 3.
  40. “Your Right to Equality in Education,” ACLU, htpps://, 2020.
  41. Panetta, G., “What Every 2020 Presidential Candidate Said about Vaccines: Bernie Sanders,” Business Insider, March 15, 2019.
  42. Panetta, op. cit., “Elizabeth Warren.”
  43. “How to Inoculate against Anti-Vaxxers,” Editorial, New York Times, January 20, 2019.
  44. “With Vaccine Rejection Reaching Alarming Levels, the State Should Act,” Editorial, Boston Globe, February 10, 2019.
  45. Rodrigo, C., “Schiff Calls Out Facebook, Google over Anti-Vaccination Information,” The Hill, February 14, 2019.
  46. Cf., for example, Dubos, R., Mirage of Health, Harper, 1959, p. 157: “Faith in the magical powers of drugs often blunts the critical senses, and comes close at times to a mass hysteria, involving scientists and laymen alike. Men want miracles . . . and [may] satisfy this need by worshipping at the altar of modern science.”
  47. Cf. Feynman, R., The Pleasure of Finding Things Out, Basic, 1999, pp. 99-112, passim: “Scientists’ statements are approximate, never absolutely certain. We must leave room for doubt, or there is no progress and no learning. There is no learning without having to pose a question, and a question requires doubt. Before you begin an experiment, you must not know the answer, [or] there is no need to gather evidence; and to judge the evidence, you must take all of it, not just the parts you like. That’s a responsibility that scientists feel toward each other, a kind of morality.”
  48. Cf., for example, “Boston Nurses Speak Out Against Mandatory Flu Shots,” Health Impact News,, October 20, 2014.

Vaxxed II Streaming on February 25th on Roku

Vaxxed II: The People’s Truth begins streaming today, February 25th, on AMC’s Roku Channel on Peeps TV and also on

Advocates, don’t miss this opportunity to see Vaxxed II – AND share it with friends! Sign up for Roku is easy so be sure to do it ASAP. You can also purchase the DVD now; with shipping beginning February 26th.

Vaxxed II should be seen by all. As many of us know, parents bear the unbelievably heavy load of their child’s vaccine injury. Parents who have gone through these experiences see Vaxxed II as a validation of their child’s injury. Those who don’t have a vaccine injured loved one, who perhaps were on the fence, say that the movie is mind-changing for them. And, we know their vaccine decisions will be life-altering for their children.

Please help by spreading the message far and wide. CHD has also created some hand-outs to help. (See links below.)

  • Spread the word. Tell everyone you know that the movie will be available on Roku beginning February 25th! And is on sale now with shipping to begin February 26th!
  • Have a watch party. The movie provides a wonderful opportunity for you to tell YOUR child’s experience through the other Vaxxed II stories. Invite your family, friends, co-workers and neighbors. Get a big screen and share. Be sure to leave time for discussion at the end. Invitations to your watch party should be personal. “Dear Friends, please come to watch a movie with me about what happened to Ryan (or Sarah)…”

People need to know that all of these stories are real, that children are being harmed every day and that there is nowhere for parents to turn; no real treatments and no liability for vaccine makers.

HAND OUT: 10 Facts Every Parent Needs to Know About Vaccines
HAND OUT: I Wish I’d Known…

Click on the images below to download these two handouts and include them with your invitations!


A Parent’s Perspective on Virginia’s Bill to Mandate All Vaccines on the CDC Schedule

On February 18, more than fifty parents crowded into a Senate room to testify before the Senate Health Subcommittee regarding a bill that requires school immunizations. The bill they considered would transfer the legislature’s decision-making authority over vaccine mandates to the federal Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). Every vaccine on the CDC’s recommended list, except annual flu shots, would automatically be required of Virginia schoolchildren. Future CDC-recommended vaccines would be added to Virginia’s requirements too, without further deliberation. This would mean 13 additional vaccines against 8 diseases now, including hepatitis A, meningitis and the HPV vaccine for boys, and other vaccines in the future.

The Subcommittee voted 5-0 with one abstention in favor of the bill. But could there be a problem? The educated parents who took time out of their busy lives to testify think so. And notably not a single parent testified in favor of the bill — only physicians and medical representatives with professional and financial interests at stake.

Parents showed up for many reasons:

First, safety. Vaccines do not undergo the kind of rigorous safety testing that drugs do. Because vaccines are “biologics,” they can be tested for periods as short as 4 days, as for the hepatitis B vaccine, and are usually tested against other vaccines, not inert saline placebos. This kind of testing masks serious problems that only show up when vaccines are in widespread use.

The notion that vaccine injury is one is a million is a myth. A federal Agency for Health Research Quality study suggests that vaccine injury is as common as 1 in 38 vaccines given. Making matters worse, manufacturers and healthcare providers cannot be held liable — Congress granted them blanket immunity under the 1986 National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act.

In addition, vaccine are not always effective. They don’t confer any immunity in up to 10% of the population, and vaccine-induced immunity wanes over time. Outbreaks of pertussis, mumps, measles, and chickenpox regularly occur in vaccinated children.

Conflicts of interest are real. Because the CDC promotes vaccines, holds vaccine patents, and works closely with the CDC Foundation, to which Big Pharma contributes, it is not an unbiased referee. A revolving door between the CDC and the pharmaceutical industry as well as lucrative consulting contracts has led many observers to conclude that the CDC is captured by industry.

Children today are not healthy. Perhaps the most important concern for parents is that children today are not healthy. Indeed, 54% of American children have serious chronic health conditions, including ADD and ADHD, autism, asthma, allergies, arthritis, diabetes, learning disabilities and more.

African American children are at especially high risk, as black children are six times more likely to die from asthma, twice as likely to die in infancy, and 52% more likely to suffer from severe autism than all children.

Dr. Bill Thompson, a Ph.D. scientist at the CDC who was granted federal whistleblower protection, alleges that CDC scientists found that African-American boys are 3.36 times more likely to become autistic from the measles-mumps-rubella vaccine before 36 months than if they received it after 36 months. CDC supervisors then required Dr. Thompson and his colleagues to destroy the data and publish inaccurate results.

Robust evidence now confirms that African Americans have more responsive immune systems than Caucasians do. Leading vaccinologist Dr. Gregory Poland of the Mayo Clinic acknowledges that African Americans need one half the dose of vaccines that Caucasians do. So the CDC’s one-size-fits-all approach imposes an even greater additional risk of injury on African American children.

If the Senate passes the bill, Virginia will automatically turn future CDC-recommended vaccines into statewide mandates without legislative review. Virginia would literally be making its children first-in-line to try new CDC-recommended vaccines. Does no one remember the CDC’s Tuskegee experiments on African-American males? People may not know that the CDC experimented with an unlicensed measles vaccine on inner city children as recently as 1989.

Similarly, the human papilloma vaccine should give legislators pause. The federal government has received over 520 death reports and over 64,000 serious injury reports about this vaccine. Indeed, in Tarsell v. HHS, the Court of Federal Claims actually decided that Gardasil caused the death of Christina Tarsell, a 21-year old college student.

Parents need to call the shots when it comes to their kids, and they need legislators to pause before they hand over their authority to unelected federal bureaucrats who are captured by the pharmaceutical industry.



American Academy of Allergy, Asthma, and Immunology (2017). Black Children Six Times More Likely to Die of Asthma [Press release].

Becerra, T. A., von Ehrenstein, O. S., Heck, J. E., Olsen, J., Arah, O. A., Jeste, S. S., … & Ritz, B. (2014). Autism spectrum disorders and race, ethnicity, and nativity: a population-based study. Pediatrics, 134(1), e63-e71.

Bridge, J. A., Horowitz, L. M., Fontanella, C. A., Sheftall, A. H., Greenhouse, J., Kelleher, K. J., & Campo, J. V. (2018). Age-related racial disparity in suicide rates among US youths from 2001 through 2015. JAMA Pediatrics, 172(7), 697-699.

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (2019).  Infant Mortality Statistics from the 2017 Period Linked Birth/Infant Death Data Set.  National Vital Statistics Reports. Table 2.

DeStefano, F., Bhasin, T. K., Thompson, W. W., Yeargin-Allsopp, M., & Boyle, C. (2004). Age at first measles-mumps-rubella vaccination in children with autism and school-matched control subjects: a population-based study in metropolitan Atlanta. Pediatrics, 113(2), 259–266.

Gallagher, C. M., & Goodman, M. S. (2010). Hepatitis B vaccination of male neonates and autism diagnosis, NHIS 1997–2002. Journal of Toxicology and Environmental Health, Part A, 73(24), 1665-1677.  

Haralambieva, I. H., Salk, H. M., Lambert, N. D., Ovsyannikova, I. G., Kennedy, R. B., Warner, N. D., … & Poland, G. A. (2014). Associations between race, sex and immune response variations to rubella vaccination in two independent cohorts. Vaccine, 32(17), 1946-1953.

Kerr, D. & Rivero, M. (April 30, 2014). Whistleblower Peter Buxtun and the Tuskegee Syphilis Study. Government Accountability Project.

McCray, V. (January 24, 2020). State to require APS to review special education policies. The Atlanta-Journal Constitution.

Petersen, E. E., Davis, N. L., Goodman, D., Cox, S., Syverson, C., Seed, K., … & Barfield, W. (2019). Racial/ethnic disparities in pregnancy-related deaths—United States, 2007–2016. Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report, 68(35), 762.

Thompson, W. W. (2014, August 27). Statement of William W. Thompson, Ph.D., regarding the 2004 article examining the possibility of a relationship between MMR vaccine and autism [Press release].

Wiggins, L. D., Durkin, M., Esler, A., Lee, L. C., Zahorodny, W., Rice, C., … & Christensen, D. (2019). Disparities in Documented Diagnoses of Autism Spectrum Disorder Based on Demographic, Individual, and Service Factors. Autism Research.


Vaccine Failures, Part 3: Influenza Vaccination

[Note: This is the third in a series of articles examining the serious problem of vaccine failure—a problem that, scandalously, remains unacknowledged by the public health officials and politicians promoting draconian vaccine mandates. Previous articles examined measles and pertussis vaccination.]


Each year, U.S. public health officials and their media partners renew the campaign to sell the entire country (including pregnant women, six-month-olds and fragile senior citizens) on the need for and benefits of flu vaccines. Ordinarily, to persuade the public that a given vaccine is beneficial, officials must show that it is effective—in other words, that it is able to “prevent outcomes of interest in the ‘real world.’” However, influenza vaccination’s infamous ineffectiveness makes this talking point a bit tricky. And when vaccination does not “significantly reduce medically attended influenza illness,” it is hard to avoid the conclusion that the vaccine has bombed.

As public health experts are well aware, many factors can lessen influenza vaccine effectiveness (VE), including particular characteristics of vaccine recipients and the vaccines themselves. The scientific literature also points to serious wrinkles that underscore influenza vaccination’s inability to deliver meaningful benefits and its propensity to create new problems. For example, studies show that getting flu vaccines year after year reduces the level of vaccine protection available; flu-vaccinated individuals are also more susceptible to other strains of influenza and severe respiratory infections. Recent studies even suggest that childhood influenza vaccination can lead to larger epidemics and “an overall health loss.” A vaccine expert who recently admitted to knowing less about influenza today than a decade ago lamented, “It’s much more complicated than we thought.”

…in over half (8/15) of the years since 2004, influenza vaccines have failed 60% or more of the time—including 90%, 79%, 81% and 71% in 2004-05, 2005-06, 2014-15 and 2018-19, respectively.

Failure #1: Influenza vaccination has been 40%-90% ineffective over the past 15 years.

Thus far for 2019-2020, the CDC says that it can only speculate about how well the season’s influenza vaccines “might work” [emphasis added]. To compensate for this vagueness, the agency touts VE in past seasons as being “in the range of 40% to 60%” (a range that vaccinologists would consider abysmal for any other vaccine). What the CDC does not mention is that last year (2018-19), overall VE (across all age groups and influenza viruses) was a mere 29%, and for the pesky influenza A(H3N2) viruses that predominated after February 2019, flu vaccines were ineffective 91% of the time. Moreover, VE has attained the CDC’s vaunted upper limit of 60% only once in the past fifteen years; in over half (8/15) of the years since 2004, influenza vaccines have failed 60% or more of the time—including 90%, 79%, 81% and 71% in 2004-05, 2005-06, 2014-15 and 2018-19, respectively.

Failure #2: Influenza vaccine effectiveness is highly inconsistent and ignores immune system complexities.

More so than with other vaccines, researchers view influenza viruses as “dynamic” and influenza VE as a “moving target.” These characteristics have thwarted efforts to develop effective vaccines, with dramatic seasonal fluctuations in VE being the inevitable result. Under such circumstances, influenza vaccines theoretically will be most effective when manufacturers correctly guess which strains of virus to include in a given year’s vaccines. In practice, however, influenza vaccines also “stand out for their variable effectiveness by age group . . . and by recent vaccination status,” suggesting an important role for immune history as well.

Illustrating the “complex host-virus interactions that affect vaccine protection,” some researchers hypothesize that imprinting—how a person’s first influenza infection “shap[es] immune memory . . . over the individual’s lifetime”—may play a key role in subsequent infection risks. Proponents of this hypothesis point to a study showing that vaccination tampered with protective childhood imprinting in a cohort of 35–54-year-olds; vaccinated individuals in that age group had a more than four-fold increased risk of illness from certain circulating influenza viruses compared with same-age unvaccinated individuals.

In another example of how immune factors influence VE, studies show that obese individuals have a decreased response to seasonal flu vaccines compared with non-obese individuals. Researchers explain this by noting that overweight introduces changes in metabolism that alter and age immune system cells; one researcher says that a 30-year-old obese person’s immune cells look “a lot like what you might expect in an 80-year-old individual.”

… flu vaccination programs are predicated on assumptions on top of assumptions.

Failure #3: Influenza vaccine effectiveness dwindles with repeated vaccination.

A 2020 study published by Canadian researchers assesses the impact of repeated influenza vaccination on “current season” VE, furnishing results that will hardly be good news for proponents of annual vaccination. The study included senior citizens with laboratory-confirmed influenza who were at least 65 years old at the time of vaccination, examining the impact of prior vaccination for up to 10 previous flu seasons—the first study to review such a long time period. In seniors who received a vaccine in 2015-16 but none in the preceding decade, VE was an unimpressive 34%, but it was significantly worse when accounting for 10-year vaccination history—26%, 24%, 13% and 7% in those who received 1-3, 4-6, 7-8 or 9-10 vaccines in the prior decade, respectively. A Spanish study of older (> 60 years) influenza patients documented low VE (20% or lower) with just one prior vaccination.

What about at the younger end of the age continuum? The authors of a 2017 meta-analysis point out that, based on average life expectancy and current vaccine recommendations, a child born in 2017 can “expect to receive 70-80 annual influenza vaccinations” over the course of his or her lifetime—but the effects of so many annual vaccines “on individual long-term protection, population immunity, and virus evolution remain largely unknown.” Another researcher—commenting on why influenza vaccines so often fail—remarks that flu vaccination programs are “predicated on assumptions on top of assumptions.”

The authors of the 2017 meta-analysis note that “signals of concern regarding potential negative effects of repeated vaccination” are nothing new, having first been observed in the 1970s and 1980s. In their conclusions, not only do these authors argue that repeated vaccination “blunts” the antibody response—particularly for the H3N2 influenza viruses that caused U.S. vaccine effectiveness to plummet in 2019—but that the long-term immune effects of “blocking natural infection in healthy individuals with a low risk of influenza complications are unknown.” Their take-home message, again, is hardly reassuring:

Our current understanding of repeated vaccination effects is inadequate to inform vaccine policy recommendations.


… children who received a seasonal influenza vaccine (versus placebo) were more susceptible to acute noninfluenza respiratory viruses in the nine months following vaccination …

Failure #4: Influenza vaccines can increase recipients’ susceptibility to non-vaccine influenza viruses and other acute infections.

In the aftermath of the 2009 influenza A (H1N1) pandemic, two Canadian researchers reported a more than two-fold increased risk of H1N1 illness in individuals less than 50 years who had received a 2008 seasonal flu vaccine. To explain this finding, one of the investigators theorized that the seasonal vaccine “protected against an H1N1 virus that was related to—but not similar enough to—the pandemic virus,” which “might actually have facilitated infection with the pandemic virus.” Although the Canadians characterized the 2009 pandemic as relatively mild, they observed that “a potential doubling of pandemic infection risk among prior seasonal vaccine recipients could be disastrous in the event of a more severe pandemic involving a higher per-case fatality risk.”

Not long after the 2009 H1N1 pandemic, other investigators reported on the potential for vaccination programs to shift influenza infections in such a way as to produce less favorable outcomes—a scenario rarely considered during pandemic planning. They hypothesized “that vaccinating to prevent a fall pandemic wave might delay it long enough to inadvertently increase influenza infections in winter, when primary influenza infection is more likely to cause severe outcomes [and] potentially cause a net increase in severe outcomes.”

A 2012 study of 6–15-year-olds found that children who received a seasonal influenza vaccine (versus placebo) were more susceptible to acute noninfluenza respiratory viruses in the nine months following vaccination, whether during winter or summer. In an effort to explain this unexpected result, the investigators discussed the phenomenon known as “virus interference” and speculated that vaccination “could increase influenza immunity at the expense of reduced immunity to noninfluenza respiratory viruses, by some unknown biological mechanism.” Interestingly, a 2020 study of virus interference in highly vaccinated U.S. military personnel reported an increased odds of coronavirus and human metapneumovirus (a virus that causes respiratory infections) in personnel who received influenza vaccines, although the findings pointed in the opposite direction for the other noninfluenza viruses examined.

Failure #5: Many influenza vaccine researchers are disingenuous or worse when they report on vaccine effectiveness.

As Children’s Health Defense has enumerated elsewhere, the proponents of flu vaccines—whether public health officials, the media or researchers—are only too willing to provide misleading information. A multicountry study funded by GlaxoSmithKline (GSK) and authored by GSK employees and shareholders—published in The Pediatric Infectious Disease Journal in 2019—furnishes an illustrative example:

  • The GSK authors report that they evaluated a “total vaccinated cohort” of 12,018 children; however, a companion publication clarifies that only 6,006 actually received the GSK-manufactured influenza vaccine.
  • The remaining 6,012 children comprised a control group, a group the researchers describe as “unvaccinated”; in fact, these children received one of three “non-influenza control vaccines” (hepatitis A, varicella or pneumococcal conjugate vaccine)—presumably also GSK brands.
  • The researchers did not start collecting illness information until 14 days after vaccination, precluding any consideration of short-term post-vaccination adverse events. Without information about adverse events in influenza-vaccinated children, it is impossible to assess the risk-benefit context of the authors’ conclusion that 19 children would need to receive the vaccine to prevent one case of influenza or that 6,024 children must get a vaccine to prevent one case of severe influenza.
  • The researchers admit that they focused exclusively on “pre-specified symptoms,” limiting their ability to capture the “whole clinical picture.”
  • They report “little difference” in severity scores for influenza-like illness and lower respiratory illness between the two groups but describe a lower rate of fever in the influenza-vaccinated group. However, they make no mention of clinical trial data showing that fever is a “very common” reaction to GSK’s hepatitis A, chickenpox and pneumococcal vaccines.

A Dutch study recently reported that childhood influenza vaccination “is not cost-effective when only outcomes for the children themselves are considered.” Analyzing the risk of undesirable outcomes—such as “a decrease of health or an increase in the number of severe influenza seasons after introduction of the influenza vaccination program for children”—the Dutch researchers produced worrisome models showing that “serious strain on the health care system” or “a net health loss” could result from childhood influenza vaccination. Given the many ambiguities present in the GSK study, one wonders whether it could be masking similarly discouraging findings.

Failure #6: Flu vaccine hype is just that—hype. 

Is the annual flu vaccine sales pitch (evident not just in the U.S. but around the world) working? Given predictions of a 50% increase in the global influenza vaccine market by 2023 (from $5 billion to $7.5 billion), it would seem so. On the other hand, recent estimates of influenza vaccine coverage in U.S. adults show that Americans are growing more, rather than less, skeptical. In 2017-2018, influenza vaccine coverage fell for every adult age group (and all but one racial/ethnic group), reaching the lowest level in eight flu seasons. While influenza researchers may be “hesitant to discuss problems with the vaccine ‘because they’re afraid of being tainted with the antivaccine brush,’” we must hope that members of the public will recognize the importance of reviewing flu vaccine facts very carefully.


For more information, visit the following resources on the Children’s Health Defense website:

Nov. 7, 2019: A generation asleep? Narcolepsy in teens and young adults
Oct. 24, 2019: Flu vaccine facts: what you need to know for 2019-20
Nov. 8, 2018: How the CDC uses fear to increase demand for flu vaccines
Oct. 9, 2018: The CDC’s influenza math doesn’t add up: exaggerating the death toll to sell flu shots
Apr. 10, 2018: The New York Times vs. the science on the flu shot
Feb. 7, 2018: Smokin’ new technology to produce flu vaccines
Jan. 29, 2018: Caveat emptor: Science vs. CDC on scary flu shot promotions
Jan. 1, 2018: Flu vaccine facts: what you need to know for 2018-19
Nov. 3, 2017: Nurses continue to be justified in refusing mandatory flu shots
Sept. 19, 2017: CDC study shows up to 7.7-fold greater odds of miscarriage after influenza vaccine
Dec. 23, 2016: Flu shots during pregnancy & autism: cause for concern
Dec. 20, 2016: Should I get the flu shot? CDC data raise concerns


Flu Vaccines: What are the Facts?

Is the annual flu vaccine sales pitch (evident not just in the U.S. but around the world) working? Given predictions of a 50% increase in the global influenza vaccine market by 2023 (from $5 billion to $7.5 billion), it would seem so. On the other hand, recent estimates of influenza vaccine coverage in U.S. adults show that Americans are growing more, rather than less, skeptical. In 2017-2018, influenza vaccine coverage fell for every adult age group (and all but one racial/ethnic group), reaching the lowest level in eight flu seasons. While influenza researchers may be “hesitant to discuss problems with the vaccine ‘because they’re afraid of being tainted with the antivaccine brush,’” the bottom line is flu shots are big business and vaccine injuries aren’t rare.

This video is a quick review of the flu vaccine facts.

The Bottom Line:

  • Flu shots are big business–a market to be worth $7.5 Billion in the next 5 years.
  • Vaccine injuries aren’t rare.
  • Vaccine injuries from flu shots at the most commonly reported and compensated.
  • Influenza Product inserts state, “Available data on influenza vaccines administered to pregnant women are insufficient to inform vaccine-associated risks in pregnant women.”
  • Many states are mandating flu shots for children and adults. The shots come with risk, especially for those most susceptible. Everyone should retain the right to say NO to what enters their body.

NY Times Deceives about the Odds of Dying from Measles in the US

Peter Hotez deceives New York Times readers about the odds of dying from measles in the US to persuade parents to comply with the CDC’s vaccine schedule.

On January 9, the New York Times published an article written by Dr. Peter J. Hotez titled “You Are Unvaccinated and Got Sick. These Are Your Odds.” His purpose in writing is to persuade parents to vaccinate their children according to the routine schedule recommended by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). To that end, he purports to compare “the dangerous effects of three diseases with the minimal side effects of their corresponding vaccines.”

“To state it bluntly,” Hotez writes, “being unvaccinated can result in illness or death. Vaccines, in contrast, are extremely unlikely to lead to side effects, even minor ones like fainting.” He laments that “vaccination rates have fallen”, resulting in a resurgence of measles globally. He cites the example of Samoa, where “almost 5,700 measles cases have been recorded since September, resulting in at least 83 deaths. Almost all of those who died were young children.” In the US, he writes, “vaccine hesitancy is contributing to” measles outbreaks.

Hotez presents data ostensibly to enable parents “to compare the risks of becoming ill with measles . . . to the minute chances of experiencing side effects from their corresponding vaccines.” (He also presents risk analyses for the influenza and human papillomavirus [HPV] vaccines, but due to time constraints and the emphasis placed on it by the media, I’m focusing here just on measles). Here is how he graphically presents the data for his risk analysis:



Hotez goes on to assert, “Moreover, new research reveals that, even when patients recover, the measles virus can suppress the immune system, rendering children susceptible to serious infections like pneumonia and the flu.”

The reason parents are choosing not to get their children the measles vaccine, he claims, is because they believe

“misinformation spread after an article implying a link between measles vaccinations and autism was published in The Lancet in 1998; it was retracted in 2010 over concerns about the validity of the results and the conduct of the study. Nevertheless, the false claim that vaccines can cause autism continued to circulate on the internet and social media. The truth is that we have overwhelming evidence from at least six studies involving more than one million children that measles-mumps-rubella vaccinations do not cause autism.”

The Times presents Hotez as a scientist and pediatrician at the Baylor College of Medicine, and in recent years he’s become a leading go-to “expert” for the mainstream media on the topic of vaccines. Undisclosed by the Times is that he’s also a vaccine developer who holds several patents for vaccines against tropical diseases and co-director of the school’s Texas Children’s Hospital Center for Vaccine Development. “In 2017, the center entered a partnership with the German pharmaceutical company Merck KGaA to advance development of vaccines for tropical diseases (not to be confused with Merck & Co., the US vaccine manufacturer).”

The center’s purpose, in his own words, is to “secure funding and advance the development of drugs, vaccines, and other health tools . . . that currently the pharmaceutical companies are unable to invest in due to inabilities to promise shareholder returns.” Since pharmaceutical companies view certain proposed vaccine products as an unprofitable venture, the costs are subsidized through “product development partnerships” like Baylor’s. As Hotez explains, a key source of funds is the government, meaning that the costs of vaccine development are being subsidized by the taxpayers.

“Fueling investor hesitancy”, he explains in a paper in Human Vaccines & Immunotherapeutics, “are the recent shortcomings and public reactions to newly introduced vaccines for malaria and dengue despite billion-dollar investments from Glaxo Smith Kline (GSK) and Sanofi Pasteur, respectively, on top of an accelerating global antivaccine movement.”

He doesn’t illuminate why the public had negative reactions to these vaccines. The reason this was so for GSK’s malaria vaccine was that, while it was shown to be initially effective, the protective effect waned over time and after five years of follow up resulted in children being at an increased risk of infection from malaria parasites. The reason this was so for Sanofi’s dengue vaccine was that, after it was implemented into the childhood schedule the Philippines upon the recommendation of the World Health Organization (WHO) and hundreds of thousands of doses were administered under the pretense of a proven “safe” vaccine, it was likewise shown to increase the risk of serious dengue infection among children who had not already experienced a prior infection. The public outrage was all the more pronounced because it was also learned that Sanofi, Philippines health officials, and the WHO had ignored early warnings that the vaccine might cause precisely that outcome.

It is highly instructive that Hotez views the problem not as the proven untrustworthiness of the pharmaceutical companies and government health agencies, but rather the inability of the industry to fund products that are dangerous and cost ineffective. It’s equally instructive that he mindlessly dismisses public opposition as mere “antivaccine” sentiment attributable to some monolithic “movement” rather than reflecting parents’ legitimate concerns, including anger over entire populations being used essentially as subjects of a mass uncontrolled experiment without informed consent. Relevantly, the decline in vaccination rates in the Philippines was a result of this rightful erosion of public trust, which is attributed with causing a major measles outbreak in 2017.

Superficially, the measles risk analysis Hotez presents to New York Times readers is persuasive. The way he presents his data, it’s a no-brainer that parents in the US should vaccinate their children since the risks from measles so obviously outweigh the risks from the vaccine. But Hotez is preying on people’s ignorance by presenting an invalid risk-benefit analysis that is not serious and does not address parents’ legitimate concerns about vaccinating their children strictly according to the CDC’s schedule. Rather, the article is transparently intended to deceive parents about the risks in order to scare them into compliance.

This can be demonstrated by examining some of the major problems with his presented analysis.


  • Problem 1: The Measles Vaccination Rate in the US Has Not Fallen
  • Problem 2: Ignoring the Low Risk of Getting Measles
  • Problem 3: Ignoring Non-Vaccine Factors of Risk Reduction
  • Problem 4: Misinforming about the Fatality Rate of Measles in the US
  • Problem 5: Misinforming about the Risks of Vaccination
  • Problem 6: Asserting the Measles “Immune Amnesia” Hypothesis as Proven Fact
  • Problem 7: Misinforming about the Vaccine-Autism Hypothesis
  • Conclusion

Problem 1: The Measles Vaccination Rate in the US Has Not Fallen

In the context of his claim that “vaccination rates have fallen”, Hotez adds that “vaccine hesitancy is contributing to” measles outbreaks in the US. However, it’s not true that vaccination rates in the US have fallen. In fact, the trend has been an increase in the national vaccination rate over time, according to CDC data. Here’s what the data looks like graphed over time for the percentage of children aged 19 to 35 months who’ve received one or more doses of the measles vaccine, with a linear trendline:



And here’s what the CDC’s data show for the measles vaccination rate for kindergarten-aged children, again with trendline (this dataset starts at 2009, and no data is available for the 2010-11 school year):



Of course, there is variation in vaccination rates year to year, and vaccination rates certainly vary by community, but Hotez’s suggestion that the trend in the US is a general decline in the vaccination rate is false. The vaccination rate for school-aged children has rather remained steady over time between 94 percent and 95 percent, and if anything has trended upward.

Problem 2: Ignoring the Low Risk of Getting Measles

The most fundamental glaring fallacy of Hotez’s risk analysis is that it is based on the assumption that if the child is not vaccinated, the child will get measles. His title says he’s presenting the odds for a child who doesn’t get the vaccine and got sick. But it isn’t a given that an unvaccinated child will get measles. When he says his analysis is “to compare the risks of becoming ill with measles” with the risks of vaccinating, he is being untruthful since his analysis falsely assumes that the unvaccinated child gets measles.

The fundamental problem with this assumption, of course, is that the chances of a child in the US being exposed to measles, much less becoming permanently injured or killed by the virus, is also very low. Hotez’s failure to take this fact into consideration alone completely invalidates his analysis. Parents living in the US today must consider—and intuitively do consider—the fact that the policy of mass vaccination has succeeded in its goal of reducing measles incidence. The idea that they should place their own child at unnecessary risk of harm from the vaccine for some collectivist concept of a “greater good” is obviously repulsive to many parents, and rightly so.

To do what Hotez fails to do and help quantify the risk of getting measles, according to the CDC, from 2010 through 2019, there were 3,237 reported measles cases, which is an average of about 324 cases per year. The US has a population of about 330 million, so that’s about 1 measles case annually per 1 million population. This compares with the annual odds of being struck by lightning, which is 1 in 1.2 million according to the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration.

Problem 3: Ignoring Non-Vaccine Factors of Risk Reduction

The third glaring problem with Hotez’s analysis is that, in the text of his article, he cites the high death rate in the recent outbreak in Samoa as though it was relevant for the risk-benefit analysis of the New York Times’s predominantly American audience. (While the Times certainly has a global reach, according to traffic data from SimilarWeb, more than 78 percent of its website’s audience are in the US.)

His graphic shows a fatality rate in Samoa of 146 deaths per 10,000 cases (83 deaths out of 5,697 cases). What he doesn’t explicitly inform his American readers is that measles mortality differs by population. While mortality remains tragically high in developing countries, in developed countries like the US, the mortality rate is very low. His graph does show the Samoan fatality rate as a separate figure from the “10 to 30 child deaths” that he says occur for every 10,000 people who get measles (which is untrue, as we’ll come to), but he offers no comment on why the death rate in Samoa is so much higher.

Hotez also does not inform his readers that most of the decline in measles mortality seen in the US during the twentieth century occurred before the introduction of the first measles vaccine in 1963. During the pre-vaccine era in the US, measles was seen as a mostly benign illness that, yes, could and did sometimes cause death, but which most children’s immune systems handled just fine on their own, resulting in the development of a robust lifelong immunity. Here’s what this decline looked like:



The obvious question this raises is what factors other than vaccination affect the risk of complications from measles infection. In light of this important question, it’s useful to point out that this dramatic decline in mortality wasn’t true just for measles. In fact, as noted in a paper published in 2000 in Pediatrics, the journal of the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP), “nearly 90% of the decline in infectious disease mortality among US children occurred before 1940, when few antibiotics or vaccines were available.” Hence, “vaccination does not account for the impressive declines in mortality seen in the first half of the century.”

The dramatic decline in infectious disease mortality is attributed instead to factors associated with a general increase in the standard of living, including improved nutritional status among children. With measles, for example, Vitamin A deficiency is a known risk factor for potentially deadly complications.

Hotez demonstrates a total lack of curiosity about what the risk factors are for measles complications. This reflects the attitude of public health officials back in the 1960s. Rather than directing resources toward determining the risk factors and developing targeted interventions for children at higher risk, vaccination was selected as a one-size-fits-all solution, and science ever since has been trapped in this myopic and pharmaceutical-centric approach to disease prevention. The narcissistic attitude of public health officials in 1962 in declaring the goal of eradicating measles in the US within a year with just a single dose of the vaccine—despite measles being recognized as a “self-limiting infection of short duration, moderate severity, and low fatality”—was that this should be done because “it can be done.”

Needless to say, the assumptions underlying that policy were wrong.

… Hotez deceitfully presents a fatality rate for measles at least 10 times greater than that shown by CDC data and accepted by the IOM for the US population in the absence of vaccination.

Problem 4: Misinforming about the Fatality Rate of Measles in the US

As just noted, Hotez claims that the childhood death rate for measles is 10 to 30 deaths per 10,000 cases, implying that this is true for the US population. He does not specify his source for this claim. (He has a note in the article presenting a broad range of sources, but without identifying which sources were used for which data.)

Presumably, he is just relaying the CDC’s claim on its website that “Nearly 1 to 3 of every 1,000 children who become infected with measles will die from respiratory and neurologic complications.” On another page of its website, the CDC states, “For every 1,000 children who get measles, one or two will die from it.”

But during the pre-vaccine era in the US, according to the CDC’s own data, there were about 500 deaths annually out of an estimated 3 – 4 million cases. That’s not 10 to 30 but 1 to 2 deaths for every 10,000 cases. The Institute of Medicine (IOM) in a 1994 report likewise stated that, in developed countries like the US, “the measles fatality rate is 1 per 10,000 cases”.

The explanation for these contradictory numbers is that the CDC is deceptively using only reported cases in its denominator. Of the estimated 3 – 4 million cases, most were mild infections that did not lead to hospitalization or complications. Only about 500,000 cases were reported annually. The CDC’s statement that one or two children will die for every 1,000 children who get measles either is a bald-faced lie that ignores the fact that most cases weren’t reported or means that the fatality rate today is an order of magnitude higher than it was in the 1950s and early 1960s.

Indeed, mass vaccination has resulted in a shifted risk burden and an increased rate of deaths per reported cases, as we’ll come to. The point for now is that Hotez deceitfully presents a fatality rate for measles at least 10 times greater than that shown by CDC data and accepted by the IOM for the US population in the absence of vaccination.

Problem 5: Misinforming about the Risks of Vaccination

According to Hotez’s graphic, there are only three possible adverse events associated with the measles vaccine.

He states that only 3 febrile seizures occur for every 10,000 people who get the measles vaccine. He says in a footnote that such seizures “are not associated with long-term effects”. He adds that febrile seizures “also occur overall in 2 percent to 5 percent of all children 6 months to 5 years of age”, but, of course, the US childhood population is highly vaccinated, and Hotez doesn’t provide any data on the rate of febrile seizures among children vaccinated according to the CDC’s schedule compared with the rate among completely unvaccinated children.

Contrary to Hotez’s claim that febrile seizures are not associated with long-term harm, a recent study in JAMA Pediatrics, a journal of the American Medical Association (AMA), found that recurrent febrile seizures are associated with an increased risk of epilepsy and psychiatric disorders and, for children who later developed epilepsy, an increased risk of death.

Another study published last year in JAMA Network Open found febrile seizures to be associated with an increased risk for “sudden unexplained death in childhood (SUDC)”.

A Lancet study published online in 2018 similarly found an association between febrile seizures and an increased risk of psychiatric disorders later in life.

In a study published in 2018 in the journal Brain & Development, Japanese researchers found febrile seizures to be associated with an overall “18.76-fold” increased risk of developing epilepsy, with higher risk for children who were female, had recurring febrile seizures, or had autism.

A paper published in Cell Reports in 2018 stated that “early-life seizures are associated with language deficits and autism that can result from aberrant development of the auditory cortex.”

A study published in Seizure in 2017 concluded that seizures “tend to recur and increase the risk of development of epilepsy in the patient.”

A 2017 study in Pediatric Neurology found febrile seizures and epilepsy to be associated with an increased risk of being clinically examined for early symptoms of neurodevelopmental disorders, including autism.

Another study from earlier in 2017 noted that the measles vaccine increases the risk of potentially seizure-inducing fever and suggested “a possible genetic basis for susceptibility to developing fever due to measles vaccines.”

These more recent studies contradict the finding of a study published in JAMA in 2004 that found no association between febrile seizures and the risk of epilepsy. However, that earlier study also admitted that “little is known about the long-term outcome of febrile seizures following vaccination.”

In other words, the science on this, far from being settled, has just begun. More directly to the point, Peter Hotez’s statement that febrile seizures after vaccination “are not associated with long-term effects” is false.

Hotez’s graphic says that abnormal blood clotting occurs in “1 case per 25,000 to 40,000 doses” of measles vaccine. He doesn’t specify his source, but these are the same numbers provided by a 2009 article in Paediatrics & Child Health that noted an “increasing body of evidence” supporting a link between the measles vaccine and idiopathic thrombocytopenic purpura. The authors acknowledged that one of the limitations of their estimate was that it was based on data requiring treating physicians to document receipt of any vaccines within the previous month, whereas another study had found that doctors had only inquired about recent vaccination in 15 percent of cases with vaccine-associated thrombocytopenia. Hence, the figures presented are likely to be underestimated.

Hotez’s graphic also says that 1 to 3.5 allergic reactions occur for every 1 million doses of measles vaccine administered. He specifies no source, but this is the same estimate presented in a 2015 study in Clinical and Translational Medicine that compiled data from prior studies looking at the risk of allergic reaction to the measles vaccine, including a 2008 study in Archives of Disease in Childhood that says the best estimate of the incidence of anaphylaxis for the combination measles, mumps, and rubella (MMR) vaccine in the UK was a study showing a much higher rate of 14 allergic reactions for every 1 million doses administered. Another prior study cited is a 2003 CDC study in Pediatrics looking at data from four health maintenance organizations in the US and estimating 1.1 to 3.5 cases per 1 million doses administered. However, the authors acknowledged this “likely represents an underestimate of the risk”, and for the site “with the most comprehensive data”, the risk for anaphylaxis from the measles vaccine was estimated to be 14.4 cases per 1 million doses. That result was considered an overestimate because of confounding: since children frequently receive multiple vaccines at once, it was impossible for them to know which vaccine caused the allergic reaction (or whether it was the combination itself that caused it). The point is that we really don’t know, and the numbers presented by Hotez are, according to the CDC’s own research, likely underestimated.

Whereas Hotez acknowledges only those three possible adverse reactions to the vaccine, Merck acknowledges numerous others. Under federal regulations, manufacturers are required to warn consumers about “adverse events for which there is some basis to believe there is a causal relationship between the drug and the occurrence of the adverse event.” On its product package insert, Merck lists among the possible side effects of its measles vaccine the following: fever, syncope (fainting), headache, dizziness, vasculitis (a condition in which the immune system mistakenly attacks the blood vessels, causing inflammation that can lead to serious problems, including aneurysms), pancreatitis (inflammation of the pancreas that occurs when the digestive enzymes it produces begin digesting the pancreas itself), diarrhea, vomiting, parotitis (inflammation of the parotid glands), nausea, diabetes mellitus (diabetes), thrombocytopenia (the disorder Hotez mentions in which there is an abnormally low amount of platelets that help blood to clot), anaphylaxis (the life-threatening allergic reaction that Hotez acknowledges), arthritis (joint inflammation), arthralgia (joint pain), myalgia (muscle pain), encephalitis (inflammation of the brain that can cause permanent brain damage or death), Guillain-Barré syndrome (an autoimmune disorder in which the immune system attacks the peripheral nervous system, which can result in paralysis or death), febrile seizures, afebrile seizures (convulsions without fever), pneumonia, measles-like rash, and death.

This is not to say that the vaccine is known with certainty to cause each of these adverse events. They are just an acknowledgement by Merck of the uncertainty and the biological plausibility that their product might cause any of these outcomes, based on the limited data available from clinical trials and postmarketing surveillance.

This brings us to another fact that parents must take into consideration, which is that the clinical trials used by the manufacturers to obtain licensure from the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) consider only short-term adverse reactions. They do not consider long-term detrimental effects. They aren’t designed, for example, to determine whether vaccines administered according to the CDC’s schedule can contribute to the development of neurological disorders, autoimmune diseases, cancers, or other chronic illnesses later in life. This is highly concerning given the epidemic of chronic illness among children. A study published in Academic Pediatrics in 2011 estimated that at least 43 percent of children in the US have one or more chronic health conditions.

Essentially, after obtaining licensure, the population becomes the subject of a mass uncontrolled experiment. Once a vaccine is licensed and recommended for routine use, it’s typically considered “unethical” to conduct randomized, placebo-controlled studies on the grounds that it wouldn’t be right to deny the placebo group the benefits of the vaccine—which is, of course, the fallacy of begging the question.

For vaccines already on the market, there is the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS), but it’s recognized that this passive surveillance system suffers the problem of severe underreporting of adverse events.

Researchers also conduct observational studies using population data, such as from private health care networks or government registries, but this type of study design has methodological limitations and tends to suffer from the problem of selection bias, such as the common “healthy user” bias.

As an example of this type of selection bias, a 2015 JAMA study found that children with elder autistic siblings are less likely to get the measles vaccine, presumably because their parents have heightened concerns about the vaccine contributing to the development of autism in the younger sibling and so skip the shot.

This suggests that observational studies comparing the risk of autism between children who received the measles vaccine and children who didn’t are prone to a healthy vaccinee bias wherein children at higher risk of developing autism tend to be pooled within the “unvaccinated” cohort. Consequently, the appropriate conclusion to draw is not that children who are vaccinated have no greater risk for autism but that children at greater risk for autism are less likely to be vaccinated.

(Instructively, that study actually found vaccination to be associated with a decreased risk of autism, which is itself evidence of selection bias since the null hypothesis is that there is no association, meaning that the rate of autism should be the same for vaccinated and unvaccinated children. Despite confirming the existence of a healthy vaccinee selection bias, which had also been identified by prior studies, this study was hailed by both its authors and the media as showing that the measles vaccine is not associated with an increased risk of autism even in genetically susceptible children, which is a useful illustration of the institutionalized cognitive dissonance that exists when it comes to the special class of pharmaceutical products known as vaccines.)

In short, observational studies don’t enable scientists to control for innumerable potentially confounding variables as well as the randomized, placebo-controlled trial, which is why the latter is considered the gold standard for safety studies. A found association from observational data doesn’t necessarily mean a causal relationship, and a finding of no association does not mean that no association exists.

By comparison, according to CDC data, during the same period, there were only 4 deaths attributed to measles. None of these deaths were in children. All were adults aged 25 or older.

Returning to Hotez’s focus on death as an outcome, he offers no estimate of the risk of death from the vaccine, but from 2010 through 2017, there were 40 deaths reported to VAERS following measles vaccination. This is not to say that the vaccine caused those deaths. Perhaps only a small percentage of reported vaccine-associated deaths are caused by the vaccine. However, it might also be that deaths following vaccination are not reported to VAERS. While there is a higher chance of reporting for more serious adverse events, severe underreporting, again, is a known problem with this passive surveillance system.

By comparison, according to CDC data, during the same period, there were only 4 deaths attributed to measles. None of these deaths were in children. All were adults aged 25 or older.

This is significant due to what’s known in the literature as “secondary vaccine failure”, or waning immunity. Whereas adults during the pre-vaccine era were generally protected from measles by the robust natural immunity they’d gained from experiencing infection during childhood as well as the natural boosting effect of repeated exposures from children, adults today are at higher risk in the event of infection due to secondary vaccine failure. (Primary vaccine failure is when the vaccine fails to stimulate a protective level of antibodies in the first place, which is estimated to occur in anywhere from 2 percent to 10 percent of children.)

Infants, too, are at higher risk today in the event of infection due to mass vaccination since their vaccinated mothers are less well able to confer passive maternal immunity to their babies with antibodies transferred prenatally through the placenta and postnatally through breastmilk.

This brings us to a caveat that must be emphasized with respect to using pre-vaccine era data on measles mortality, which is that the ratio of deaths per reported cases has since increased due to mass vaccination having shifted the risk burden away from school-aged children, in whom it is generally a benign illness, and onto those at higher risk of potentially deadly complications.

As already discussed, during the pre-vaccine era, this rate was about 1 death per 1,000 reported cases. (Not to be confused with the accepted fatality rate of 1 death per 10,000 cases.) But as noted by two leading experts in a 1994 paper in Archives of Internal Medicine, by 1990, the death rate had risen “dramatically” to 3.2 deaths per 1,000 reported cases, “reflecting the increased incidence of measles infection in infants and adults relative to children older than 1 year of age.” A 2004 study in the Journal of Infectious Diseases similarly attributed the increased death rate in part to “a higher proportion of cases among preschool-aged children and adults.” Another 2004 study in the same journal likewise attributed the “increased mortality among the younger and older age groups” to “the increased risk and severity” of deadly complications for infants and adults.

According to CDC data, from 1999 through 2017, there were 12 deaths in the US for which the underlying cause was determined to be measles. Two cases were infants under one year of age, two others were children aged one to four, and the remaining two-thirds of cases were adults aged twenty-five or older. During the same period, there were 2,393 reported cases of measles. Hence, more recent data show a still-increasing death rate of about 5 deaths per 1,000 reported cases.

Naturally, Peter Hotez does not inform Times readers that the policy of mass vaccination has resulted in an increased risk of death among infants and adults in the event of infection due to public policy having shifted the risk burden by destroying the natural herd immunity the US population was already well into developing, in which adults were generally protected throughout their lifetimes and infants were protected through strong maternal passive immunity until their immune systems were developed enough to be able to fight off the infection on their own.

Problem 6: Asserting the Measles “Immune Amnesia” Hypothesis as Proven Fact

Whereas Hotez would have his readers believe that the risk of dying as a result of getting the measles vaccine is virtually zero and unquestionably lower than the risk of dying if left unvaccinated, the truth is that we don’t know because clinical trials were never done to determine the vaccine’s effect on overall mortality.

This is a problem with all vaccines. An expert review published in June 2019 expressed the concern that “it is impossible to predict what happens in terms of susceptibility to infections in general, of all types, when the immune system is being stimulated through vaccination”.

There are observational studies that have been done in African countries looking at this question. Studies have found the measles vaccine to be associated with a decreased rate of childhood mortality that cannot be attributed to prevention of measles alone. In fact, this has been observed even in areas with no acute measles mortality.

… what studies show is that measles infection is associated with a lower risk of dying from other diseases, not a higher risk as assumed under the “immune amnesia” hypothesis.

Hotez alludes to this body of research when he claims that “the measles virus can suppress the immune system, rendering children susceptible to serious infections like pneumonia and the flu.”

He’s referring to the hypothesis of measles “immune amnesia”, which was conceived to try to explain the observation of an association between vaccination and decreased mortality from other diseases. It has been known since the pre-vaccine era that measles can cause a temporary suppression of the immune system that increases the risk of secondary infections. (Hotez’s graphic states that the “most common cause of death” is pneumonia, for example, which in many cases is caused not by the measles virus itself but by some secondary infection.) The “immune amnesia” hypothesis is that measles does not just cause a temporary immunosuppression but a long-term effect that may “wipe out” acquired immunity to other infectious diseases.

One problem with this hypothesis is that it’s based on the additional observation that measles virus infection results in a depletion of antibodies and the B-cells that make them. In the paradigm of vaccination, this would seem to equate to an elimination of immunity. Indeed, for the purposes of vaccine licensure, the production of antibodies is treated as equivalent to immunity. The problem with this framework is that antibodies are neither always sufficient nor even necessary for the development of immunity.

Measles itself happens to provide a perfect example of that. Children with a disorder rendering their immune system incapable of producing a protective level of antibodies are still protected from measles due to another branch of the immune system known as cell-mediated immunity. Children suffering from deficits in cell-mediated immunity, on the other hand, can still die of measles despite producing levels of antibodies considered “protective”.

A study published in BMJ Open in 2016 emphasized another major problem with the “immune amnesia” hypothesis, which is that “all available studies—including the present one—suggest lower mortality rather than excess mortality among those who survive the acute phase of measles infection.”

To repeat: what studies show is that measles infection is associated with a lower risk of dying from other diseases, not a higher risk as assumed under the “immune amnesia” hypothesis.

In other words, while the live virus vaccine seems to train the immune system in ways that provide “non-specific” benefits, so does infection with the wild virus. This should not be too surprising since the vaccine is intended to cause an immune response similar to that caused by infection. As a 2002 study published in the journal Vaccine observed, in populations where measles is a “mild disease”, which certainly includes the US, “measles infection may be associated with better overall survival than no measles infection.” Studies indicate that “lower post-measles mortality compensates for acute measles mortality and as a consequence, measles infection has a lower than expected overall impact on survival.”

In fact, apart from training the immune system to protect the host from other pathogens, measles infection during childhood has been associated with a decreased risk of numerous other diseases later in life, including degenerative bone disease, certain tumors, Parkinson’s disease, allergic disease, chronic lymphoid leukemia, both non-Hodgkin lymphoma and Hodgkin lymphoma, and cardiovascular disease.

In another paper published in Expert Review of Vaccines in 2018, top researchers in the field of “non-specific effects” of vaccines once again emphasized that a fundamental problem with the “immune amnesia” hypothesis is that, “in the five published studies which examined whether post-measles infection is associated with long-term excess mortality, there is a trend towards lower subsequent mortality for individuals who survived acute measles infection.”

The authors of that paper also stressed that “vaccines need to be evaluated for their effects on overall health”, which would require a shift from the existing outdated paradigm in which vaccine safety science and the regulatory apparatus of the US government is stuck.

And whereas the live virus measles vaccine seems to train the immune system in beneficial ways similar to measles infection, non-live vaccines have been associated with detrimental non-specific effects. The diphtheria, tetanus, and whole cell pertussis (DTP) vaccine, for instance, which is the most widely used vaccine in the world, has been associated with a significantly increased risk of childhood death. (The DTP vaccine has been replaced in the US with an acellular pertussis vaccine, DTaP, which is also a non-live vaccine.)

In a review published last year, Peter Aaby and Christine Benn, two leading researchers in this field involved in the aforementioned research, once again pointed out that, contrary to the “immune amnesia” hypothesis, studies rather have “suggested that measles infection could have a beneficial effect on survival” and hence have “refuted the hypothesis”.

As Christine Benn has also remarked with respect to that recent review, “No vaccines have been studied for their non-specific effects on overall health, and before we have examined these, we cannot actually determine that the vaccines are safe.”

Problem 7: Misinforming about the Vaccine-Autism Hypothesis

Hotez’s graphic states that there is no risk of autism from the measles vaccine. By his telling, “fears that vaccines can cause autism” originated “in the late 1990s” because of “an article implying a link between measles vaccinations and autism” that was published in The Lancet in 1998 but “retracted in 2010 over concerns about the validity of the results and the conduct of the study.”

But that narrative is demonstrably false. The 1998 Lancet study was not the origin of parental concerns about vaccines causing autism. The claim that the study made “the false claim that vaccines can cause autism” is itself a false claim that’s incessantly circulated by the mainstream media. The truth is that the authors explicitly stated that they did not show a causal relationship between the measles vaccine and autism. Rather, they merely relayed the observation from children’s parents or doctors that developmental regression occurred following vaccination, and they reasonably hypothesized that there might be a link, suggesting that further studies should be done to investigate this possibility.

Apart from routinely lying that the study claimed to have found a causal link, the mainstream media are fond of pointing out that the lead author of the study, Andrew Wakefield, was stripped of his medical license in the United Kingdom for the concerns about the conduct of the study mentioned by Hotez. What the media never inform readers is that one of Wakefield’s coauthors, John Walker-Smith, was also stripped of his license but appealed and was reinstated on the grounds that the accusations against him were spurious and unsupported by the available evidence. The reason Wakefield didn’t also appeal was because, unlike his colleague, his insurance policy wouldn’t cover the costs.

The fact that parental concerns about vaccines causing autism existed long before the 1998 Lancet study is easily demonstrated by the fact that the Institute of Medicine acknowledged this concern in a report published in 1991. Specifically, the IOM found “no evidence” to support a causal relationship between the DTP vaccine, which was unsurprising given the IOM’s observation that no studies had been done to test that hypothesis.

Peter Hotez and the mainstream media in general would have people believe that the only reason parents think that vaccines can cause autism is because they’ve been duped into that belief by a fraudulent study falsely claiming to have found a causal association. The truth is that the belief that vaccines can cause autism originated from parents who witnessed their children developmentally regress after vaccination. This belief existed before the 1998 Lancet study and would persist today had it never been published in the first place.

Hotez also would have his readers believe that studies have since falsified the hypothesis. The CDC itself boldly asserts on its website that “Vaccines Do Not Cause Autism”. To support this claim, the CDC cites several observational studies and a 2004 IOM review that explicitly acknowledged that the hypothesis cannot be excluded by observational studies. In fact, not one of the observational studies reviewed even considered the possibility of genetically susceptible subpopulations.

To say that studies have found no association between vaccines and autism is practically meaningless in light of the fact that no studies have been designed to test the hypothesis that vaccines administered according to the CDC’s routine childhood schedule can contribute to the development of autism in children with a genetic or environmentally caused susceptibility.

As the IOM observed in a 2013 review, “No studies have compared the differences in health outcomes . . . between entirely unimmunized populations of children and fully immunized children”; “existing research has not been designed to test the entire immunization schedule”; “studies designed to examine the long-term effects of the cumulative number of vaccines or other aspects of the immunization schedule have not been conducted”.

Going even further in his denialism, days after his New York Times article was published, Hotez claimed on Twitter that “Vaccines do not injure children.”

Yet the federal government administers a program called the Vaccine Injury Compensation Program (VICP), which awards compensation to children who suffer any of a list of adverse events acknowledged to be caused by vaccines. These outcomes are listed on what’s known as the Vaccine Injury Table. Children suffering from a table injury after vaccination are presumed to have suffered from a vaccine injury absent some other more likely explanation for the outcome. For injuries not listed on the table, the burden of proof is on the petitioner to show that vaccination was the most likely cause of the injury. The government can also settle cases, in which case awarded compensation is not deemed to be an acknowledgment that vaccination caused the injury.

One of the adverse events listed for the measles vaccine on the Vaccine Injury Table is encephalopathy, which encompasses any type of brain damage, disorder, or disease. This includes encephalitis, which is brain inflammation. Whereas Hotez flatly denied that any vaccine causes any injury, even the manufacturer of the measles vaccine, Merck, acknowledges in its bestselling medical textbook, The Merck Manual, that “Encephalitis can occur as a secondary immunologic complication of certain viral infections or vaccinations.” (Emphasis added.)

In one famous VICP case, the government acknowledged that vaccines can cause brain damage manifesting as symptoms of autism. The family of a girl named Hannah Poling was awarded compensation for her having suffered a table injury, which was encephalopathy. She regressed into diagnosed autism after receiving nine vaccine doses at once at nineteen months of age. The government conceded that the vaccines she received “significantly aggravated an underlying mitochondrial disorder, which predisposed her to deficits in cellular energy metabolism, and manifested as a regressive encephalopathy with features of autism spectrum disorder.”

The head of the CDC at the time, Julie Gerberding, publicly admitted that, in children “predisposed with a mitochondrial disorder”, vaccines can cause brain damage that manifests as “symptoms that have characteristics of autism.”

Hannah also happened to be a patient of a leading expert on autism, Dr. Andrew Zimmerman, who served as an expert witness in VICP cases on behalf of the government until he informed the government’s lawyers that vaccines can cause autism in children with mitochondrial dysfunction. His services were then deemed no longer required by the government lawyers, who went on to falsely claim, in order to deny compensation in a later case, that it was Zimmerman’s view that vaccines cannot cause autism. (Dr. Zimmerman testified to this in an affidavit last year.)

Even Dr. Frank DeStefano, the director of the CDC’s own Immunization Safety Office and a top researcher whose name appears on a number of the studies the agency cites to support its claim that vaccines don’t cause autism, has acknowledged that “it’s a possibility” that vaccines could cause autism in genetically susceptible children, but that the problem is it’s “hard to predict who those children might be”, and trying to determine the underlying cofactors that might place certain individuals at greater risk of vaccine injury is “very difficult to do”.

This is one of the fundamental problems that public vaccine policy apologists like Peter Hotez refuse to acknowledge: it treats vaccination as a one-size-fits-all solution despite individual variability in risk for the disease a given vaccine is designed to protect against and individual variability in the risk of the vaccine causing serious harm. Hotez joins public policy officials in unscientifically refusing to recognize that the risk-benefit analysis must be done for each vaccine and each individual child.

The idea that government bureaucrats with none of the specialized knowledge of the individual required to conduct a meaningful risk benefit analysis should dictate to parents what’s in their child’s best interest is both ludicrous and tyrannical.

Yet Hotez is a fierce opponent of the right to informed consent when it comes to vaccination and heavily involved in political activism, using his credentials as a scientist to advocate for the elimination of non-medical exemptions to routine childhood vaccinations. The use of government force to compel parents into compliance with government policy goals is incompatible with the right to make an informed choice about any medical intervention free from force, fraud, deceit, or any other form of coercion.

The VICP, by the way, was established under a 1986 law that also granted broad legal immunity to manufacturers of vaccines recommended for routine use in children by the CDC. The purpose and effect of the law is to shift the financial burden for vaccine injuries away from the pharmaceutical industry and onto the taxpaying consumers.

If Hotez were correct that “Vaccines do not injure children”, then obviously there would be no case to be made that the government should continue administering the VICP, and the pharmaceutical companies should have nothing to fear from the revocation of legal immunity.


Peter Hotez’s goal with his New York Times article is to persuade parents that it’s in their best interests to get their children the measles vaccine in compliance with the CDC’s schedule. But to that end, he presents a risk analysis that is fundamentally flawed and deceptive.

His whole analysis depends on the false assumption that to forego vaccination is to accept the risks associated with measles infection, whereas parents living in the US today must also take into consideration the fact that the odds of their child being exposed to measles in the first place—much less being permanently injured or killed by the virus—are very small. He claims vaccination rates have been falling when in fact the trend over time has been an increase in the proportion of children who’ve received the measles vaccine.

Hotez also overstates the risk of death from measles by claiming a fatality rate of 10 to 30 deaths for every 10,000 cases despite the CDC’s own data showing a pre-vaccine era fatality rate in the US of just 1 per 10,000 cases, which is the rate accepted by the authoritative Institute of Medicine. The caveat to this is that the rate of deaths per reported cases has since increased, but this is an unintended albeit foreseeable consequence of having shifted the risk burden away from children and onto infants and adults. Hotez also presents the fatality rate in the recent Samoan outbreak of 146 deaths per 10,000 cases, offering no comment on why the death rate would be so high there compared to the pre-vaccine-era rate in the US and other developed countries of 1 per 10,000—a difference in risk attributable entirely to factors other than vaccination.

Hotez also grossly understates the risks of vaccination, acknowledging only three possible adverse events associated with the measles vaccine and stating on Twitter less than a week after his article was published that “Vaccines do not injure children” despite the government administering the Vaccine Injury Compensation Program to indemnify the pharmaceutical industry against lawsuits for serious adverse events acknowledged to be causally associated with vaccines, despite the measles vaccine’s own manufacturer acknowledging that vaccines can cause encephalitis, and despite the government’s acknowledgment that vaccines can cause brain damage manifesting as symptoms of autism in genetically susceptible children. He falsely claims that vaccine-associated febrile seizures are not associated with long-term harm, which is yet another indication either of his dishonesty or, assuming good faith, that he just hasn’t been keeping up with the science.

Hotez claims that the idea “that vaccines can cause autism” is “misinformation” despite no studies ever having been conducted that were actually designed to test the hypothesis that vaccines administered according to the CDC’s schedule can contribute to the development of autism in genetically susceptible children and despite the admission from even the CDC’s own head of vaccine safety that it’s possible that vaccines might cause autism in genetically susceptible children.

The refusal of public policy apologists like Hotez to address parents’ countless legitimate concerns and the insistence on offhandedly dismissing those concerns as though totally unfounded is precisely why they are finding it so hard to persuade “vaccine hesitant” parents to line up their children to get all the shots in strict compliance with the CDC’s recommendations.

As long as people like Hotez continue to take the alternative approach of using fear, deception, and government coercion to compel parents into compliance, an increasing number of parents will continue to raise reasonable questions, express legitimate concerns, and trust their own judgement as to what’s in their children’s best interest rather than placing their faith in untrustworthy government bureaucrats who have none of the knowledge required to be able to conduct a meaningful risk-benefit analysis for the individual. As long as public policy apologists like Hotez continue to threaten our children’s health by insisting upon vaccination as a one-size-fits-all solution and continue to threaten our liberty by assaulting the parental right to informed consent, the number of parents who not only question public policy but who stand up and speak out against it will continue to grow.

This article was originally published at and has been republished here with permission.

Jeremy R. Hammond is an independent journalist and political analyst, publisher and editor of Foreign Policy Journal, and author. Sign up for his newsletter and download his exclusive free report “5 Horrifying Facts about the FDA Vaccine Approval Process”.

[Correction appended, January 24, 2020: As originally published, this article stated that that the Texas Children’s Hospital Center for Vaccine Development in 2017 partnered with Merck, the manufacturer of the measles vaccine used in the US. This is incorrect. The center partnered with the German pharmaceutical company Merck KGaA, not the US company Merck & Co. The text has been corrected.]

Vaccinated vs. Unvaccinated—Part 7

To date, I have posted 41 slides from 41 studies in this series comparing health outcomes among vaccinated populations vs unvaccinated populations. These four new slides (total now 45) illustrate data from The Netherlands Survey, a 2004 study of 635 Dutch children compiled from questionnaires filled out by their parents.

The Netherlands survey was completed and paid for by the Nederlandse Vereniging Kritisch Prikken, an independent association of Dutch therapists, doctors and parents, and others. The cumulative data from all these studies strongly suggests that unvaccinated children are far healthier than their vaccinated peers by nearly every metric. Thanks Dr Brian Hooker for rendering the graphs.

(See full-sized Part 7 slides or see the complete Vaxxed-Unvaxxed presentation, Parts 1-12.)

Survey Citation:
Rumke, HC and Visser, HK. [Childhood vaccinations anno 2004. I. Effectiveness and acceptance of the Dutch National Vaccination Programme].Ned Tijdschr Geneeskd. 2004 Feb 21;148(8):356-63.

Slides and Summaries from Part 7:

Slide 1 and Summary:

In episodes of various illnesses per 100 children over the first five years of life, ear infections, throat inflammation, aggressive behavior, and convulsions were all markedly elevated in fully vaccinated children compared to unvaccinated peers.


Slide 2 and Summary:

In episodes of various illnesses per 100 children over the first five years of life, antibiotic use, fever, febrile convulsions, and hospital admissions were all markedly elevated in fully vaccinated children compared to unvaccinated peers.

Slide 3 and Summary:

In the episodes of various illnesses per 100 children over the first five years of life, the number of children who were described as “sickly”, those who had chronic eczema, and those with asthma or chronic lung disease was markedly higher among vaccinated children compared to unvaccinated peers.

Slide 4 and Summary:

In the episodes of various illnesses per 100 children over the first five years of life, allergies, aggressive behaviors, and difficulties sleeping were all markedly elevated in fully vaccinated children compared to unvaccinated peers.

Measles and “Immune Amnesia”: A Closer Look

In late 2019, a study by Michael J. Mina and others introduced the topic of “immunological amnesia” into the mainstream news. The study stated that following a measles infection, antibody levels to other viral and bacterial infections drop during the following three to six months. In the view of the study’s authors, not only is the measles infection itself a grave danger to the child, but having a measles infection causes a global immune suppression that makes the child susceptible to other potentially deadly infections in the period after the measles have cleared.

Mina and coauthors assert that the measles-mumps-rubella (MMR) vaccine does not cause this same immune suppression, thereby creating an even stronger argument—again, in their view—that we must vigorously push for full acceptance of the measles vaccine so that we can achieve “herd immunity,” which they claim happens when 95% of the population is immune from measles because they received the required measles vaccines.

For very important reasons, however, the Mina paper should lead us to exactly the opposite conclusion.

… even though the levels of antibodies went down, the death rate of children following measles infection was four times lower than the death rate for children who didn’t have a case of measles.

Antibodies do not equal immunity

First, antibody levels are not predictive of immunity. In fact, there is significant research showing that the drop in antibodies following measles infection is a protective response, as it means that the level of cell-derived transfer factor—the substance in the blood most linked with resistance to viral diseases—has gone up.

This phenomenon is the most likely explanation for the results of the biggest study ever done on what actually happens to children after they have a measles infection. Dr. Peter Aaby’s research in Senegal showed that even though the levels of antibodies went down, the death rate of children following measles infection was four times lower than the death rate for children who didn’t have a case of measles. Here is the quote from Aaby’s paper: “Exposed children developing clinical measles had lower age-adjusted mortality over the next 4 years than exposed children who did not develop clinical measles.”

In a fact-checking article that provides further details to debunk the hoopla about measles and “immune amnesia,” Dr. Tetyana Obukhanych cites a 2012 study by a Swiss researcher titled “Immunologic memory does not equal protective immunity.” In that publication, the author points out that the very term, “immunological memory,” was coined by vaccinologists “to explain why and how vaccinations work”—and the term “usually had nothing to do with infections.” The Swiss researcher cautioned, “Because words matter and because the immunological community is generally not interested in infectious diseases, the false use of ‘memory’ to explain protective immunity persists.”

… 2% to 12% of children who receive a measles vaccine never develop immunity to measles.

Doing the math

In addition, I have to mention that the idea of vaccine-induced “herd immunity” to measles is pure fiction. Three decades ago, researchers reported a primary measles vaccine failure rate of 6%, and 2019 data by Mayo Clinic researchers still estimated primary failure to be anywhere from 2% to 12%. In other words, 2% to 12% of children who receive a measles vaccine never develop immunity to measles. The CDC’s estimate is that measles vaccination will be ineffective in 7% of children who receive one dose of vaccine. If we need to have 95% immunity, then vaccination of even 100% of the people could well result in a number lower than that threshold.

However, we must also consider the “secondary vaccine failure” rate. This term refers to the percentage of people who lose their immunity over time after vaccination. This happens because without the working together of the cellular and humoral immune systems, most people will not develop lifelong immunity. In fact, between 0.5% and 1% of vaccinated people lose immunity to measles for each year that passes. In other words, 30-year-olds whose last measles-containing vaccine was at age 10 have between a 10% to 20% chance of no longer having immunity to measles. If one does the math and averages this all out, one finds that the maximum level of immunity to measles that can be achieved through vaccination is about 65% in the entire population—far, far below the level we are told needs to occur to achieve effective herd immunity.

Herd immunity is a make-believe concept, used to “herd” unsuspecting people into a behavior that they wouldn’t choose otherwise. As Dr. Albert Sabin noted, official data have shown that large-scale vaccination in the U.S. has failed to obtain any significant improvement of the diseases for which the vaccines were supposed to provide immunity. In essence, vaccinations were—and are—a failure.


Vaccine Failures, Part 2: Pertussis Vaccination

[Note: This is the second in a series of articles examining the serious problem of vaccine failure—a problem that, scandalously, remains unacknowledged by the public health officials and politicians promoting draconian vaccine mandates. Part 1 examined the measles vaccination and Part 3 examined the influenza vaccine.]


Over the past decade, an average of over 25,000 cases of pertussis (the respiratory illness also known as “whooping cough”) has been reported to the CDC annually. The CDC made no mention of pertussis in its round-up of “nine health threats that made headlines in 2019” (whereas 1,276 non-fatal cases of measles made the list), but, judging from news reports, 2019 was another banner year for pertussis—especially in the vaccinated. And, as numerous peer-reviewed studies published in the past few years show, the blame must be laid squarely at the feet of a fatally flawed vaccination program that is making vaccinated children more rather than less susceptible to pertussis over their lifetimes.

Pertussis vaccination targets the Bordetella pertussis (B. pertussis) organism, a “fastidious” bacterial pathogen spread by respiratory droplets. Nationally, pertussis-containing vaccine coverage is high—just shy of 95%—yet, by the CDC’s own admission, pertussis outbreaks are increasingly frequent. In addition, many cases of pertussis go undiagnosed and, therefore, unreported, with an estimated ratio of up to 1,400 undocumented pertussis infections for every recorded case. Given the high vaccination rate and the known fact that vaccinated persons can transmit pertussis asymptomatically (see Failure #4), it is important to dissect the spectacular failure of U.S. pertussis vaccination efforts in greater detail.

Numerous studies (both recent and not-so-recent) indicate that this dose-intensive vaccination regimen—far from providing meaningful protection—may actually be facilitating pertussis outbreaks.

Failure #1: In U.S. children and adults who receive pertussis-containing vaccines, immunity wanes rapidly—a fact known and reiterated for years.

In the U.S., the CDC’s childhood vaccine schedule includes five doses of the diphtheria-tetanus-acellular pertussis (DTaP) vaccine at two, four, six and 15-18 months and 4-6 years, followed by a dose of tetanus-diphtheria-acellular pertussis (Tdap) vaccine at age 11 or 12 and more Tdap boosters in adulthood. (The CDC also recommends “off-license” administration of a Tdap dose to pregnant women during each pregnancy.) Numerous studies (both recent and not-so-recent) indicate that this dose-intensive vaccination regimen—far from providing meaningful protection—may actually be facilitating pertussis outbreaks.

Waning immunity (also called secondary vaccine failure) is one of the leading factors contributing to the pertussis fiasco. Top vaccine experts have been surprisingly frank in admitting this major shortcoming:

  • In 2017, Dr. Stanley Plotkin, the well-known vaccine developer (and former medical and scientific director of Sanofi Pasteur) who consults for vaccine manufacturers, wrote about the rapid waning of pertussis vaccines, stating that vaccine effectiveness drops off “as early as 2-3 years post-boosters.” Plotkin and his two coauthors (one affiliated with Sanofi) pointed to a record-breaking 2010 pertussis outbreak in California that witnessed high disease rates in fully vaccinated preadolescents; two-thirds (66%) of the cases in fully vaccinated children were in 7- to 10-year-olds—that is, children not far removed from their fifth dose of DTaP. The trio of authors conceded that current pertussis vaccines provide inferior immunity compared to the “rather robust” immunity induced by natural pertussis infection.
  • Another 2017 study, this time by Kaiser Permanente and GlaxoSmithKline authors, reported that not only does pertussis vaccine effectiveness wane substantially after the fifth dose—falling, by their estimate, an average of 27% per year—but waning occurs with all DTaP brands on the market. In a different study, some of the same Kaiser researchers pronounced waning DTaP immunity to be an “important cause of pertussis” in age-appropriately vaccinated children over 18 months of age.
  • A 2016 study by a consortium of Canadian scientists described the rapid decline in pertussis vaccine effectiveness—notably at around the four-year mark since last vaccination.

Failure #2: Pertussis outbreaks are frequent, and the majority of cases are occurring in the vaccinated.

In early 2019, news outlets covered a pertussis outbreak at an elite, 1,600-student private high school in Los Angeles. Notwithstanding a “really high vaccination rate,” 30 students—all vaccinated—developed pertussis, whereas none of the high school’s unvaccinated students (18 students with medical exemptions) contracted the infection. School officials even emphasized that the outbreak could not be attributed to the unvaccinated students. That same month, a UCLA researcher (one of the nation’s top authorities on pertussis vaccination) characterized the increased lifetime susceptibility to pertussis faced by DTaP-vaccinated children as a conundrum with no easy solution.

A study in Pediatrics that followed in July 2019 reported that 82% of pediatric pertussis cases identified by Kaiser Permanente California were in children who had been fully vaccinated (including 12% “fully vaccinated plus 1 dose”), and another 5% of cases occurred in partially pertussis-vaccinated children. From ages one and a half to seven years, vaccinated children’s pertussis risk quintupled once three or more years had elapsed since vaccination.

Capping off 2019, a Catholic school and daycare center in Houston—where 100% of the students were vaccinated—was forced to close early for the Christmas holidays due to a pertussis outbreak. In a letter to parents, the principal and school pastor stated that “Doctors are unsure why vaccinated children may still get the disease,” but news reports zeroed in on waning immunity as the likely culprit.

However, another 60% of cases were in children: 32% in those aged 1-10 years and 28% in preadolescents and adolescents (ages 11-18).

Failure #3: Pertussis risks are significant in infants but are also shifting toward adolescence and adulthood.

Pertussis incidence is high in infants. From 2000 through 2016 (a period of time in which pertussis incidence “increased significantly” across the U.S.), infants in their first year of life represented 15% of cases—with incidence anywhere from 4 to 63 times higher than for other age groups. Infants also had the highest hospitalization rate and accounted for 89% of deaths. However, another 60% of cases were in children: 32% in those aged 1-10 years and 28% in preadolescents and adolescents (ages 11-18).

At the same time, some researchers are describing a shift in the burden of pertussis toward adolescents and young adults as well as older adults. In one managed care setting, 59% of cases from 2006-2015 were in adolescents or adults. These shifts have implications in terms of both pertussis severity and health care costs. For example, while adults 65 years of age or older represented just 2.4% of U.S. pertussis cases between 2000-2016, these older adults constituted 14% of pertussis-related hospitalizations and 5% of deaths. Average charges for inpatient care for a pertussis episode in an older adult are significant—over $14,000 per patient. A recent study confirms that the clinical management of thousands of pertussis cases annually “is associated with substantial economic burden,” especially in patients from the two most vulnerable age groups—infants and older adults.

In fact, in light of studies suggesting that subclinically infected adults are the most likely source of transmission to infants, it seems possible that cocooning could increase rather than decrease risks for the very youngest.

Failure #4: Asymptomatic vaccinated individuals are a major source of B. pertussis transmission.

A number of studies have suggested that “vaccinated individuals may harbor and transmit [pertussis] infection, even in the absence of typical pertussis symptoms.” In a 2020 systematic review, the authors conclude that “the prevalence of asymptomatic infection is high” and that “frequent close contact occurring in household settings may provide sufficient opportunity for B. pertussis to spread.”

In 2015, an article in BMC Medicine made a similar case, asserting that asymptomatic transmission by pertussis-vaccinated individuals to their close contacts provides “the most parsimonious explanation for many of the observations surrounding the resurgence of B. pertussis” in the United States as well as the United Kingdom. Drawing out various implications for pertussis vaccination policy, the authors commented that asymptomatic transmission:

  • Can account for the increase in pertussis incidence
  • Is consistent with the timing of changes in age-specific pertussis attack rates
  • May be biasing assessments of vaccine efficacy

The BMC Medicine authors also noted the likely futility of “vaccinating individuals in close contact with infants too young to receive the vaccine” (so-called “cocooning”). In fact, in light of studies suggesting that subclinically infected adults are the most likely source of transmission to infants, it seems possible that cocooning could increase rather than decrease risks for the very youngest.

An emerging and disturbing area of research links asymptomatic B. pertussis colonization to the development in the host of serious conditions such as epilepsy, multiple sclerosis (MS) and even Alzheimer’s disease.

Failure #5: Subclinical pertussis infection is linked to other serious health risks.

In their 2017 article on waning immunity, Stanley Plotkin and coauthors noted that acellular-pertussis-containing vaccines are less effective than either natural infection or the more dangerous whole-cell-pertussis vaccines (no longer in use in the U.S.) in staving off B. pertussis colonization of the nasopharynx; other researchers concur that subclinical nasopharyngeal colonization by B. pertussis is common in highly vaccinated populations. An emerging and disturbing area of research links asymptomatic B. pertussis colonization to the development in the host of serious conditions such as epilepsy, multiple sclerosis (MS) and even Alzheimer’s disease. The researchers making this case for MS (who are developing a new pertussis vaccine) refer to the half-century-old observation that “The epidemiological features of multiple sclerosis are compatible with the hypothesis that the clinical illness may be an occasional manifestation of a widespread subclinical infection.”

Failure #6: Today’s pertussis vaccines are not keeping up with bacterial mutations.

In the midst of the numerous 2019 pertussis outbreaks, USA Today reported on CDC research suggesting that today’s whooping cough “is being battled by yesterday’s vaccine” as a result of growing vaccine resistance—or what researchers call “adaptation of B. pertussis to vaccine selection pressure.” In 2014, CDC researchers reported a dramatic increase in mutated B. pertussis isolates all over the U.S., with the mutated isolates representing more than 50% of collected isolates in 2012—a year in which U.S. pertussis cases spiked to over 48,000 (a 157% increase over 2011). The CDC Pertussis Working Group later acknowledged the need to study circulating genotypes that diverge “from existing laboratory and vaccine reference strains” and assess whether they alter antigen expression and lead to changes in the burden of disease.

Studies also show that infections triggered by another Bordetella pathogen called B. parapertussis are becoming more common around the world and are affecting “mainly vaccinated populations.” Because B. parapertussis has mechanisms that allow it to “evade the immune response induced by pertussis vaccines,” the incidence of B. parapertussis infection increased after the introduction of acellular pertussis vaccines. A study of pertussis infections in Massachusetts from 1990 through 2008 found that one in ten cases were due to B. parapertussis, with most cases in precisely the 5- to 10-year age group “expected to have strong vaccine-induced immunity.” Other studies have confirmed that existing pertussis vaccines “are not protective against disease induced by B. parapertussis.”

…the obfuscation of important information about vaccine failures is convenient for the ‘power brokers’ who ‘continue making money without improving the product through technologically possible advances.’

Failure #7: Doctors and public health officials are not being forthright about vaccine failure.

In a commentary on the 2019 pertussis outbreaks, investigative reporter Sharyl Attkisson raises pertinent questions of disclosure and informed consent, asking whether doctors who administer pertussis vaccines are “disclosing to parents that the whooping cough protection will only last a relatively short time” and that middle school boosters are “probably only effective for about a year”? Atkisson’s point about incomplete disclosure and inadequate informed consent applies to virtually all vaccines recommended for children and adults. However, as Atkisson concludes, the obfuscation of important information about vaccine failures is convenient for the “power brokers” who “continue making money without improving the product through technologically possible advances.”

Further reading from the Children’s Health Defense website:

May 31, 2019: Pertussis: Vaccine Failure, not Failure to Vaccinate
May 28, 2019: The California Senate Voted to Give Your Child Whooping Cough
May 7, 2019: Most of You Think We Know What Our Vaccines Are Doing—We Don’t
March 6, 2019: Failure to Vaccinate or Vaccine Failure: What Is Driving Disease Outbreaks?
August 17, 2018: Study Claims Tdap Vaccine in Pregnancy Doesn’t Cause Autism—Is that True Given the Facts?
July 31, 2018: One in Nine Adverse Events Reported After DTaP Vaccination Is Serious—But CDC Says, “Don’t Worry, Be Happy”
April 24, 2017: DTP Vaccine Increases Mortality in Young Infants 5 to 10-Fold Compared to Unvaccinated Infants


Vaccine Failures: The Glaring Problem Officials Are Ignoring. Part I: Measles Vaccination

[Note: This is the first in a series of articles that examine the serious problem of vaccine failure—a problem that, scandalously, remains unacknowledged by the public health officials and politicians promoting draconian vaccine mandates. Part 2 examines the pertussis vaccination and Part 3 examines the influenza vaccination.]


The coordinated and stepped-up effort to eliminate vaccine exemptions and impose new vaccine mandates was, without a doubt, one of 2019’s top stories, both nationally and internationally. One of the primary weapons in the anti-vaccine-choice arsenal was measles hysteria—whipped up by a biased media willing to use false talking points to demonize the unvaccinated while ignoring or glossing over measles vaccination’s flawed track record. As we brace for more measles hype in 2020, Children’s Health Defense believes it is important to keep calling attention to the real facts about the failures of mass measles vaccination.

Studies show that levels of measles antibody progressively decrease with increased time since vaccination. Moreover, additional boosters do not solve the problem.

Failure #1: Primary and secondary measles vaccine failures are common.

It is far from uncommon for vaccines—including the measles-mumps-rubella (MMR) and MMR-plus-varicella (MMRV) vaccines used in the United States—to fail to live up to their textbook promises. As of 2019, in fact, leading vaccine scientists admitted that “the ability of the current measles vaccine to sustain long-term protective immunity and adequate herd immunity in settings with no wild type virus exposure” is “still a subject of debate.”

Right at the starting gate, anywhere from 2% to 12% of children who receive their first measles-containing vaccine exhibit “primary vaccine failure”—defined as vaccine non-responsiveness. For largely unknown reasons, this subset of children (and also adults) fails to mount the expected antibody response after either an initial vaccine or a booster shot. Even in those for whom the vaccine appears to “take,” vaccinated individuals “have lower levels of measles-specific antibody than do those with immunity derived from exposure to wild-type” measles virus.

Secondary vaccine failure (waning immunity) is also a built-in feature of measles (and other) vaccines, with vaccine efficacy acknowledged to be “lower and not life-long compared to the wild type virus infection.” Studies show that levels of measles antibody progressively decrease with increased time since vaccination. Moreover, additional boosters do not solve the problem. In a CDC study of 18-28 year-olds who were given a third dose of MMR vaccine, protection petered out in less than a year—a fact that forced the study’s authors to argue against a routine third dose.

Vaccine failure apparently received some attention in the 1970s and 1980s, but since the 1990s, the topic has dropped off of most researchers’ radar and remains woefully underinvestigated. Some vaccine scientists—astonished at the “surprisingly high numbers of vaccine failure among one- and two-dose recipients of measles-containing vaccine”—are calling for longer-term monitoring of vaccine-induced immunity after both the first and second doses, as well as more granular data about vaccine efficacy, immunogenicity and measles epidemiology.

… infants born to vaccinated mothers had a ‘measles attack rate’ nearly triple that of babies born to unvaccinated mothers—33% versus 12%.

Failure #2: Measles-vaccinated mothers are not passing on adequate immunity to their infants—thus, the most vulnerable age group is getting measles.

Studies have confirmed that the maternal antibodies produced by measles vaccination (as opposed to the lifelong immunity furnished by natural measles infection) are incapable of providing infants with adequate maternal protection in the first year of life. As a result, a significant proportion of those getting measles are infants. As long ago as 1999, vaccine scientists already knew that vaccination was increasing U.S.-born infants’ vulnerability to measles. A study published that year in Pediatrics, titled “Increased Susceptibility to Measles in Infants in the United States,” reported that infants born to vaccinated mothers had a “measles attack rate” nearly triple that of babies born to unvaccinated mothers—33% versus 12%.

In the first four months of 2019—when about 70% of U.S. measles cases for the year had already been reported—one-fourth of cases were in children younger than 15 months. An analysis of U.S. measles cases from 2001 through 2008 likewise found that 24% were in under-15-month-olds, and a CDC study of measles cases from 2001 through 2015 found that incidence per million population “was highest in infants aged 6 to 11 months . . . and toddlers aged 12 to 15 months.” As Children’s Health Defense has frequently noted, infants are at far greater risk of measles-related complications and death compared to elementary-school children over age five (the age group that primarily and uneventfully experienced measles in the pre-vaccine era).

Failure #3: Vaccinated individuals are getting measles—probably more often than official counts show.

Primary vaccine failure and waning vaccine-induced immunity open the door for measles in vaccinated individuals, and notably in vaccinated adults—another group at higher risk of measles complications.

  • Available CDC data for part of 2019 indicate that at least 13% of U.S. measles cases with known vaccination status (76/579) had previously received one or more measles vaccine doses; vaccination status was unknown for an additional 18% of cases (125/704). Adults age 20 or older represented 23% of total cases (165/704). The CDC did not report vaccination status by age group.
  • When the CDC analyzed fifteen years of measles cases (2001-2015), it reported the same percentages; the vaccinated represented roughly 13% of measles cases—and 65% of the vaccinated cases were in adults at least 18 years of age. In the 18% of cases for whom vaccination status was unknown, 87% were adults.
  • A study of California measles cases, also from 2000 through 2015, reported that 20% of individuals with confirmed measles and verified vaccination status had received one or more doses of measles vaccine.
  • Studies from around the world tell the same story, reporting measles, for example, in fully vaccinated Russian adults, Australian air travelers and residents of the Republic of the Marshall Islands.

Official measles data almost certainly are underestimating the extent of measles in the vaccinated. This is because measles vaccination sometimes “modulates” the clinical presentation of measles, producing a different symptom picture. The California study of 2000-2015 measles cases found that individuals who had received two or more doses of measles-containing vaccine were often “less ill” than their one-dose or unvaccinated counterparts; importantly, however, they were still capable of transmitting measles and “required the same amount of public health effort in tracing contacts.” In 2009, two U.S. physicians who had been fully vaccinated with two-plus MMR doses got measles but “continued to see patients, because neither considered that they could have measles.” A 1990 study of seroconfirmed “vaccine-modified” measles found that about 16% of vaccinated patients either did not meet the CDC clinical case definition of measles or had no detectable measles-specific immunoglobulin M (IgM). An absent or weak IgM response makes it more challenging to diagnose and confirm measles in the laboratory. Researchers have concluded that these factors may be leading to “underreporting of measles cases and . . . overestimation of vaccine efficacy in highly vaccinated populations.”

In 2015, sequencing of 194 U.S. measles cases showed that nearly two in five (38%) were the result of the vaccine strain rather than wild-type measles virus.

Failure #4: Vaccinated individuals are getting measles from the vaccine and transmitting to others.

Recent CDC research indicates that cases of measles in individuals who experience primary vaccine failure “might be as transmissible as cases of measles in unvaccinated individuals.” In addition, modern genotyping techniques are showing that it is the vaccine strain of measles that is causing measles in a sizeable proportion of cases in vaccinated individuals. The CDC has known about the potential for viral shedding from measles vaccines since at least the 1990s, when vaccine-strain measles injured and killed a 21-year-old college student. In 2015, sequencing of 194 U.S. measles cases showed that nearly two in five (38%) were the result of the vaccine strain rather than wild-type measles virus.

In a 2016 study published in the Journal of Clinical Microbiology, CDC and other researchers spelled out the importance, during outbreak investigations, of differentiating between wild-type measles and vaccine-strain measles (which they called “measles vaccine reactions”). In 2019, however, the CDC sequenced only a third of measles cases. This lack of comprehensive information about measles strains for all cases not only contributes to underestimation of measles disease among the vaccinated but can lead to “unnecessary public health interventions.” The New York officials who last year barred unvaccinated children from public spaces and imposed measles vaccine mandates across entire zip codes were silent on the topic of vaccine-strain measles.

Although vaccine scientists are loathe to admit that vaccinated individuals can function as vectors of measles transmission to others, scattered studies show that this is the case. Moreover, recent CDC research reported in JAMA Pediatrics indicates that primary cases of measles in vaccinated individuals are as likely to infect other vaccinated individuals as they are to spread measles to unvaccinated individuals. In 2011, New York City public health officials reported five cases of measles, all of whom “had prior evidence of measles immunity,” either from two doses of measles-containing vaccine or from a past titer positive for measles antibodies. What the researchers found particularly noteworthy was the fact that the index patient “was demonstrated to be capable of transmitting disease to other individuals” despite having received two MMR doses and despite similar immunity in the other four cases.

In late 2019, Japanese researchers reported measles transmission from a twice-vaccinated individual to three unvaccinated persons; the chain of transmission then continued to six other persons, all fully vaccinated. (Japan banned the MMR vaccine in 1993 and instead uses a measles-rubella vaccine.) Without specifying how to achieve such an aim, the researchers concluded that “To prevent measles transmission and outbreak particularly in countries where measles was almost eliminated, patients with [secondary vaccine failure] for measles should be cautiously monitored.” CDC researchers, also writing in late 2019, agree that “continued monitoring of measles among vaccinated persons is warranted.” 

Failure #5: Vaccination failures aren’t limited to measles-containing vaccines—failure is inherent to all vaccines.

Scientists have known about vaccine failure for years. In 2006, Canadian researchers admitted that “the immunity afforded by [imperfect] vaccines is not complete and may wane with time, leading to resurgence and epidemic outbreaks notwithstanding high levels of primary vaccination.” Summarizing the conundrum facing vaccination programs, the Canadian researchers noted that, on the one hand, “if the vaccine provides only temporary immunity, then the infection typically cannot be eradicated by a single vaccination episode,” but on the other hand, “having a booster program does not necessarily guarantee the control of a disease” either.

Public health agencies and officials continue to sidestep this immensely consequential information, instead choosing to bludgeon citizens with factually incorrect measles and vaccine propaganda to justify more revocation of exemptions. However, a vaccination program that increases serious risks in the most vulnerable, produces ongoing outbreaks and transmits vaccine strains of illness to the vaccinated and unvaccinated alike can hardly be deemed a success.


For further information, see other Children’s Health Defense articles about measles:

December 12, 2019: Is Measles Eradication Through Vaccination a Realistic Goal?/

October 24, 2019: Getting the Measles in Modern-Day America—Not Nearly as Dangerous as Portrayed

October 15, 2019: The Measles Vaccine Narrative Is Collapsing

September 10, 2019: Robert F. Kennedy, Jr.’s Response to “The Message of Measles” — What The New Yorker Wouldn’t Publish

August 30, 2019: An Open Letter to Nick Paumgarten, Author of “The Message of Measles”

May 2, 2019: Are Public Health Authorities the Authors of Fake Measles News?

May 2, 2019: A Dozen Facts About Measles That You Won’t Learn From MSPharmedia

May 2, 2019: Orchestrating the Focus on Measles With The World Health Organization’s “Playbook”

May 2, 2019: CDC CASE STUDY: Death From Measles Vaccine Virus 15 Months After Vaccination

April 23, 2019: CDC Lies About, and Media Repeats, Risk of Dying from Measles

April 4, 2019: Measles, Measles, Everywhere!

March 7, 2019: Those Measles Outbreaks: Thoughts Out of Season

February 19, 2019: Measles Madness: Dr. Brian Hooker’s Statement to WA Legislators

February 7, 2019: The Facts About Measles

August 8, 2018: Natural Measles Immunity—Better Protection and More Long-Term Benefits than Vaccines

Is Measles Eradication Through Vaccination a Realistic Goal?



When the U.S. launched measles vaccination in the 1960s, facilitated by generous federal funding, there were experts who questioned the need for a vaccine, given the low and falling measles morbidity rate and the greater than 98% decline in mortality since 1900.  In March 1963 the first two measles vaccines were approved for use in the United States: a live vaccine produced by Merck (Rubeovax) and a formalin-inactivated one produced by Pfizer (Pfizer-Vax Measles–K).

In 1967, a campaign was launched to eliminate measles from the United States. “To those who ask me ‘Why do you wish to eradicate measles?’” wrote Alexander Langmuir, chief epidemiologist from 1949 to 1970 at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, I reply with the same answer that Hillary used when asked why he wished to climb Mt. Everest. He said “Because it is there.” To this may be added, “… and it can be done.”

Today, 50 years after the introduction and widespread use of measles vaccination, we continue to see outbreaks of measles. This demands that we question how effective the goal to eradicate measles has been.  Our public health agencies often point a finger at those who are vaccine hesitant or “anti-vaxxers” (typically parents of children who had significant adverse events following vaccination) as being responsible for outbreaks of measles.  Such finger-pointing responses are overly simplistic and do not acknowledge the accumulating body of science questioning the effectiveness and safety of the measles vaccine.

Rather than acknowledge measles vaccination’s numerous failures—the inadequacy of  vaccine derived maternal antibodies to protect infants from infection in their first year of life before they are old enough to be vaccinated, the dramatically increased risks of developing a progressive, disabling and fatal brain disorder subacute sclerosing panencephalitis (SSPE) if an infant acquires measles the first year of life, and the evolution of mutant measles virus strains that are resistant to the measles vaccine—and work to address these critical concerns in vaccine policy, vaccine promoters keep recycling these obvious failures of the vaccine into an absurd and dangerous argument in favor of more of the same.

…in settings where measles does not circulate endemically and most immunity is from immunization rather than infection, maternal antibody levels are lower.

Inadequate measles antibodies

Most infants are born with immunity to measles through maternal antibodies transferred in pregnancy, which slowly decreases over time. However, in settings where measles does not circulate endemically and most immunity is from immunization rather than infection, maternal antibody levels are lower. This is due to the fact that maternal vaccination-induced measles antibodies disappear faster than disease-induced antibodies. This results in infant immunity that wanes earlier in vaccinated populations and a wider susceptibility gap between maternal antibody decay and infant immunization.

Naturally immune pregnant and nursing mothers who had measles infections in childhood formerly protected their babies through the transfer of maternal antibodies in the placenta and breast milk.

In contrast, infants born to vaccinated mothers have been found to have significantly fewer antibodies  than infants of naturally immune mothers have, resulting in loss of immunity to measles before they are eligible for vaccination. A study in Canada that reported on this phenomenon found that 92% of three-month-olds and 100% of six-month-olds had antibody levels “below the protective threshold.”

This has resulted in a situation where the measles vaccine has failed to produce adequate antibodies in vaccinated mothers sufficient to provide infants with maternal immunity the first year of life.  This has created a crisis situation where infants under the age of one are now highly vulnerable to measles infections. These young infants suffer a higher mortality compared to populations historically impacted by wild measles later in childhood.

Greater risk of complications

The CDC recommends MMR vaccination between 12-15 months. In the first four months of 2019, one-fourth of U.S. measles cases were in children younger than 15 months. This is concerning because these young infants are at greater risk of serious complications and death compared to children over age five.

One potential measles complication is a fatal neurodegenerative disease called subacute sclerosing panencephalitis (SSPE), a “devastating ‘slow virus’ brain disease resulting from persistent measles virus infection of neurons.” Measles infection before age two is one of the most consistent risk factors for SSPE, but because of the condition’s lengthy latency (6-10 years, on average), the age of SSPE presentation is commonly around ages 8-11. Characteristic features of SSPE include gradual cognitive decline, behavior changes, seizures, loss of muscle control and visual disturbances, culminating in a vegetative state—followed by death—within a few years of symptom onset.

Scientists deny that measles vaccine can trigger SSPE, but they cite evidence pointing to “wild virus causing SSPE in cases which have been immunized and have had no known natural measles infection.”

In the pre-measles-vaccination era, SSPE was exceedingly rare, estimated at 1 in 100,000. However, a California-based study published in Clinical Infectious Diseases in 2017 produced dramatically higher estimates for the 1998-2015 period: a rate of 1 in 609 for infants who got measles before age one. Of the 17 cases of SSPE unearthed by the researchers, 12 children had a known history of measles infection “or a compatible febrile rash illness,” which, in 11 of 12 cases, occurred before age one. (In the 12th case, the child was 14 months old.) A similar study in the Eastern European nation of Georgia identified 12 cases of SSPE (2008-2017) with a known history of measles infection before age two. Like their American counterparts, the Georgian researchers concluded that the risk of SSPE “is higher than previously thought.”

Scientists deny that measles vaccine can trigger SSPE, but they cite evidence pointing to “wild virus causing SSPE in cases that have been immunized and have had no known natural measles infection.” This year, Indian researchers described just such a case. A previously healthy 26-month-old rapidly progressed to a vegetative state within five months of developing seizures; the boy had received a measles vaccine at nine months of age, followed by “measles-like illness at the age of 1 year.” This and other Indian case reports of “early-onset SSPE” in toddlers point to an inexplicable but “progressively decreasing latency period between measles infection and onset of symptoms observed in cases with SSPE.” In the past, it was “very unusual” for SSPE to have such a short latency period.

Mutant viruses

For over 50 years, measles vaccines worldwide have relied on one “genetically restricted” strain of measles virus—genotype A.  And during this half-century period, “genotype circulation patterns” have changed substantially. A Luxembourg virologist speculated in 2017 that these changes “might reflect the immune selection of ‘fitter’ viruses” and also commented that rapid genetic evolution can “drive the emergence of viral variants [that escape] immune surveillance.” Back in 2001, the same virologist reported that measles virus strains circulating in Africa had “acquired a considerable level of resistance to the standard measles vaccine in use in the continent,” with “at least half the immune system antibodies produced in response to the vaccine hav[ing] no effect on these strains.”

Also in the early 2000s, researchers in Belarus sequenced measles virus strains to ascertain why the republic was witnessing numerous cases of measles despite a 98% vaccination rate. While their analysis revealed genotype A virus strains in 2001 and 2002, by 2003, different genotypes—D6 and D7—were present, leading the investigators to attribute the majority of measles cases to vaccine failure. A similar study in Russia described the “lack of protective titers of neutralizing antibodies” against circulating measles virus strains, and again linked genotype D6 to measles outbreaks in highly vaccinated adults. In the mid-2000s, the World Health Organization (WHO) connected measles outbreaks in Europe to measles genotypes D4, D6 and B3.

…it will be important to monitor “new emerging strains of the virus.”

What is also very worrisome is that the genetics of these vaccine resistant strains that have emerged are similar to the genetics of a very dangerous form of the virus that can cause SSPE.  As mentioned previously, this progressive, disabling and often deadly brain disorder has suddenly become much more common.

Worryingly, the genetics of vaccine-resistant strains of measles virus, including the D6 genotype, are similar to the genetics of the mutant form of virus associated with SSPE. Discussing cases of SSPE in measles-vaccinated individuals exposed to wild-type measles virus [wt MV], one group of authors stated, “If vaccinated individuals…are susceptible to wt MV strains, this raises concerns not only for neurological complications of MV but also for its global eradication.” The authors conclude that it will be important to monitor “new emerging strains of the virus.”

…this “treadmill” of repeated, suboptimal vaccination is accomplishing little other than to create a time bomb that may allow “both ancient and emergent forms of this virus” to emerge victorious.

Imperfect vaccines and adaptable viruses

The mutant virus problem is not limited to measles vaccines. In November 2019, news outlets reported that a vaccine-derived form of poliovirus—mutated from the oral polio vaccine—is now causing more cases of polio than are caused by wild polioviruses. In a scathing report that month by the WHO’s Independent Monitoring Board (charged with evaluating the Global Polio Eradication Initiative), the report’s authors described the “uncontrolled” spread of vaccine-derived poliovirus across Africa, with vaccine-derived polio cases reported in 12 African countries and several Asian nations (including China) through October of 2019. The report noted that the resurgence of vaccine-derived polio raises “fundamental questions and challenges for the whole eradication process.”  These same concerns hold true for measles as well.

In a sobering 2019 reflection in the Journal of American Physicians and Surgeons, Dr. Andrew Wakefield discusses “escape mutants” from both the measles and polio vaccines. He suggests that “A virus like measles [or polio] demands our respect because, like other infectious agents, it is exquisitely versatile and geared for survival.” He notes that vaccination alters virus-related factors in a myriad of unanticipated ways that include virulence, dose, strain, route of infection and even the very cells that the virus infects in the body—and that is before even acknowledging the influence of “competing and synergistic variables such as other vaccines.”

But as Dr. Wakefield comments, there is already ample evidence to indicate that this “treadmill” of repeated, suboptimal vaccination is accomplishing little other than to create a time bomb that may allow “both ancient and emergent forms of this virus” to emerge victorious.  Instead of blaming anti-vaxxers, it is time for  CDC epidemiologists to acknowledge the very real failures of their efforts to eradicate measles by asking the question they should have asked in 1967 before launching their campaign, “Should it be done?”

Vaccine Discussion—Dr. Jay Gordon and Bill Maher 

On the November 1, 2019 episode of “Real Time”, Bill Maher had a conversation with pediatrician Jay Gordon, MD that lasted almost 14 minutes. It was a breath of fresh air to hear an open and frank discussion about vaccines.

Bill Maher, known for having his share of skepticism of health care recommendations and physicians, made the point that the medical profession doesn’t know everything about vaccines or any other drug/procedure. And what the U.S. thought was established science has been overturned many times. Maher and Dr. Gordon agreed that to stop any discussions surrounding vaccines is short-sighted and does no one any good if we are truly committed to public safety of medical products.

CHD is grateful to Bill Maher for breaking the censorship with his courageous interview on coercive government vaccine policies with Dr. Gordon and taking a stand for free speech, open debate and American values. Should you want to express your appreciation, you can reach him on Twitter, Instagram and Facebook or through this HBO general email address:

America’s Fifty-Fold Increase in Obsessive-Compulsive Disorder



Obsessive-compulsive disorder (OCD), considered a neurobiological condition, is an often “long-lasting disorder in which a person has uncontrollable, reoccurring thoughts (obsessions), and behaviors (compulsions) that he or she feels the urge to repeat over and over.” Although the specific obsessions and compulsions vary widely from person to person, the common denominator is that they “create stress and interfere with daily life.”

U.S. researchers estimate that OCD affects 1%-2% of children and up to 3% of adolescents and adults. The current lifetime prevalence estimate of around 2.7% is 54 times higher than the estimated pre-1980s prevalence (for the U.S. population as a whole) of around 0.05% (1 in 2000). In a retrospective hospital-based study that looked at OCD prevalence over time, researchers who examined psychiatric discharge diagnoses from 1969 to 1990 reported that something changed in the 1980s, with a marked increase in the frequency of OCD diagnoses over the decade.

…”the immune system, both in the central nervous system (CNS) and in the periphery, is crucial in shaping and influencing normal brain functions, and any disruption of immune function could adversely impact the brain too.”

Reflecting the disorder’s growing prominence, the American Psychiatric Association’s 2013 diagnostic manual revisions eliminated OCD as a subcategory of “anxiety disorders” and gave the diagnosis its own category of “obsessive-compulsive and related disorders.” OCD experts now urge busy neurologists “to be aware of OCD…and to have a high index of suspicion for this disorder.”

OCD is just one of numerous neurodevelopmental disorders that have gone from relatively rare to common since the late 1980s—over the same time frame in which the childhood vaccine schedule exploded. There are at least three reasons to suspect a potential vaccine-OCD link:

  1. Proper brain function depends on a well-regulated immune system.
  2. Vaccination’s acknowledged aim is to “perturb the immune system.”
  3. Immune dysregulation is a documented contributor to OCD and other neurodevelopmental disorders.

As Duke University researchers have stated, “the immune system, both in the central nervous system (CNS) and in the periphery, is crucial in shaping and influencing normal brain functions, and any disruption of immune function could adversely impact the brain too.”

… OCD often presents alongside autism spectrum disorder (ASD), attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) and other diagnoses that are not only increasingly common in American children but often persist into adulthood.

Not only OCD

Studies show that OCD is more severe when it is early-onset; when diagnosed before puberty, children have “a longer duration of illness [and] higher rates of comorbid tics” as well as more frequent compulsions and greater psychosocial difficulties. In addition to comorbid tics, OCD often presents alongside autism spectrum disorder (ASD), attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) and other diagnoses that are not only increasingly common in American children but often persist into adulthood. In a study of adults with OCD, three out of four (75%) had one or more other neuropsychiatric diagnoses. Researchers also believe that some types of OCD may be closely related to PANDAS (Pediatric Autoimmune Neuropsychiatric Disorders Associated with Streptococcal Infections).

Compared to girls, boys tend toward a greater neuroinflammatory response, reflecting sex differences in how the brain’s principal immune cells (the microglia) function. This may be one of the reasons why early-onset OCD is two to three times more common in boys. (In early adulthood, however, OCD symptoms appear more frequently in women.) In this respect, OCD is no different from a number of other neurodevelopmental and health conditions, including ASD, that also disproportionately affect boys.

The Yale authors considered the high comorbidity rates between OCD and anorexia significant and also highlighted that OCD and anorexia have a number of immune-mediated mechanisms in common.

The Yale study

In 2017, researchers from the Yale Child Study Center published a retrospective case-control study in Frontiers in Psychiatry that considered a possible association between prior vaccination and increased incidence of seven neuropsychiatric disorders, including OCD. Recall that at the start of the 1980s, children received three vaccines for seven illnesses (totaling two dozen doses by age 18), whereas fully vaccinated children now get almost six dozen doses for sixteen conditions.

The Yale researchers looked at a national sample of privately insured children and adolescents (ages 6-15) for the six-year period from January 2002 through December 2007. They found that for four diagnoses — OCD, anorexia nervosa, anxiety disorder and tic disorder — the affected children were more likely than matched controls to have received a flu shot in the preceding 12 months. In addition:

  • For OCD, flu shots just three or six months prior also increased the risk.
  • There was an association between OCD and hepatitis A vaccination.
  • Children with OCD, anorexia or a tic disorder were more heavily vaccinated overall compared to children without these disorders.

All three vaccines marketed in the U.S. for hepatitis A—GlaxoSmithKline’s Havrix and Twinrix and Merck’s Vaqta—list anorexia as adverse reactions reported during clinical trials. The Yale authors considered the “high comorbidity rates” between OCD and anorexia significant and also highlighted that OCD and anorexia have a number of “immune-mediated mechanisms” in common.

OCD is also frequently comorbid with a variety of autoimmune diseases. A recent Swedish study reported that individuals with OCD had a 43% increased risk of any autoimmune disease (compared to those without OCD), and “significantly elevated” risks for autoimmune conditions “across all organ systems”:

  • Moisture-producing glands: Sjögren’s syndrome (94% increased risk).
  • Small intestine: Celiac disease (76%).
  • Peripheral nervous system: Guillain-Barré syndrome (71%).
  • Gastrointestinal tract: Crohn’s disease (66%).
  • Thyroid: Hashimoto’s thyroiditis (59%).
  • Pancreas: Type 1 diabetes mellitus (56%).
  • Platelets: Idiopathic thrombocytopenic purpura (51%).
  • Large intestine: Ulcerative colitis (41%).
  • Central nervous system: Multiple sclerosis (41%).
  • Skin: Psoriasis vulgaris (32%).
Aluminum-based vaccine adjuvants … are also a prominent suspect in the autoimmunity epidemic.

Beware the adjuvants

Given the extensive overlap between OCD and autoimmunity, the growing body of research that links vaccine adjuvants to autoimmunity is relevant for OCD. In fact, adjuvants—intended to intensify the immune response to a vaccine (immunogenicity)—present vaccine makers with a dilemma: “[I]ncreased vaccine reactogenicity [adverse reactions to vaccination] is the inevitable price for improved immunogenicity.”

Pointing to their influenza vaccination findings, the authors of the Yale study note that six European countries and China linked H1N1 influenza vaccination in 2009 to autoimmune narcolepsy, and some speculated that the H1N1 vaccine’s adjuvant—a squalene-based oil emulsion called AS03—was the culprit. Researchers caution:

A major recurring concern is the potential association between oil emulsion adjuvants and autoimmune disease induction as seen in animal and fish models. A single intradermal injection of a range of oil emulsions, including squalene emulsions, induces adjuvant arthritis in susceptible murine and rat models. […] There is a theoretical risk that any humans who share similar genetic susceptibility features to these models could similarly be prone to develop adjuvant arthritis, lupus, autoimmune hepatitis, uveitis or some other form of autoimmune disease after exposure to oil emulsion adjuvants alone or when combined with other potent innate immune activators [emphasis added].

Aluminum-based vaccine adjuvants — and especially the proprietary AAHS [amorphous aluminum hydroxyphosphate sulfate] adjuvant that Merck includes in its Gardasil 9, hepatitis A, hepatitis B and Haemophilus influenzae type b (Hib) vaccines—are also a prominent suspect in the autoimmunity epidemic. Researchers who compared AAHS to two other types of aluminum adjuvants found that AAHS was “substantially” different from the other two in revving up the immune system. As Italian researchers have stated, “the specific mechanism of action of each single adjuvant may have different effects on the course of different diseases.”

Hear no evil, see no evil

Pharmacotherapy with selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs) is a “first-line” treatment for OCD; because remission is uncommon, “long-term management is often necessary.” Pfizer and GlaxoSmithKline — two of the four companies that lead the U.S. vaccine market—make some of the top-selling SSRIs prescribed for individuals with OCD; the two pharma behemoths completed a joint venture in 2019 to integrate their consumer health care businesses. From their point of view, OCD represents an attractive market.

Meanwhile, earlier this year, the federal government and the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program turned down citizen requests to add asthma, autism, tics and several neuropsychiatric disorders — including PANDAS — to the Program’s Vaccine Injury Table. The feds’ refusal was not terribly surprising: very few new injuries have made it onto the Table since the Program came into being in 1986, despite the large number of vaccines piled onto the childhood schedule after that year. The government’s resolute refusal to conduct needed studies and its denial of even the possibility of vaccine culpability for conditions such as OCD leaves individuals no choice but to ferret out answers on their own.

Molecular mimicry: Body Confusion of “Self” and “Non-Self” (More Evidence on HPV Vaccines and Autoimmunity)



The powerful government-pharmaceutical industry partnership that has been foisting human papillomavirus (HPV) vaccination on girls and boys around the world since 2006 now has working-age adults within its sights. Merck’s Gardasil 9 received U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approval for expanded use in the 27-45 age group in late 2018, and there are signs that a campaign is afoot to achieve the same end result in other countries.

Merck …  dismissed as irrelevant the serious medical conditions that arose—within seven months—in half of all participants who received the vaccine.

HPV vaccines have been linked to over 100,000 reported adverse events globally, including disabling autoimmune conditions and deaths, but officials seem unconcerned. Merck set the tone for the truth-stretching claim that HPV vaccine risks are “negligible” when it conducted its initial clinical trials for Gardasil and dismissed as irrelevant the serious medical conditions that arose—within seven months—in half of all participants who received the vaccine.

With the accumulation of studies since those early trials, it is getting harder to deny the existence of a disabling post-HPV vaccination syndrome. Although researchers admit that they do not yet fully understand the mechanisms whereby HPV vaccines wreak their autoimmune havoc, the phenomenon of immune cross-reactivity offers one highly plausible explanation. In a new study in Pathobiology, two of the most-published researchers on this topic report on the overlap between human proteins and HPV antigens. The authors consider their results indicative of “a cross-reactivity potential capable of triggering an extremely wide and complex spectrum of autoimmune diseases.”

Scientists view autoimmunity as the prolonged and pathological response that arises when the immune system gets confused between “self” and “non-self” due to molecular similarities between an environmental agent and the host.

Molecular mimicry

Scientists view autoimmunity as the prolonged and pathological response that arises when the immune system gets confused between “self” and “non-self” due to molecular similarities between an environmental agent and the host. The specific hypothesis—called molecular mimicry—is that “either a virus or bacteria…initiate and exacerbate an autoimmune response through sequence or structural similarities with self-antigens.”

Although the molecular mimicry concept has been floating around for at least three decades, relatively few researchers have been willing to make the conceptual leap to inquire whether the viral or bacterial antigens in vaccines provoke the same pathological response. In their Pathobiology study, however, the two authors—Drs. Darja Kanduc (Italy) and Yehuda Shoenfeld (Israel)—do just that, looking at HPV through the lens of both HPV infection and “active immunization.” Using cutting-edge molecular biology techniques to look at matching peptide sequences in HPV “epitopes” and human proteins, Kanduc and Shoenfeld examine epitopes from 15 different HPV types, including eight of the nine types included in Gardasil 9. (An epitope is the portion of an antigen capable of stimulating an immune response.)

Confirming that there is an “impressively high extent” of peptide sharing between HPV epitopes and human proteins, the two authors then outline numerous pathological implications of their results, giving examples of “human proteins that—when hit by cross-reactions generated by HPV infection/active immunization—may associate with diseases and autoimmune manifestations.” The latter include:

  • Reproductive abnormalities, including “ovarian dysgenesis, anovulation and male infertility, altered gene expression during oogenesis, premature ovarian failure, diminished ovarian reserve, accelerated primordial follicle loss, oocyte DNA damage, as well as susceptibility to breast/ovarian cancer” and “disorders in spermatogenesis, sperm-egg fusion, or spermatid maturation and male infertility”
  • Neuropsychiatric diseases, including “epilepsy, schizophrenia, bipolar disorder, depression, and brain cancer”
  • Lupus manifestations
  • Circulatory effects, including “altered control of the vascular dynamics, pain, fevers associated with the menstrual cycle, depression, hypotension, and dysregulation of blood pressure”
  • Cardiac effects, including “cardiac autoimmunity and sudden unexplained death”
The study describes post-HPV-vaccination autoimmunity in Japanese girls, and it reiterates that vaccine adjuvants are an essential consideration for understanding the girls’ “unexpected” and “abnormal” immune responses.

The role of adjuvants

As Kanduc and Schoenfeld state, the HPV-human protein overlap documented in their study is not unique to HPV; many other microbial sequences share significant commonalities with human proteins as well. Because the overlap is so widespread, some researchers are skeptical of cross-reactivity and dismiss it as more “fantasy” than “fact.” To explain why cross-reactivity is plausible in the context of vaccination, the two authors describe, in other publications, another important piece of the puzzle: vaccine adjuvants and comparable environmental “stimuli.” In fact, they argue, the “sole purpose” of a vaccine adjuvant is to gin up an immune response that otherwise would be unlikely to occur—and when the adjuvant is paired with foreign peptides that are similar to human peptides, a “reasonable outcome may be the development of crossreactivity and autoimmunity.”


Schoenfeld is coauthor on another recent study published in the Annals of Arthritis and Clinical Rheumatology. The study describes post-HPV-vaccination autoimmunity in Japanese girls, and it reiterates that vaccine adjuvants are an essential consideration for understanding the girls’ “unexpected” and “abnormal” immune responses. The authors write: 

Vaccination results in the iatrogenic production of useful antibodies in the human body, but it cannot be ruled out that the exposure to an external stimulus including adjuvants induces unexpected abnormal immune responses, such as a newly evoked situation with an autoimmune abnormality [emphasis added].

With 500 micrograms of aluminum adjuvant, Gardasil 9 has more than double the amount of aluminum contained in the original Gardasil vaccine. How this double-whammy “external stimulus” will play out in terms of autoimmunity requires assessment.

With 500 micrograms of aluminum adjuvant, Gardasil 9 has more than double the amount of aluminum contained in the original Gardasil vaccine.

Distraction and deception

From the beginning, manufacturers and officials have relied on gimmicks to promote HPV vaccination while distracting the public from the tsunami of adverse events that has followed in the vaccines’ wake. It is unlikely that we will hear anything about a just-published South Korean study describing almost 100 safety signals among the nearly 4800 HPV-vaccine-related adverse events reported to the Korea Adverse Event Reporting System database between 2005 and 2016; 19 types of serious adverse events were not even listed on the country’s HPV vaccine inserts. The 19 are: neuralgia, tremor, neuritis, depersonalization, axillary pain, personality disorder, increased salivation, peptic ulcer, circulatory failure, hypotension, peripheral ischemia, cerebral hemorrhage, micturition disorder, facial edema, ovarian cyst, weight increase, pain anxiety, oral edema, and back pain.

A public health intervention (such as the HPV vaccines), which are given to millions of healthy women, needs transparent assessment of its public health role.

Instead, it appears that we should prepare to see more smoke and mirrors as HPV vaccination’s promoters gear up for the intended rollout of Gardasil 9 among working-age adults. In its press release announcing approval of the vaccine for that age group, the FDA claimed that Gardasil (and, by the FDA’s logic, also Gardasil 9 “since the vaccines are manufactured similarly and cover four of the same HPV types”) is “88% effective”; French doctor Nicole Delépine rightly points out that the agency could only come up with this “misleading” statement by using a scientifically absurd hodge-podge of combined endpoints—persistent infection, genital warts, vulvar and vaginal precancerous lesions, cervical precancerous lesions and cervical cancer related to HPV types covered by the vaccine—“instead of presenting the results of the vaccine on each targeted pathology.”

Aware that “the incidence of invasive cancers has increased sharply (sometimes exceeding 100%) in the vaccinated age groups” in countries with mass HPV vaccination, Dr. Delépine finds the FDA’s effrontery “incredible.” Others agree, describing the aggressive hawking of HPV vaccination as an “obscene public farce.” Discussing regulatory bodies’ lack of transparency and rigor, two researchers wrote in 2016, “ No public health intervention should be shrouded in so much secrecy that it gives rise to suspicion.”

Watch Robert F. Kennedy, Jr.’s video exposing the details and many problems with the development and safety of Merck’s third-highest grossing product, Gardasil. 


The New York City Measles Vaccine Mandate—Past and Future



On September 5, Robert Krakow and Mary Holland attended a talk that the NYC Commissioner of Health and Mental Hygiene, Dr. Oxiris Barbot, gave at New York Law School, entitled “Measles: NYC Policy and Thoughts on the Anti-Vaccine Movement.” Dean Anthony Crowell and Professor Ross Sandler welcomed Dr. Barbot and congratulated her on controlling the measles outbreak.

Dr. Barbot talked about her tenure and experience as Commissioner in invoking NYC’s police powers to mandate MMR vaccines to all non-immune residents over the age of 6 months in 4 Brooklyn zip codes. The order threatened civil and criminal penalties for non-compliance. (The order lasted until September 3, 2019. While we are unaware of anyone being subjected to imprisonment, which the order specifically permitted, many people were ordered to pay $1000 fines for non-compliance.) The talk was recorded by one of the attendees, Joseph Friendly.

She [Dr. Bardot] considers the anti-vaccine movement to be sowing misinformation, lies and fear.

Dr. Barbot said that while she holds a “fundamental belief in individual rights,” she also “holds people accountable for the greater good.” She considers the “anti-vaccine movement” to be sowing “misinformation, lies and fear.” She was dismayed to learn of “measles parties” in March 2019, while the outbreak continued. She noted that “We live in a different world today,” where children are surviving cancer and living with compromised immune systems; they cannot withstand measles. She said emphatically, “practices of the past CANNOT apply to the present,” i.e. children can no longer remain unvaccinated or be allowed to get measles. She quoted the mortality rate from measles as 1 per 1,000. (Other sources, including the CDC, refer to a mortality rate of 1 in 10,000.) Fearing deaths from measles, she said that New York City “couldn’t take the risk.” She asserted that measles is “not as benign as anti-vaxxers would have you believe.” Drastic action was required, she said.

On April 9, 2019, she declared a public health emergency, invoking the City’s police powers under the Supreme Court precedent Jacobson v. Massachusetts, a 1905 decision permitting an adult smallpox vaccine mandate. She expressed dismay that she had been sued shortly after declaring the emergency (by Robert Krakow and Robert F. Kennedy, Jr.). She noted that the trial court upheld her order (the order CHD is appealing). Dr. Barbot explained that the Health Department’s public relations strategy was to leverage “trusted voices in the ultra-Orthodox community.” The Department spent $6 million to contain the outbreak.

She considered that the Department was engaged in “hand-to-hand combat” with the “anti-vaxxers,” who propagated fear and lies.

She added that “vaccine hesitancy” is one of the World Health Organization’s top 10 threats to global public health. She considered that the Department was engaged in “hand-to-hand combat” with the “anti-vaxxers,” who propagated fear and lies. She believes that “vaccine hesitancy may rear its ugly head again” and declared that she would take the same steps in the future in similar circumstances. She expressed satisfaction that New York State had repealed the religious exemption on June 13. She proclaimed that the Department would “aggressively enforce” the new law.

In a brief question and answer period, Robert Krakow noted the unassailable evidence that vaccines cause severe injury to some and that those harmed do not trust the rhetoric. (video from 44:30 – 50:00). Dr. Barbot addressed trust by saying that doctors need to spend more time with patients to overcome concerns. As to injuries, she referred to what she thought was a recent large-scale study in the Netherlands, showing that there were “relatively few, if any, serious adverse effects” from vaccines. She stated categorically that the risk of getting measles is far greater than the risk of the vaccine.

After heaping vitriol on the so-called anti-vaccine movement and explaining why its misinformation should be censored, Dr. Barbot accepted a gift from the moderator, a book by Professor Nadine Strossen entitled Hate: Why We Should Resist It with Free Speech, Not Censorship. It seemed an ironic twist. One can only hope that Dr. Barbot reads the book and ceases the hateful rhetoric against those who choose not to vaccinate based on their rights to prior, free and informed consent and religious conviction.

Measles Vaccine Narrative Is Collapsing


[CHD Note: Page numbers referenced throughout the article are from 1200 Studies- Truth Will Prevail, Dr. Palmer’s free eBook. You will find the download link in the bio at the end of the article.]

Five key talking points—all of them false—are driving the campaign of measles-related fear and coerced vaccine compliance:

  1. If measles return, thousands of children will die annually in the U.S.
  2. The two-dose MMR vaccine regimen will provide lifelong protection in most people.
  3. Previously vaccinated adults with waning antibody protection can receive effective and lasting protection from MMR booster shots.
  4. We must achieve and sustain a 95% vaccination rate to maintain herd immunity.
  5. The MMR and the MMR+varicella (MMRV) vaccines will protect against all strains of measles.

What follows are my rebuttals to each of these falsehoods.

Falsehood #1: If measles return, thousands of children will die annually in the U.S.

Hyper-exaggeration of the measles threat—and the fear that this exaggerated threat produces in the population—are what the vaccine industry and public health officials are counting on to drive public compliance and legislative action to remove freedom of choice. However, it is time to put this unreasonable fear of measles to rest. The real risks from measles in modern-day America pale in comparison with vaccine injuries and adverse effects on our children’s health (pages 561-564). The measles vaccine has been responsible for serious vaccine injuries, permanent disabilities and deaths.

Although the vaccine industry likes to take credit for the decline in measles deaths, U.S. government statistics tell a very different story. When the first ineffective and problematic measles vaccine was introduced in 1963 (with a second vaccine introduced in 1968), the rate of deaths attributed to measles had already declined by over 98%—between 1900 and 1962—and was continuing its downward trajectory. Some government statistics even say that the measles death rate had decreased by 99.4% prior to the vaccine’s introduction. Regardless of which figure one uses, that is nearly a 100% decline. Moreover, there is no reason to believe that the death rate would have stopped falling if no vaccine had come along. Thus, to suggest that the measles vaccine had anything to do with the decline in measles mortality is dishonest and a poor attempt at rewriting history.


Prior to the introduction of the vaccine, the government-reported mortality rate for measles was approximately 1 in 10,000 cases. However, in another attempt to exaggerate the facts, officials now often report the rate as 1 in 1,000 cases. What needs to be understood is that 90% of all measles cases were never reported because parents never took their children to the doctor. Most measles cases were mild, lasting just a few days, at which point kids went back to school and life went on. No big deal. In the 1950s and ‘60s, people viewed measles as an inconvenient yet harmless condition that virtually everyone got and recovered from, leaving them with lifelong protection.

Only about 10% of overall cases were severe enough for those affected to seek medical care, and among the subset of cases that sought medical care and were reported, the fatality rate was about 1 in 1,000. By leaving out the crucial word “reported,” news outlets thus inaccurately present the death rate as 1 in 1,000 cases instead of the far more accurate 1 in 10,000 cases.

There is another crucial fact to consider. Studies show that measles fatalities were 10 times higher in extremely low-income, poverty-stricken communities compared to middle-income communities (pages 487-488). The increased incidence of fatalities in poor communities drastically skewed the overall death rate. The death rate in middle- and upper-income areas may have been around 1 in 100,000 cases.

The measles mortality graph confirms that measles was more deadly in the late 19th and early 20th centuries in the U.S., and this was also the case in Western Europe. In fact, in the 1800s and early 1900s, large cities were ripe for the spread of infectious diseases, due to malnutrition, overcrowding, inadequate personal hygiene, poor sanitary conditions, lack of vitamins and vitamin-fortified foods and limited access to appropriate medical care. In addition, horses were the main mode of transportation and left the narrow streets full of manure. Flies and rats were everywhere. All of these factors weakened people’s immune systems.

In the present age, measles remain deadlier in some countries than others. This is because conditions in impoverished parts of the world today are similar to urban conditions in the industrialized world in the mid to late 1800s and early 1900s. It is still commonplace for poorer countries and communities to be afflicted by many of the same problems that large American cities once experienced. As already noted, these conditions create an environment ripe for infectious disease and weaken people’s immune systems to the point where they are unable to fight even the mildest of infections. However, these descriptions and pictures certainly do not represent the standard of living that prevails in the U.S., Western Europe and other advanced societies today! This is why the fear-mongering, hysteria and lies about measles returning and decimating our children are so disingenuous.

As the insatiable, profit-driven vaccine makers push measles hysteria, the media—beholden to the pharmaceutical industry for advertising revenue—are their mouthpiece. None of these parties want people to know that solutions other than vaccines exist. Yet we know that vitamin A is a powerful weapon in the arsenal to reduce rates of measles complications. In fact, the World Health Organization (WHO) promotes vitamin A supplementation in developing countries where measles is epidemic, and its vitamin A campaigns have been heralded as huge successes (see pages 470-471, 481-483 and 687). In addition to vitamin A, modern-day Americans have access to herbal and natural antiviral compounds that can reduce the risk of complications and shorten the illness’s duration. Immune-compromised persons also have access to immune globulin therapy, which is extremely effective in bolstering the body’s resistance to infection and reducing measles complications.

To understand the dynamics of why measles was so deadly 70 to 100 years ago, what makes it deadly in impoverished parts of the world today AND why the death rates declined for measles and other infectious diseases nearly 100% without vaccines, read the section titled “The Truth about the Decline of Infectious Diseases” in my free eBook, 1200 Studies. (Link at the bottom of the article.)

Falsehood #2: The two-dose MMR vaccine regimen will provide lifelong protection in most people

On its website, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) states the following:

People who receive MMR vaccination according to the U.S. vaccination schedule are usually considered protected for life against measles and rubella. While MMR provides effective protection against mumps for most people, immunity against mumps may decrease over time and some people may no longer be protected against mumps later in life. Both serologic and epidemiologic evidence indicate that vaccine-induced measles immunity appears to be long-term and probably lifelong in most persons.”

This information is outdated and has been proven completely wrong! The information may have been somewhat accurate when there were still large numbers of aging people in the population who had wild measles as children—giving them lasting immunity—and when some children still experienced wild measles, thereby providing adults with natural “boosters.” However, that dynamic changes over time as more people are vaccinated.

Over time, vaccine-induced antibody levels drop throughout the aging population, leaving people vulnerable to infection.

Over the last few years, we have learned that antibody levels produced by the measles vaccine wane rapidly, dropping approximately 10% per year, with efficacy lasting no more than 10 years after the second vaccine dose. A 2018 article published in the journal Vaccine (titled “Measles, mumps, and rubella antibody patterns of persistence and rate of decline following the second dose of the MMR vaccine”) confirms this fact, and a 2017 study published in the Journal of Infectious Diseases (titled “Measles virus neutralizing antibodies in intravenous immunoglobulins: Is an increase by revaccination of plasma donors possible?”) explains how additional vaccine doses provide no lasting protection. These two factors—the waning of the vaccine and the inability to effectively revaccinate back into protection—leave the previously vaccinated adult population completely unprotected.

In essence, measles vaccination programs may work initially (scientists call this the “honeymoon period”), but only when many children have already experienced wild measles at baseline, developing lifelong immunity and staying safe and immune as adults. That natural immunity can keep measles infections in check for several years. As vaccinated children age out of protection and vaccination rates for younger children remain high, there are no longer (as in the pre-vaccine era) young children with wild measles in the population to provide natural boosters to adults. Over time, vaccine-induced antibody levels drop throughout the aging population, leaving people vulnerable to infection. Sadly, the honeymoon is then over (pages 503-504).

The measles vaccine has destroyed the natural herd immunity we used to enjoy—and the pseudo “herd immunity” highly touted by vaccine proponents turns out to be a complete fallacy, falling apart due to the vaccine’s failure to provide the promised lifelong immunity (pages 572-578). This explains why such a high percentage of the people contracting measles in recent outbreaks are vaccinated adults. For example, during the infamous 2015 Disneyland outbreak and subsequent U.S. measles cases that year, laboratory virus sequences were available for 194 cases. Of those, 73 (38%) were identified as MMR vaccine sequences. While officials like to blame the unvaccinated for measles outbreaks, these and other statistics show that the vaccinated are susceptible. In addition, the age of the California cases ranged from six weeks to 70 years old, with a median age of 22. In the pre-vaccine era, half of all children had measles by age six, with the rest acquiring the illness in the years shortly thereafter—this is when measles are mildest and have the lowest rate of complications. The fact that so many of the California cases were in their 20s or older indicates a significant upward trend in measles incidence at older ages due to vaccine failure.

There is another unintended consequence resulting from low measles antibody titers in previously vaccinated adults: women of childbearing age do not have enough antibodies to pass sufficient amounts to their newborn babies. This makes their infants more susceptible to contracting measles (pages 574-578). Of the 110 California cases from the Disneyland outbreak, 12 (11%) were infants too young to be vaccinated. These infants most likely would have been protected if their mothers had contracted wild measles as children.

In short, the science shows a shift in the demographics of measles cases due to the vaccine program. This shift has effectively transferred the risk to the two groups most vulnerable to serious complications, namely newborns and adults. Scientists are also recognizing the same pattern of vaccine failure for other infectious diseases over which we thought we had achieved control (pages 588-591).

Research … demonstrated that additional doses of MMR given to adults have minimal effect on raising antibody levels, and the increased titers are very temporary—decreasing in under four months!

Falsehood #3: Previously vaccinated adults with waning antibody protection can receive effective and lasting protection from MMR booster shots

Research published in 2017 in the Journal of Infectious Diseases demonstrated that additional doses of MMR given to adults have minimal effect on raising antibody levels, and the increased titers are very temporary — decreasing in under four months! Therefore, the kneejerk reaction by some vaccine proponents to mandate adults to get MMR shots every five to 10 years won’t work. It is readily apparent that we cannot vaccinate our way out of this problem (pages 577-578). So, what do we do now? It’s like squeezing toothpaste out of the tube. You can’t put it back in!

Falsehood #4: We must achieve and sustain a 95% vaccination rate to maintain herd immunity

We hear this all the time: “We have to get all children vaccinated to maintain ‘herd immunity,’ and this is what will protect the vulnerable who can’t be vaccinated.” The narrative about “herd immunity” is designed to prop up vaccination efforts and public compliance, but it does not hold water. With an unprotected adult population (as discussed in previous sections), we are nowhere close to the 95% “immune” rate for measles that is supposed to promise herd immunity. In fact, CDC statistics prove that we are nowhere close to 95% for any of the infectious diseases that vaccines are given for.

The CDC website has a section titled Trends in Adult Vaccination Coverage: 2010 to 2016. It reports on results from the National Health Interview Survey (NHIS) and shows the percentages of the U.S. adult population who say they have been vaccinated against various infectious diseases. Conspicuously, measles, mumps and rubella are absent from the survey. I have searched extensively and have not found any other surveys that include them. One has to ask the question — why aren’t national surveys asking about the MMR vaccine, when it is one of the mainstays of the U.S. vaccine paradigm (if not the holy grail itself)? Is it because the vast majority of adults are post-vaccine-era age (i.e., under 60 years old), most of whom would not have received an MMR vaccine since pre-kindergarten? Is it because the survey designers know that the percentage of adults affirming vaccination against M, M or R would be extremely low? Vaccine researchers have known for some time now that the antibody titers wane rapidly and that adults are not protected. Whatever the reason for the survey’s blind spot, the answers to hypothetical questions about MMR vaccination just wouldn’t fit the narrative that officials are pushing, now would they?

The NHIS asks adults if they have been vaccinated for various infectious diseases, but many of the adults answering in the affirmative—and included in the “vaccinated” percentages—would most certainly have lost their temporary immunity, given what we know about waning vaccine immunity over time. Therefore, those individuals do not really belong in the “vaccinated” cohort, which implies that the “vaccinated” percentages should be even lower. Consider also that while children aged 2-6 years have high vaccine coverage rates (in the range of 80% to 90%), that age group represents a small part of the “herd” (maybe 5%), and persons under 18 years of age account for less than 20% of the entire population.

The pro-vaccine “herd immunity” argument might hold water if all young children were kept in a bubble—fully sequestered from all adults who are either unvaccinated or have lost vaccine immunity—but we know that is not the case. We all live together, with cross-exposure in this big “herd” we call humanity. Thus, the fake talking point about herd immunity has no basis in fact but is an intentional strategy—creating the appearance of a “solution” in order to achieve the objective of full vaccination compliance in all children.

Even with 100% vaccine compliance in children, this phenomenon [primary vaccine failure] means that nearly 1 out of every 10 children will never be protected.

Something else to consider is the phenomenon of “primary vaccine failure,” which refers to the subset of children in whom a given vaccine never produces a sufficient antibody response at all. Vaccine proponents claim that this number is only about 5%, but data suggest that the number may be higher. Even with 100% vaccine compliance in children, this phenomenon means that nearly 1 out of every 10 children will never be protected.

As already discussed, vaccines have destroyed the natural lifelong herd immunity that came from the immune response produced by wild measles infection. This has led to a change in the demographic profile of people who get measles, away from 4- to 12-year-olds (pre-vaccine)—in whom the illness is mildest—toward infants and adults (post-vaccine)—the very populations in whom measles cause the most complications (pages 500-504 and 579-581).

Falsehood #5: The MMR and MMRV vaccines will protect against all strains of measles

Evidence is emerging that the measles virus is mutating as a result of intense vaccine pressure. A 2017 article in the Journal of Virology warns of this ominous signal, a discovery of what they are calling the D4.2 subgenotype. So far, researchers have isolated this “mutant” in France and Great Britain. Moreover, the mutant strain was not effectively neutralized when tested against sera from approximately 70 North American vaccinated individuals. Experts are calling these strains “escape mutants” and are warning that with an unprotected adult population (whose titers cannot be boosted, as mentioned earlier), we face the potential of unprecedented outbreaks.

The concern is that, under conditions of high vaccination coverage, the measles virus is finding ways to survive. In the pre-vaccine era, childhood exposure to wild measles conferred protection for the whole population through maintenance of robust lifelong immunity against all measles variants. Now that vaccines only provide short-term immunity, we are at risk for widespread outbreaks (pages 578-579). The research is signaling a looming crisis, similar to what we have created with antibiotics. The overprescribing of antibiotics has created mutations in bacteria that have outpaced the development of new antibiotics. Not only that, but these “superbugs” are much more virulent (deadly), with well in excess of 100,000 Americans now dying annually from antibiotic-resistant infections. Is it possible that we are setting ourselves up for a similar scenario with vaccines?


For further information, download my free eBook, 1200 Studies: Truth will Prevail. It has easy search and navigation features and links directly to the article abstracts on PubMed or the source journal. These features make it an invaluable research and reference tool. Now 718 pages long, the eBook covers over 1,400 published studies—authored by thousands of scientists and researchers—that contradict what officials are telling the public about vaccine safety and efficacy.


Has Gardasil Really Eliminated Cervical Cancer in Australia?


[CHD NOTE: Several weeks ago our Chairman, Robert F. Kennedy, Jr., participated in a debate about vaccines with Dr. Robert Riewerts from Kaiser Permanente. Last week we published “Chickenpox: The Dirty Dozen Facts You Should Know Before Vaccinatingto correct some of Dr. Riewerts erroneous statements about the varicella vaccine for chickenpox. This week, Mr. Kennedy is clearing up some of the confusion with the facts about the Gardasil vaccine for HPV. The show will air in mid-October.]

In our September 18th debate for Spectrum TV, Kaiser’s Chief of Pediatrics, Dr. Robert Riewerts, parroted Pharma’s popular canard that the Gardasil vaccine has eliminated cervical cancer in Australia—the first country to mandate the jab. This is false.

… Gardasil actually increases the risk of cervical cancer by a terrifying 44.6% among women who were exposed to HPV infection prior to vaccination.

Slide 1: Table 17 from Merck’s own clinical studies.

The table shows that Gardasil actually increases the risk of cervical cancer by a terrifying 44.6% among women who were exposed to HPV infection prior to vaccination. If anyone ever bullies you to take Gardasil, look up “Gardasil Vaccine Insert” on your cell phone to see all of the adverse events and show them this table. [From original BLA. Study 013 CSR. Table 11-88, p. 636]


Slide 2: 34% of children ages 2-10 have HPV infection due to non-sexual transmission.

This data shows that nearly HALF OF ALL WOMEN HAVE HAD PRIOR EXPOSURE TO HPV—with 38% being exposed before age 10. (which puts them at an increase of developing cancer if they have the HPV vaccine.) [Journal of Pediatric & Adolescent Gynecology, 29(3):228-233, June 2016.]


Slide 3: The results of pap-smears before the pre-vaccination period.

Pap smears drove the dramatic decline of cervical cancer prior to the introduction of Gardasil in four countries. During the 1989-2007 period, the incidence of invasive cervical cancer declined continuously in all countries with pap screening.

… a dramatic reversal in that downward trend following the introduction of HPV vaccine (Gardasil)

Slides 4-8 show a dramatic reversal in that downward trend following the introduction of HPV vaccine (Gardasil). Oncologist Dr. Gerard Delepine, his wife Dr. Nicole Delepine, also a physician, and a team of researchers plotted these graphs from publicly available health data.


Slide 4: Cervical cancer increase in Australia following vaccine introduction.

Research tracks the INCREASE in cervical cancer in Australia following Gardasil’s introduction.


Slide 5: Cervical cancer increase in Sweden following the start of HPV vaccination campaign.

The same trend as Australia is seen in Sweden. The incidence of invasive cancer climbed from 2011, two years after vaccination campaign. [Graph published by Nordcan 2019 05 29.]


Slide 6: Cervical cancer increase in Norway following the beginning of HPV vaccine campaign.

Norway research shows a similar pattern as Sweden and United Kingdom. [Graph published by Nordcan 2019 05 29.]

Slide 7:
Cervical cancer increase in the United Kingdom following the start of the HPV vaccination program.

The United Kingdom also shows a similar pattern. In the vaccinated age group, the incidence of cancer jumped in 2011, three years after the start of the campaign. [Graphic from Cancer Research UK]

The correlation between Gardasil uptake and increase in cervical cancer is correlation, not proof of causation.

Slide 8: Trends of incidence of invasive cervical cancer in France during first years of vaccination.

France has low Gardasil uptake and is the only of these nations where cervical cancer continues to decline. [Graph from International Agency for Research on Cancer, World Health Organization.]


The correlation between Gardasil uptake and increase in cervical cancer is just that—a correlation—not proof of causation. Only robust science—not name-calling or censorship—can answer whether, and why, Gardasil may be causing an increase in cervical cancer. Let’s ask social media titans to stop broadcasting Pharma’s propaganda and censoring open debate. Let’s demand that Pharma’s spokespeople support their claims with science.

View/Download PDF

Chickenpox: The Dirty Dozen Facts You Should Know Before Vaccinating


CHD NOTE: Several weeks ago our Chairman, Robert F. Kennedy, Jr., was asked to participate in a debate about vaccines with Dr. Robert James Riewerts from Kaiser Permanente. While Mr. Kennedy has vowed to debate anyone, anywhere on the subject of vaccines and the safety research needed, the two weren’t actually in the same location, or even allowed to speak with each other directly. In the course of the discussion, Dr. Riewerts said many confusing statements regarding the facts about vaccines. The show will air in mid-October. Until then, Mr. Kennedy is clearing up some of the confusion with the facts.

In our debate, Dr. Riewerts claimed that wild-type chickenpox (or varicella) kills 1/100 people. This is incorrect. Here are some actual facts with citations about chickenpox:

  1. Prior to varicella vaccine licensure, chickenpox was a mild childhood disease that presented as a rash and slight fever. Contracting chickenpox as a youth conferred lifetime immunity to chickenpox and protection against heart disease, atopic diseases and cancers, including glioma brain and spinal tumors.1
  2. Before Merck introduced the varicella vaccine, 4 million people contracted chickenpox annually with 100 deaths, half of those deaths were in children. CDC reports, “Death occurred in approximately 1 in 60,000 cases” (not 1/100 as per Dr Reiwart).2
  3. Half the deaths were in adults who missed the infection in childhood.3
  4. In adults, chickenpox presents as pneumonia or can reactivate as shingles (herpes zoster) According to Dr. Jane Seward of the CDC, Chickenpox in adults has twenty times the risk of death and 10-15 times the risk of hospitalization as chickenpox in children.4
  5. Shingles is twice as deadly as chickenpox5 and can also cause debilitating pain (called post herpetic neuralgia or PHN) and blindness.
  6. Merck’s varicella vaccine and booster cost $100 each. The total cost to theoretically save 50 children is approximately $1 billion dollars or $20 million per child life saved (i.e., $1 billion in vaccine costs—based on $100 for the initial vaccine and $100 for the booster for 4 million children annually, plus a $50 vaccine administration fee for both vaccines—divided by 50 childhood deaths). For reference, the maximum compensable value of a child’s life is $250,000 in the Vaccine Court.6
  7. CDCs clinical studies on Merck’s vaccine indicated that due to waning immunity, the single dose varicella vaccine was only 44% effective.7
  8. By eliminating the boosting effects of regularly circulating wild-type chickenpox, widespread vaccination would increase shingles rates among adults and children with a history of chickenpox and precipitate a shingles epidemic.8
  9. The Research Analyst for the Antelope Valley Varicella Active Surveillance Project (VASP), Dr. Gary Goldman, was issued a notice to “cease and desist” publication of deleterious data concerning increasing shingles incidence following widespread varicella vaccination. CDC Director, Julie Gerberding, continued to support the CDC recommendation that every child get vaccinated for Chickenpox. Merck rewarded Gerberding for this billion dollar gift by naming her as President of its Vaccine division.9
  10. The United Kingdom and other nations refused to recommend the universal vaccination of children due to predictions that loss of exogenous (outside) boosting would create a shingles epidemic over decades.8
  11. Merck’s reaction to the shingles epidemic that it created was to market a new shingles vaccine. Zostavax, which is linked to a long list of side effects including asthma exacerbation, polymyalgia rheumatica, congestive heart failure, pulmonary edema10 and death.11
  12. In 2018 FDA posted a warning that immunocompromised persons and pregnant should avoid children for up to six weeks after vaccination since vaccinated individuals can transmit the disease through viral shedding—a phenomena never mentioned by advocates of excluding unvaccinated children from schools.12


1 Wrensch M1, Weinberg A, Wiencke J, Masters H, Miike R, Barger G, Lee M. Does prior infection with varicella-zoster virus influence risk of adult glioma? Am J Epidemiol. 1997 Apr 1;145(7):594–7.

2  [last accessed: 09/26/2019]l

3Leonid I, Evelyn L. Primary Varicella in an Immunocompetent Adult. J Clin Aesthet Dermatol. 2009 Aug; 2(8):36–8.

4Chickenpox vaccine loses effectiveness study. Reuters; March 15,

  1. Available at [last accessed: 09/26/2019].

5 [last accessed 09/26/2019]

6 [last accessed: 09/26/2019]

7Galil K, Lee B, Strine T, Carraher C, Baughman AL, Eaton M, Montero J, Seward J. Outbreak of varicella at a day-care center despite vaccination. N Engl J Med 2002;347(24):1909–15.

8Brisson M, Edmounds WJ, Gay NJ, Miller E. Varicella Vaccine and Shingles. [Letter to the Editor] JAMA  2002 May 1;287(17):2211. Available online at [last accessed: 09/26/2019].

9 [last accessed:  09/26/2019]

10[last accessed:  09/27/2019]

11 [last accessed:  09/27/2019]

12  [last accessed:  09/27/2019]

New Data Shows DNA From Aborted Fetal Cell Lines in Vaccines



The Italian vaccine research and advocacy organization Corvelva recently released new data regarding the use of aborted fetal cell lines in vaccines. The research reports the results produced from the MRC 5 cell line analysis, particularly the one contained in GlaxoSmithKline’s tetravalent measles-mumps-rubella-chickenpox (MMRV) vaccine.

The Corvelva team summarized their findings as follows:

1- The fetal cell line was found to belong to a male fetus.

2- The cell line presents itself in such a way that it is likely to be very old, thus consistent with the declared line of the 1960s.

3- The fetal human DNA represented in this vaccine is a complete individual genome, that is, the genomic DNA of all the chromosomes of an individual is present in the vaccine.

4- The human genomic DNA contained in this vaccine is clearly, undoubtedly abnormal, presenting important inconsistencies with a typical human genome, that is, with that of a healthy individual.

5- 560 genes known to be associated with forms of cancer were tested and all underwent major modifications.

6- There are variations whose consequences are not even known, not yet appearing in the literature, but which still affect genes involved in the induction of human cancer.

7- What is also clearly abnormal is the genome excess showing changes in the number of copies and structural variants.

…the DNA contained in these vaccines is potentially TUMORIGENIC…

Corvelva notes that, according to the guidelines (which are found in the report), the presence of fetal DNA from cell lines MRC-5 and WI-38, as diploids, does not provide for upper limits: there is no limit to the amount they can find inside a vaccine. The motivation lies in the fact that these lines are not considered tumors because they have a “finite” (not immortalized) replicative cycle.

But the reference literature is obsolete. The first genetic anomalies were found on these lines, considered negligible for the safety of vaccines 40 years ago and, as reported in the WHO guidelines, since then no updates have been made with new sequencing technologies, particularly in Next Generation Sequencing (NGS); the consequence is that inside the vaccines that have been administered for decades is the presence of a progressively more genetically modified DNA and uncontrolled quantities has been allowed. The Next NGS is the methodology used by Corvelva for metagenomic analysis and the laboratory we used is located in the United States. Our analyses are constantly confirmed by several laboratories, the continuous verification of the initially obtained data is leading to consolidate not only the data itself, but the methods themselves.

What are we saying? We are saying that the DNA contained in these vaccines is potentially TUMORIGENIC and that the guidelines to which the supervisory bodies are appealing are NOT ADEQUATE. Moreover, we are publicly denouncing a SERIOUS OMISSION in taking those PRECAUTIONAL measures which, on the other hand, are urgently requested for antacid drugs.

…this vaccine should be considered defective and potentially dangerous to human health…

Our results greatly reinforce the experimental observations of Dr. Theresa Deisher and especially the fact that the contaminant fetal DNA present in all samples analyzed in varying quantities (thus uncontrolled) is up to 300 times higher than the limit imposed by the EMA for carcinogenic DNA (10 ng/dose, corresponding to DNA contained in approximately 1000 tumor cells, derived from a statistical calculation, while the precautionary limit is 10 pg/dose), a limit that must also be applied to MRC-5 fetal DNA which inevitably contaminates Priorix tetra.

As a consequence, this vaccine should be considered defective and potentially dangerous to human health, in particular to the pediatric population which is much more vulnerable to genetic and autoimmune damage.

[These latest analyses were made possible thanks to the active contribution of the French associations Association Liberté Informations Santé (ALIS), Ligue Nationale Pour la Liberté des Vaccinations (LNPLV) and the Australian Vaccination-risks Network Inc.]


Read Corvelva’s Findings

View/Download PDF

BBC Documentary, Conspiracy Files: Vaccine Wars

The BBC’s documentary Vaccine Wars (removed from YouTube but still available on Amazon) interviews the usual characters like Paul Offit and Brian Deer, yet never discloses their conflicts including Offit’s status as a vaccine inventor and patent holder while serving on the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices which determines U.S. vaccine recommendations. Offit and Deer predictably spouted off their usual talking points throughout the documentary.

Despite this, the BBC provides a critical historical perspective about the vaccine safety movement that one rarely sees in the media. Parents, advocacy groups like SafeMinds and Moms Against Mercury, and news reels featuring physicians Dr. John Wilson and Dr. Andy Wakefield, early leaders in the movement, are all included in the documentary. Del Bigtree, Barbara Loe Fisher, Robert. F. Kennedy, Jr. and others are interviewed. U.S. and UK Government actions to protect the pharmaceutical industry are also covered.

The documentary unfortunately excludes the alleged fraud of the Autism Omnibus proceedings and mistakenly announces George Hastings as a “judge” of some of the claims while he was only a “Special Master” of the government-run claims program. As Special Master, Mr. Hastings was an employee of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, the federal agency over the Centers for Disease Control (CDC), in charge of vaccine safety and uptake.

Hastings noted that the lawyers in the Omnibus didn’t explain their evidence with science. He fails to say that the “court” wouldn’t let the parents’ side use much of their science or experts in the trials! In fact, Dr. Andrew Zimmerman of Johns Hopkins, who now says that vaccines can cause autism and that he told the government so at the time (which DOJ attorneys allegedly subsequently hid from the public), was actually a government witness!

Walter Orenstein, former director of the National Immunization Program, issues a craftily-worded admission saying that if there were actually efforts to cover up vaccine safety concerns, there would never have been a Simpsonwood meeting or a Verstraeten study. The fact is that the CDC’s Verstraeten study was the reason they were all brought together for the Simpsonwood meeting. One doctor attending the conference in Norcross, GA said something similar to Orenstein, noting that if the CDC could have predicted the results of the study, it would have never been done in the first place.

Notably absent are any actual words from CDC whistleblower Dr. William Thompson yet Deer and Offit are trotted out to discredit him. And, although Andrew Wakefield’s name is used quite a lot throughout the documentary, (including having the vaccine safety movement blamed on him), an interview with him is also missing.

Deer’s and Offit’s cries that the vaccine manufacturers aren’t making money falls flat. It is a ridiculous notion that can be easily proven wrong. To their credit, BBC didn’t lend credence to these claims.

When discussing recent mandates in the U.S., Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. was allowed a final thought, “The state should not be ordering people in a democracy to take an untested drug. That is something we signed off on in Nuremberg … never again.”

And regarding untested drugs, Deer, remarkably, admitted in his final words, “There is a very valid criticism of CDC in that it is both a cheerleader, the preeminent cheerleader, for immunization and it also plays a major role in safety research. I think the only way to resolve that is for vaccine safety issues to be moved to a separate entity that does nothing but, if you like, find fault with vaccines.”

Is Doctors’ Cash Incentive Sidelining the Hippocratic Oath?



California likes to brag about its “outsized influence” on the rest of the United States and its vaunted tendency to “experience the future earlier than other parts of the country.” However, having just passed the most draconian vaccine law in the nation—one that decimates the doctor-patient relationship and tells medically fragile children that they have no right to bodily integrity—it would appear that the state’s lawmakers and the medical trade groups that were only too happy to co-sponsor the legislation think it is trend-setting to model medical tyranny and the overthrow of the Nuremberg Code.

Within hours of the California Assembly’s 48-19 passage of SB 276, California Senators followed with their approval (28-11)—with all “ayes” in both chambers being Democrats—and the Democratic governor signed it along with last-minute companion bill SB 714. Illustrating the arrogant attitude prevailing among officialdom, the state health director (who recently resigned) casually dismissed the thousands who showed up to oppose the bill as “flat-earthers” and “booger-eaters.”

The editor of the independent news website California Globe called attention to the unseemly haste with which antidemocratic lawmakers “jammed through” legislation that essentially eliminates vaccine medical exemptions, quoting one dissenting Republican Senator as saying, “This Legislature is even scaring our medical community.” Is the Senator right? Just what do California doctors think about the unprecedented legislation that disses their sacrosanct relationship with patients and allows state bureaucrats to “illegally practice medicine over the top of the doctors”?

Some physicians were clearly concerned, turning out to testify against SB 276 or writing letters to ask the governor to veto the legislation. One physician wrote that the two bills “have created a climate of fear and anxiety,” leaving practicing physicians “afraid to speak up for fear of retribution, of being targeted by the state, for public censure and loss of professional respect.” Another doctor agreed that the legislation imposes “tremendous risk and liability—personally, professionally and financially”—on physicians who write valid medical exemptions, yet physicians bear “NO liability for giving contraindicated vaccinations, even if they cause foreseeable yet preventable harm.”

The climate of intimidation is one consideration. However, vaccination also offers doctors numerous financial incentives to toe the line. In fact, the majority of physicians appear to be willing participants in the U.S. vaccine program, no matter how many vaccines the CDC tells them to administer and no matter the evidence of vaccine damage that may be playing out before their eyes. Why not, when—as a private-practice physician affiliated with the CDC wrote a few years ago—nationally recommended vaccinations not only furnish “steady revenue” but can also improve a practice’s “financial viability.”

… the doctor discusses how physicians can make money on administration fees for pediatric vaccines by properly coding for the service.

Follow the money

In 2015, the physician then serving as liaison to the CDC’s Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) on behalf of the American Academy of Family Physicians (AAFP) wrote an article reminding fellow AAFP members that “minimizing costs and maximizing reimbursement can make immunizations profitable.” In addition to offering tips on how to be a “savvy vaccine shopper” and obtain manufacturer discounts for ordering multiple vaccines, the doctor discusses how physicians can make money on administration fees for pediatric vaccines by “properly coding for the service.”

Every two-year old is worth $400 if they meet the “Combination 10 Criteria” (View full size graph.)

As he explains, “proper coding” involves not just billing for the vaccine itself (and including a diagnostic code that “reminds the insurance company that this is part of the routine immunization schedule”), but also billing for the fee that “is supposed to cover the time, energy, and supplies required to administer the vaccine as well as the overhead associated with managing the vaccines.”

The good doctor then goes on to describe the pediatric vaccine administration codes that he considers the “most important” from a “financial point of view”:

These codes, which include a counseling component…can be used only for patients 18 years old or younger. The reason these codes are so valuable is that they pay per vaccine component. For example, if you administer an MMR vaccine, you may bill for three components (measles, mumps, and rubella). If you administer a DTaP/IPV vaccine (Kinrix) you may bill for four components (diphtheria, tetanus, pertussis, and polio).

He notes that the codes were new as of 2011; prior to that year, combination vaccines actually resulted in lower rather than higher physician reimbursement.

Giving a “real life” example and again emphasizing that “the results are most dramatic for vaccines with multiple components,” the AAFP member describes billing for a two-month well-child visit at which the baby receives a five-component combination vaccine (DtaP/IPV/HepB) as well as three other vaccines—Haemophilus influenzae type b (Hib), pneumococcal conjugate (PSV13) and rotavirus.

Without any vaccine counseling, the practice would only be able to bill for $125 total, but with additional billing codes for “brief counseling,” the total reimbursement (as of 2015) would shoot up to $300—an extra $175 for a few minutes’ effort. Noting that the counseling codes do not cover counseling provided by nurses, he adds that he can also make the extra $175 by providing “a short vaccine-counseling visit” himself, when possible, in lieu of scheduling a nurse visit. Proudly, he notes that vaccine reimbursement often exceeds reimbursement for the rest of the visit.

… while doctors who support compulsory vaccination and the revocation of vaccine exemptions are on the wrong side of history where the Nuremberg Code and their Hippocratic oath are concerned for many, the absence of liability and the financial payoffs appear to be acceptable tradeoffs.

When it comes to the number of vaccines, the sky’s the limit

The Immunization Action Coalition (IAC) is a leading vaccine front group that receives significant funding from both vaccine manufacturers and the CDC and lobbies for the removal of vaccine exemptions. On its “Ask the Experts” webpage, the IAC tells physicians, “There is no upper limit for the number of vaccines that can be administered during one visit.” Even though researchers have never tested this assertion—with zero studies on the safety of the full vaccine schedule or the effects of so many simultaneous and cumulative vaccines—the AAFP rep’s description of the financial benefits accruing from “proper” coding provides one reason why so many physicians may be willing to pile the vaccines on without question.

At a time when Medical Boards are going after doctors who overprescribe opioids, one might expect doctors to have concerns about inflicting vaccine injuries through over-administration of vaccines. Not to worry, says the IAC, which reassures doctors (on the same “no upper limit” webpage) that the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program confers medical professionals with liability protection for “all vaccines that are routinely administered to children.”

Bolstered by the Hippocratic oath, patients generally “trust that the physician will act in their interest, or at least will do no harm.” The first principle of the Nuremberg Code emphasizes voluntary consent and interventions free of “any element of force, fraud, deceit, duress, overreaching, or other ulterior form of constraint or coercion.” As Children’s Health Defense General Counsel Mary Holland writes, “SB 276 is a clear example of government overreach.” However, while doctors who support compulsory vaccination and the revocation of vaccine exemptions are on the wrong side of history where the Nuremberg Code and their Hippocratic oath are concerned—clearly the case for the physician-author of SB 276 who has never acknowledged vaccine-injured children—for many, the absence of liability and the financial payoffs appear to be acceptable tradeoffs.

What Polio Vaccine Injury Looks Like, Decades Later



When touting the merits of vaccination, public health officials often brag about the campaign to eradicate polio. What they rarely if ever disclose, however, is that both the inactivated polio vaccine (IPV) developed by Jonas Salk and the live-virus oral polio vaccine (OPV)—developed first by Polish scientist Hilary Koprowski and later by Albert Sabin—frequently have caused the very condition they were supposed to prevent.

Despite Salk’s belief that a ‘killed-virus’ vaccine could not accidentally cause polio in those inoculated, the number of reported polio cases rose immediately and dramatically within a year, with particularly steep increases in some states—including a 642% spike in Massachusetts.

U.S. regulators fast-tracked the Salk vaccine in 1954, deliberating for just two hours before approving it for wide-scale use. Despite Salk’s belief that a “killed-virus” vaccine “could not accidentally cause polio in those inoculated,” the number of reported polio cases rose immediately and dramatically within a year, with particularly steep increases in some states—including a 642% spike in Massachusetts. According to one account, National Institutes of Health doctors and scientists were “well aware that the Salk vaccine was causing polio,” and some health departments even banned it. To make matters worse, in a “massive and highly publicised disaster,” over 200,000 unsuspecting children received a batch of polio vaccine later determined to be defective—manufactured by Cutter Laboratories, the batch contained improperly inactivated (and, therefore, live) polio virus that gave polio to at least 40,000 children.

In the early 1960s, the “cheaper to make, easier to take” live-virus OPV began to supplant the IPV as the polio vaccine of choice and remained in place for nearly 40 years. By then, scientists had been testing the OPV on American children for about a decade; as reported by Koprowski in a 2006 paper, U.S. testing of his oral vaccine took place from 1951-1962. Sabin tested his OPV on millions of Soviet citizens in 1959, immediately followed by U.S. trials. By the summer of 1960, Sabin’s OPV was on the cusp of licensure. 

What officials neglected to tell the millions of American children who happily crunched on their sugar cubes was that the OPV, like the IPV, could give them full-blown, iron-lung-type polio.

Knowing that children gravitate toward sugar, U.S. health department personnel who administered the oral polio vaccine “helped the medicine go down” by delivering the vaccine serum on sugar cubes. By 1962, “children were lining up at school, tongues out to receive pink-stained lumps of sugar impregnated with Albert Sabin’s live, attenuated oral polio vaccine.” What officials neglected to tell the millions of American children who happily crunched on their sugar cubes was that the OPV, like the IPV, could give them full-blown, iron-lung-type polio. Nor were recipients of either type of polio vaccine informed of their exposure to the cancer-causing viral contaminant SV40, derived from the monkey kidneys used to produce the vaccines. When some vaccine recipients went on to develop polio or cancer (or both), all too often they met with an evasive and uncaring response from public health authorities who refused to admit that their vaccines could cause lifelong damage.

Her rapid deterioration then prompted a transfer 25 miles away to Spartanburg General Hospital, where she found herself in a special basement ward with 20 or more other children in similar condition. All of the children, Grady included, were diagnosed with paralytic polio.

A true story

Cynthia Grady, now almost 65 years old, is a North Carolina resident who received a coerced “sugar cube” polio vaccine in South Carolina in July, 1960 and has lived with chronic pain and severe health problems ever since. Grady and her nearly 85-year-old mother, Connie Gallagher, consented to an August 2019 interview with Children’s Health Defense to tell Grady’s tragic and hair-raising story of vaccine injury and describe their encounters with an officialdom apparently committed to obfuscation, stonewalling and denial of harm.

At the time, Grady and Gallagher (who had divorced Grady’s biological father) lived in New York. In July of 1960, Gallagher drove south to drop her “very healthy” six-year-old daughter off with relatives in South Carolina before continuing on to Florida to visit her parents. Unfortunately, Grady’s biological father—a member of the South Carolina Cherokee Nation—decided to take advantage of Gallagher’s absence and engaged in what would now be termed a parental kidnap, whisking the bewildered child away from her aunt and uncle shortly after her arrival. To qualify for social welfare benefits allocated on the basis of “number of mouths being fed,” he immediately took Grady to the Cherokee County Health Department for vaccination.

Scared and crying, Grady explained that she had already had her vaccines, which she had received in injected form prior to starting kindergarten the year before. Despite her protests, the health department employee got her to swallow a sugar cube polio vaccine. Within a couple of days, while staying in a house that had only an outhouse, Grady began to profusely vomit and became so ill that she was taken to an isolation room in Cherokee Memorial Hospital. Her rapid deterioration then prompted a transfer 25 miles away to Spartanburg General Hospital, where she found herself in a special basement ward with 20 or more other children in similar condition. All of the children, Grady included, were diagnosed with paralytic polio.

Grady’s laboratory report form dated August 4, 1960 (not obtainable by the family until 2016, see below) clearly shows that Grady and the other children in her basement ward were closely monitored by the CDC/Public Health Service’s “Poliomyelitis Surveillance Program.” The lab report provides evidence of positive culturing for “monkey kidney” and also shows that Grady tested positive for polioviruses Types I, II and III.

By the time that Gallagher received the terrifying phone call that her daughter was in the hospital in critical condition, Grady was in an iron lung, unable to speak and paralyzed from the neck down. (Her time in the iron lung ultimately left her with a scar on the back of her neck and motor neuron imbalances as well as heart deformities.) After Gallagher rushed north to join her daughter, finding that Grady could only move her head and blink “yes” or “no” in response to questions, Gallagher repeatedly heard her daughter described as being in “grave condition.”

The CDC’s Poliomyelitis Surveillance Report No. 205, published on August 5, 1960, indicates that the CDC monitored 33 cases of paralytic polio (and 10 nonparalytic cases) that occurred in the tri-county area of Cherokee and Spartanburg counties (South Carolina) and Cleveland county in North Carolina between June 11 and August 6, 1960. The report states that 11 of the 33 paralyzed children had previously received one or more doses of the Salk polio vaccine but does not discuss the OPV. However, during the many days spent at her daughter’s bedside at the Spartanburg hospital, Gallagher learned from the other mothers present that all of the children in the special ward had received the sugar cube vaccine and had similar monkey kidney serum test results.

Gallagher reports never receiving a single medical bill nor any medical documentation of Grady’s treatment in South Carolina, leaving no paper trail.

Mother and daughter recall that the CDC “brought in equipment like you wouldn’t believe” and put Grady through the rigors of various forms of physical therapy and rehabilitation, not always reflecting good clinical decision-making. Gallagher reports never receiving a single medical bill nor any medical documentation of Grady’s treatment in South Carolina, leaving no paper trail. With Grady still largely unable to walk, the pair eventually returned to New York and later moved to Oregon. Many years of painful rehabilitation followed, and it took seven years for Grady to be able to walk without crutches. Since then, Grady has endured one costly medical problem after another, including meningitis, tachycardia, mood swings, problems with balance, a partial and then full hysterectomy, gallbladder and appendix removal, ovarian cancer and more. At present, Grady has “good days and bad days,” with many spent mostly in bed. Her ongoing balance difficulties have led to numerous falls, concussions and broken bones.

The runaround

For years, mother and daughter tried to obtain Grady’s hospital records, to little avail. In 2001, the Spartanburg hospital even told Grady that they had “no record that you were ever here.” After renewing their request in 2016, a kind hospital employee dedicated two weeks to searching through the institution’s microfiched archives and stumbled on the apparently suppressed records, which included the revelatory CDC lab report.

For many years, the government repeatedly denied Grady’s applications for Social Security Disability, telling her that her health problems were “all in her head.” Eventually, Social Security awarded Grady a small monthly disability stipend (currently $645), while still periodically asking her to “jump through hoops” such as seeing a psychiatrist.

The program [NVICP] also capped the number of petitioners who could be compensated retrospectively at 3,500;

The National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program (NVICP) was established in 1986 and became operational in the fall of 1988. Although it included a meager provision for individuals like Grady who had sustained vaccine injuries prior to October 1, 1988, there were several caveats—those individuals had to know about the NVICP, had to have medical documentation to prove the case and had to file their claims by January 31, 1991. The program also capped the number of petitioners who could be compensated retrospectively at 3,500; by early 1993, the slow-moving program had only adjudicated 32% of retrospective claims and had only awarded compensation to half of those (641 claimants). In 2014, the GAO reported that the average time to adjudicate a claim remained three and a half years.

From the beginning, the NVICP has done little to publicize its existence, so it is unsurprising that Grady and Gallagher did not learn about it until decades after the 1991 deadline for filing a retroactive claim. Moreover, the hospital in Spartanburg did not hand over Grady’s medical records until 2016. When Grady and Gallagher first reached out to the NVICP, the program told them to get a lawyer and sent them a list of 150 attorneys. More than 75 attorneys refused to take the case: “We couldn’t get an attorney to touch it with a 10-foot pole.” In an unanswered letter to President Trump, Grady noted her stepfather’s military service during World War II and stated that she had been “raised to believe that this is one great country and that there is justice for all,” adding that something was “wrong with this picture” when a criminal gets a court-appointed attorney while she couldn’t get one.

Next, Grady asked for help from her congressional representative, Congressman Mark Meadows. For eight months, the Congressman’s staff tried to help and even submitted a complete set of paperwork to the NVICP. After months of getting nowhere, the Congressman’s staff was unable to continue dedicating scarce time to the case.

Finally, aware of a legal provision called “equitable tolling,” Grady and Gallagher filed a retrospective pro se petition (i.e., without an attorney) on April 6, 2017. Equitable tolling “means that a person is not required to sue within the statutory period if he cannot in the circumstances reasonably be expected to do so.” The NVICP assigned a case number (17-509V) and a Special Master (Mindy Michaels Roth), conducted two audiotaped status conferences by phone and asked for a complete set of medical records, information about current health status, and equitable tolling paperwork; months later, Special Master Roth dismissed the petition “on statute of limitations grounds.” Grady followed up with a motion for review, which was met first by inappropriate procedural steps and then by complete closure of the case.

In a phone conversation between Grady and Special Master Roth and a Department of Justice attorney, Grady asked, ‘What am I, your collateral damage?’ The reply was, ‘Well, if you have to put it that way.’

The dismissal document refers to a prior legal decision discussing the intent of the 1986 Act that put the NVICP in place, stating that while “Congress sought to extend relief to those vaccinated before the Act went into effect,” it “also wanted to provide the government with a definite date after which it would no longer have to defend against any such retroactive suits.” In other words, “tough luck.” In a phone conversation between Grady and Special Master Roth and a Department of Justice attorney, Grady asked, “What am I, your collateral damage?” The reply was, “Well, if you have to put it that way.”

Collateral damage

Historians admit that the history of polio vaccines is littered with unsavory “tough choices”—as one historical account puts it, “the scientists who raced toward effective polio vaccines tested their work on prisoners, institutionalized children, and tens of thousands of monkeys.” A Harvard-based writer goes even further, stating that “The success of mass immunization…comes at a price” and that “Many children…suffer major injuries and death from the administration of vaccines.”

Dr. Walter Orenstein, then the director of the CDC’s vaccination program, unashamedly described his prior stance, stating that when a small number of children a year contracted polio but millions were assumed to be protected, ‘my feeling was it was a small price to pay.’

In 2000, the U.S. stopped administering oral polio vaccines and reverted to the IPV after being forced by outraged parents to admit that the OPV was resulting in an unacceptably high number of actual cases of polio in children. (The OPV is still in wide use in many other countries.) Dr. Walter Orenstein, then the director of the CDC’s vaccination program, unashamedly described his prior stance, stating that when a small number of children a year contracted polio but millions were assumed to be protected, “my feeling was it was a small price to pay.” However, when confronted with the tragic story of a young man, David Salamone, who died at age 28 of complications from childhood vaccine-induced polio, Orenstein seemingly changed his tune, saying “Suddenly, the eight to 10 people were not just tiny numbers but were real people. Just seeing how these people’s lives were ruined made a big difference.”

Grady, likewise, wants people to understand that she is a “real person.” As she states:

I want to be able to tell my story and to help change these time constraints on timely filing and make these people understand that it is the residuals of the polio monkey kidney serum that took a 6-year-old girl and many, many others years of distress, misdiagnosis with health problems, caused heart problems, cancer and motor neuron problems with the brain and lots of other disability. I want them to understand that we were not properly informed that there was even a vaccine compensation program back in the ‘80s, that our records were suppressed [for] over 50 years by the CDC and that they were derelict in their duty to follow up and admit the wrongdoing.


Vaccinated vs. Unvaccinated—Part 5


None of the Part 5 articles I summarize below and in the accompanying graphs are true vax/unvaxxed studies. Instead, the researchers looked at the results on overall health after the addition of a single vaccine dose or vaccine to an already heavily vaccinated population. The results are still striking. They all show a statistically significant increase in grave chronic diseases associated with even incremental uptake in vaccines. These data, even without the shocking results in my earlier Part 1 through 4 editions, ought to set off an emergency mobilization within any honest regulatory agency.

Titles and Summaries from Part 5 Vaxxed/Unvaxxed Slides:

Addition of the Hepatitis B Vaccine in 1988 Increased the Rate of Type 1 Diabetes 1.62X in Children in New Zealand. The incidence of type I diabetes in person 0-19 years old living in Christchurch rose from 11.2 cases per 100,000 children annually in the years before the immunization program, 1982-1987, to 18.1 cases per 100,000 children annually ( P = .0008) in the years following the immunization, 1989-1991.

DTP Vaccination Increases Mortality by 2.45X in Girls Previously Receiving the BCG (Tuberculosis) Vaccine.  In seven studies of the BCG-vaccinated children, DTP vaccination was associated with a 2.54 (95% CI 1.68-3.86) increase in mortality in girls (with no increase in boys [ratio 0.96, 0.55-1.68]). The ways in which the female and male immune systems may respond differently to vaccinations in infants are only beginning to be studied.

Higher Number of Vaccine Doses Prior to One Year of Age Increases Infant Mortality by 1.83X. Using the Tukey-Kramer test, statistically significant differences in mean IMRs (infant mortality rates) were found between nations giving 12-14 vaccine doses and those giving 21-23 and 24-26 doses.

One Dose of the DTP Vaccine Increases Infant Mortality by 1.84X. One dose of diphtheria, tetanus, and pertussis vaccine was associated with a mortality ratio of 1.84 (1.10 to 3.10) and two to three doses with a ratio of 1.38 (0.73 to 2.61) compared with children who had received no dose of these vaccines.

Early DTP Vaccination in Girls Increased Infant Mortality by 5.68X. Surprisingly, even though the children with the best nutritional status were vaccinated early, early DTP vaccination was associated with increased mortality.

Receipt of Both the BCG and DTP Vaccines Increased Infant Mortality in Girls by 2.4X. Among girls, those who received bot BCG and DTP experienced higher mortality than those who received only one of the two vaccines (hazards ratio 2.4; 95% confidence interval 1.2-5.0)

Receipt of the Second and Third Dose of the DTP Vaccine Increases Infant Mortality by 4.36X. The MR (Mortality Rate) was 1.81 (95% CI: 0.95, 3.45) for the first dose of DTP and 4.36 (95% CI: 1.28, 14.9) for the second and third dose.

(See full-sized Part 5 slides or see the complete Vaxxed-Unvaxxed presentation, Parts 1-12.)

An Open Letter to Nick Paumgarten, Author of “The Message of Measles”


Mr. Paumgarten, it’s long past time to address the misinformation in articles like yours, The Message of Measles, which paints such an intensely biased, extremist picture of those who delay or even refuse vaccines, that by my definition, it does not qualify as journalism.

In the first place, please stop calling us “anti-vaxxers.”  WE VACCINATED OUR CHILDREN.  Our sons and daughters had medically-documented, serious adverse reactions to vaccines. Not redness, swelling, or a little fever, but autoimmune reactions, neurological reactions like seizure, encephalopathy, or loss of consciousness, and a host of others with long-term sequelae. Yet our children’s injuries are dismissed and ignored, while we are inexplicably —and unethically— told we must continue to vaccinate to protect others.

Why wouldn’t we protest?

This isn’t about your conspiracy theories of “the anti-vaccination movement,” Andrew Wakefield, social media phenomena, “die-heard refuseniks,” and this most certainly is not about “immunological amnesia.”

This is about what happened to our children, and why. We haven’t forgotten what happened to our own children, Mr. Paumgarten.  We never will.  Some of us will regret that we vaccinated until the day we die.

Some of us are not even opposed to vaccines, only to compulsory vaccination.  Others have, understandably, lost trust in the entire medical system. We are, however, united in our opposition to fraudulent product licensure, fraudulent product marketing, and corruption of government entities meant to oversee industry, but staffed by it instead.

People seem to have no trouble understanding the fraud and corruption that led to the opioid debacle.  And the Vioxx debacle. And the DES, thalidomide, and countless other debacles caused by pharmaceutical dishonesty.  There is clear evidence of  fraud and corruption involving many vaccines. Why is that so hard to accept?

Note that Merck has been in federal court since 2010 on fraud charges brought by their own virologists, who disclosed that they were actually forced to falsify efficacy data for the MMR vaccine.

This is especially significant because Merck, like other vaccine manufacturers, is already exempt from the gold standard requirement of randomized, double-blind, inert-placebo-controlled safety trials on vaccines because they are classified as “biologics” rather than “drugs.” Yet, astoundingly, in the US, they cannot be sued for adverse reactions, not even if they are proven negligent.

Inadequate safety testing for a mandated medical intervention, yet full protection from liability — this is a recipe for disaster.

As if that weren’t bad enough, we also lack an adequate reporting system for post-vaccine adverse events.

The Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS) was intended to pick up signals of unanticipated adverse reactions. It was put in place in 1989 along with the Vaccine Injury Compensation Program, because children were suffering vaccine-induced seizures, and their parents were suing the vaccine manufacturers, who had never fully disclosed the risks.

Parent representatives and legislators agreed that the new reporting system would contain a Table of Injuries that would, under specific circumstances, automatically qualify for compensation, so that families could obtain necessary long-term medical care for their vaccine-injured children. This included seizures within a specified time frame following certain vaccines, already noted in package inserts as reported adverse reactions.

Under the 1986 National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act, physicians were and still are required to report post-vaccination events listed on the Table of Injuries.

But in February of 1995, seizures were quietly removed from the Table of Injuries by Donna Shalala.

So, today, most doctors don’t bother to report post-vaccine seizures to VAERS, because they’re not required to.

In fact, a 2010 CDC-funded study by Harvard Pilgrim found that less than 1% of the post-vaccination adverse events recorded by doctors in their own medical records were ever reported to VAERS.

This means that the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System fails to pick up signals of unanticipated seizure reactions, because the vast majority are not being reported.

It also means we have no idea how many serious adverse events follow vaccination, nor how many of those are genuine reactions.  They’re not reported; they don’t get investigated. Even those that are reported are not adequately investigated.  Also, there are no studies under way to uncover shared susceptibilities to adverse vaccine reaction.

We can’t even find out how many seizure reactions WERE reported. VAERS staff, rather than the reporting doctors, assign one of at least 28 different reporting codes to seizure/encephalopathy/similar neurological events, which are then listed in alphabetical order together with ALL other event reports.

Even so, I was able to find over 7,500 reports of such reactions reported as associated with MMR vaccines.

Is that 1% of what really happened?  More? Less?

If it’s 10% of what really happened, we’d be looking at 75,000 such reactions.

If it’s 1%, we’re looking at 750,000.

Seizures.  EpilepsyConvulsionsEncephalopathy.  Encephalitis.

Brain damage.

It’s completely unethical to use the “disdainful” (as you termed it, Mr. Paumgarten) pejorative, “anti-vaxxers” to manipulate the conversation, or even to describe the friends and families of children who suffered vaccine adverse reactions.

But vaccines work,” you weakly cry.  Or do they?

The primary and secondary failure rates for the MMR vaccine are high enough to destroy any hope for the 95% “herd immunity” threshold we’re told is necessary, even with 100% vaccination compliance.

Most people either have forgotten or are too young to know that the MMR vaccine was licensed under the promise that one shot would confer lifetime immunity. You know, I know, we all know that this is simply not true.  A 2012 Mayo Clinic study shows that 2-10% vaccinated individuals don’t make any antibodies to measles, even after 2 shots.  This is called “primary vaccine failure.”  A 2012 study  from the Helsinki Department of Infectious Disease Surveillance and Control shows that up to 18% whose vaccines initially worked have low-to-zero antibodies within FIVE years of being “fully” vaccinated. That’s textbook secondary vaccine failure. Similar