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.

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

Guest Commentary by Catherine Austin Fitts, Solari Report


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?

By the Children’s Health Defense Team


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

By Guest Contributor John Stone, UK Editor, Age of Autism


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?

By Guest Contributor Ted Kuntz, President, Vaccine Choice Canada


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.

By Mary Holland, Vice-Chair and General Counsel, Children’s Health Defense


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

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

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 1-10.

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

By Elizabeth Mumper, M.D., FAAP, The Rimland Center


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

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


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

By Guest Contributor John Stone, UK Editor, Age of Autism


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

Vaccinated vs. Unvaccinated—Part 9

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

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 1-9.)

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. 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

By Wayne Rohde, Guest Contributor


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”?

By Mary Holland, CHD General Counsel and Vice Chair


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

By Senta Depuydt, Editorial Guest Contributor


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!

By Dr. Alan Palmer, CHD Contributing Writer


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

By Guest Contributor, Richard Moskowitz, M. D.


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

By Mary Holland, CHD Vice Chairman and Marsha Lessard, Virginia citizen, Mother, and Virginia Freedom Keepers Member.


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

By the Children’s Health Defense Team 

[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.

By Jeremy Hammond, Guest Contributor

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

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

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 1-7.)

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

By Thomas Cowan, MD


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

By the Children’s Health Defense Team

[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

By the Children’s Health Defense Team

[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?

By Lyn Redwood, RN, MSN. President Children’s Health Defense


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:  [email protected]




Bill Maher: I thank you for coming on. It’s courageous these days just to speak at all about the subject of vaccines.

Dr. Jay Gordon: They do take shots at you.

Maher: They take shots, yes. [laughter] No, they do. I mean it’s one of those things in our culture where there is the one true opinion. But we don’t play that game here. So, I know you’ve had the experience of being on other shows and when you get off the air–this happens here too–you get off the air and somebody goes “Ah, you know, yeah, but you can’t say that on TV.” Has that happened with you?

Gordon: It has…notably it happened some years ago. I was on a show called The Doctors, which was enjoyable. I was on with a colleague–a doc I’d known for a long time–and it was a show about a family with seven children, the first four of whom had autism. The next three didn’t have autism…and the video of their house was not fun to watch. And she was pregnant with her eighth child. There was a spirited discussion and Dr. Jim Sears, who was a pediatrician on the show–a member of the great Sears family of pediatricians—commented. He said “You know if you were in my practice I wouldn’t vaccinate your eighth child” and everybody applauded.  And after the show was over I walked out to the parking lot with my friend the other pediatrician, good old friend, and he said to me, “Do you really believe that vaccines cause autism?” I said there’s, there’s an impact. I can’t prove anything so I talked quietly. I said let me ask you a question “do you believe that there’s no effect from vaccines on the incidence of autism?” And he said to me, “There might be a very small percentage of children who are adversely affected.” I said, “That’s all! that’s all I’m trying to say!”

Maher: But, you can’t say it on TV.

Gordon: You can’t say it on TV, no.

Maher: Yeah, this is… this is… We’re saying it on TV, yeah. We’re just saying, yes we’re just, and you know, to call you this crazy person I mean, really, what you’re just saying is slower, right?

Gordon: Yes.

Maher: Maybe less numbers and also take into account individuals…

Gordon: Right.

Maher: …people are different. Family history. Stuff like that. I don’t think this is crazy.

Gordon: I don’t think it’s crazy either. If you have seven children and four of them have autism you’ve got to consider the environment.

Maher: Look, the autism issue they certainly have studied it a million times, including out of this country…

Gordon: Yes.

Maher: …no, I don’t trust this country so much because of paychecks–I mean for writing checks to people–but they’ve just… another guy… they say it’s a…and yet there’s all these parents who say I had a normal child got the vaccine…this story keeps coming up. It seems to me more realistic to me, if we’re just gonna be realistic about it, like it probably happened so rarely but no one wants… you can’t say it happens one in a million times because then somebody will think well it’s, it’s, now I could be that millionth one and you see, you scare people. So, you can’t say what might be the more realistic opinion.

Gordon: Regarding a lot of conditions and diseases there’s a genetic predisposition and an environmental trigger. The National Institute of Health used to have a poster that you could buy it said “genetics loads the gun and environment pulls the trigger.” And they were talking about diabetes, they were talking about arthritis and a lot of other conditions. Maybe that’s true about autism but again I talk much more quietly because I have no proof.

Maher: It may be is the whole my whole point with this is maybe, is that we just don’t know so much. this whole situation to me is how you look at it as a patient. As a patient I’ve caught doctors not knowing what they should know. some doctors keep up with what’s happening lately and some stop at medical school I’m told. Have you met doctors who are idiots? [laughter]

Gordon: I’ve been accused of the same myself! [laughter]

Maher: Okay.

Gordon: I’ve met doctors who I don’t think were well enough informed and as you said they just stopped reading and they stopped thinking.

Maher: Well okay, exactly. We are at the beginning of understanding how the human body works. You know people say vaccines…of course vaccines work and we applaud them for all the great things they’ve done. They’re a great tool in the medical kit–maybe the greatest but that’s the beginning of the debate. I don’t understand what they can’t get about that. The big… yes…they work. So do antibiotics work, statins work chemotherapy works. I’m concerned with what happens down the road.

Gordon: Nothing is free. Nothing that I do right is free. I feel like I should give you a little bit of a discussion before I recommend tylenol because of the impact on the liver. A discussion about ibuprofen before about the impact on the kidneys.  And when someone gets antibiotics from me I talked to them about, you know, there could be a yeast infection you could get diarrhea and the rash–sorry about the diarrhea and the rash—

Maher: Right!

Gordon: …but with vaccines, well, the discussion is closed.

Maher: That’s what I’m saying. I’m not an anti-vaxxer. If I was going to Liberia tomorrow and there was an ebola outbreak I’d get…

Gordon: Whatever you could get!

Maher: Yes! Of course! You’d give it to yourself…the flu shot. you say well we’ll get to the flu we’ll get to measles don’t worry.  But, but, here’s the thing…they’ve been wrong about so much. I object to when doctors, the people in the white coats, are like “Don’t ask any questions about this…when have we ever been wrong?” When? Just with me, you drilled mercury into my teeth you put me on accutane which is one of almost a hundred medications that were said safe and effective that had been pulled off the market.

Gordon: Black box warnings.

Maher: Black box?

Gordon: Black box warnings that’s what they call it and it’s, it’s read this before you prescribe or take this medication. You could die.

Maher: Right, okay I haven’t died but they did a lot I mean I have had misdiagnosis a bacterial infection that was really a fungal infection lots of stuff that this whole idea when were we ever wrong all the time, you don’t know one week you tell us this is Time magazine from two years ago surprising news about salt.

Gordon: Yes.

Maher: All my life I’ve been told this, a new study found healthy people who reported eating more sodium had no higher blood pressure than those who weigh less. Trans-fats remember? 15 years ago, get that in ya. The Can’t believe it’s not butter, now it’s illegal. Turned out to be the worst!

Gordon: Well that scandal…some years ago when they were trying to find the, the genesis of heart disease there were two considerations sugar and fat, right? They paid off Harvard Medical School professors 50 grand to lay the blame at the feet of fat.

Maher: Right.

Gordon: And, for a long time we were told now a high-fat diet makes you fat it’s…

Maher: The food pyramid was bull****! [laughter]

Gordon: Right.

Maher: Four servings of bread… excuse me, I don’t think any servings of bread are good! Now people are like, “What are you talking about, Bill?…wholesome wheat. Look it up ! You know these people who were like don’t talk about vaccines because you don’t know anything…YOU don’t know anything!

Gordon: We’re told that in medical school a third or a half of what you learned this year will probably be wrong five years from now not just a little bit… a hundred and eighty degrees wrong!

Maher: All I’m saying is, as, for me I had my childhood vaccines okay I got a flu shot once a long time ago gave me the flu right away. Which is okay, it didn’t kill me. But it’s not what it’s supposed to do.

Gordon: Well, that’s embarrassing, isn’t it? They gave you a shot and you got sick.

Maher: I’m just saying, that vaccines like every medicine right have side effects.

Gordon: Yes.

Maher: Okay and so let’s not deny that or pretend it doesn’t happen.

Gordon: Right.

Maher: So, we’re just talking about which ones, how much, how do we manage this. This is not crazy talk.

Gordon: We don’t do it the way that we should do it. Manufacturers don’t put… we don’t manufacture vaccines as well as we could. We have a schedule that’s invariable for every single child, one size doesn’t really fit all.

Maher: Right.

Gordon: The polio vaccine that I would get as a hundred and eighty pound man is the same thing that I give to a 12 pound baby. We could do it a lot better. I don’t want to bring…I don’t want to bring polio back. I don’t want to bring measles back.

Maher: Of course not.

Gordon: Measles is a nasty illness.

Maher: And we had news in the…It’s interesting you heard today, just today they found out that measles has something called…

Gordon: Amnesia…it causes it causes the immune system to forget a lot of the antibodies…

Maher: So, it’s actually a harm…a much more harmful disease than we thought.

Gordon: It is. It…

Maher: Great! New information right we’re accepting of new information. Everyone should be!

Gordon: It’s called learning you learn, you learn…

Maher: Right. So okay let me just read you this. This is from the New York Times a year and a half ago. Is this tissue a new organ? Maybe. A conduit for cancer? It seems likely. Let me just read a little bit from the article. “Researchers have made new discoveries about the in between spaces in the human body and some say it’s time to rewrite the anatomy books.

Gordon: The interstitial they call it…

Maher: Right. The fluid filled 3D latticework of collagen and elastin connective tissue that can be found all over the body. They say it’s hard to describe. It’s a highway of moving fluid a previously unknown feature of human anatomy. So there’s this whole new organ in the body we didn’t know about a year and a half ago, but you’re telling me don’t ask questions about “this”. This is just so ridiculous and for people who are saying “Whoa Bill, what does that have to do with vaccines?” if you can’t figure that out, stop listening. [laughter] I’m just saying we don’t know s*** that’s why when doctors–you get a diagnosis, the other doctor gives you another one. They say right away, they get a second opinion. Well, okay. Right away you’re telling me it’s an opinion and the second one never matches the first. We’re guessing. We don’t know a lot about how the body works, so how did vaccines fit in with, I don’t know, all the new chemicals that have–there’s thousands of new chemicals, pollutants, irritants. We didn’t used to have all this corn syrup in our bodies. Antibiotics. It could be any combination! So, I’m a little cautious.

Gordon: Everybody who writes newspaper columns and people on…pundits on television, ridicule the pharmaceutical industry. The high cost of epinephrine–it is five hundred dollars. Three hundred and eleven thousand dollar medication for children for cystic fibrosis. The fact that we pay ten times more for medications than in other countries. They make fun of the pharmaceutical industry–say they don’t trust the pharmaceutical industry, except for this. That’s one sacrament that’s…and they’re… nobody’s doing honest reporting about this and it drives me crazy…

Maher: Okay

Gordon: …because there aren’t two sides to it… it’s not pro and anti… there are people in the middle as you mentioned. I give vaccines I get vaccines but I’d like to slow down a little bit and I’d like to talk.

Maher: I mean…here… well, we’re doing it. oh okay.

Gordon: Thank you.

Maher: Thank you. The flu vaccine. I would never get one. Here’s…now last year it was 47% effective.

Gordon: That was a good year.

Maher: That was a good year. In 2014 it was 19% effective.

Gordon: It was not a good year.[laughter]

Maher: ‘04 it was 10 percent effective, ‘05 it was 21 percent effective but they don’t say well it’s not very effective don’t take it. That doesn’t make people a little skeptical?

Gordon: It should make them very skeptical…

Maher: Thank you.

Gordon: …and there are experts who, who have studied this who said, “Look we have to stop telling people that we have a great flu shot because it keeps venture-capital out of the arena we could eventually have a great flu shot.” And one of the more interesting scandals involved the flu mist, the nasal flu vaccine. We promoted that vaccine heavily because there’s no needle. It was found that for two years that shot had zero effectiveness. Zero efficacy. They pulled it off the market last year and they put it back on the market this year, kind of we’ll see. So there were doctors wandering around the newborn intensive care unit who thought that they had immunity to influenza and they had nothing.

Maher: We don’t…it’s arrogant. You know, I read recently they don’t know how anesthesia works. They know that it works, they don’t know why.

Gordon: Right, [laughter] exactly. [laughter]

Maher: But I should just shut up about all the…it’s…

Gordon: Anesthesia in childhood is it is a very controversial topic because it’s not good for you to be knocked out. So, I’ve done reading to find out why does general anesthesia work. We don’t know! If we speculate, they say perhaps it destroys fat in the braincells. We don’t know.

Maher: Right.

Gordon: That’s strange.

Maher: You know when someone comes to me and they say you know I went to the doctor today I have cancer and they know exactly what caused it and they know exactly how to cure it then I’ll say okay I’ll shut up about asking questions about anything else medical. Until then I’m not going to shut up and you shouldn’t either. Thank you so much. [Applause]



View/Download PDF

America’s Fifty-Fold Increase in Obsessive-Compulsive Disorder

By the Children’s Health Defense Team


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)

By the Children’s Health Defense Team


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

By Mary Holland, Children’s Health Defense General Counsel


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.

The Measles Vaccine Narrative Is Collapsing

By Dr. Alan Palmer, Contributing Writer

[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?

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

[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

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

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

By The Corvelva Team


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 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 US 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. US 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 US, 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?

By the Children’s Health Defense Team


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

By the Children’s Health Defense Team


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

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

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 1-7.)

An Open Letter to Nick Paumgarten, Author of “The Message of Measles”

Editorial By Alison Fujito, Children’s Health Defense Contributing Writer

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 numbers for both primary and secondary failures had already been documented for MMR vaccines in 1985.

Let’s take a look at the CDC data on MMR vaccine uptake:  before  1985, we never had more than 66.8% vaccine coverage.  Coverage was never higher than 89% until 1996. Yet the vaccine was thought to be a success — because the vast majority of the herd had already had the measles, and was immune for life, unlike those who were vaccinated.

This data is shocking, considering that health officials and news media have been ingenuously blaming supposedly rising exemption rates for outbreaks, while failing to disclose that vaccination rates were actually steadily rising the entire time.  Also steadily rising: the number chosen as the “herd immunity” threshold.  In 1963, the original estimate for the vaccinated number needed to eliminate measles was 56%, but that was changed to 70%, 75%, 80%, 83%, 85%, and now we’re at 95%, still without “herd immunity.

Health officials and news media have also failed to disclose vaccine failure issues.  If they are unaware, that is seriously troubling.  If they are aware but remained silent, that is even worse.

So, with Merck’s MMR, we have a product that was licensed under potentially fraudulent circumstances, that was never required to be adequately tested for safety, with a failing government reporting system for adverse events, thousands of reports from parents that their children had devastating adverse reactions — AND the vaccine has failed all along to perform as advertised. The MMR vaccine has never been shown  to confer the lifetime immunity required for herd immunity — and we’ve never had the 95% vaccine uptake rate that we’re told is also required.

And you, Mr. Paumgarten, wrote an entire article focusing on blaming the people who say, “no, thank you” to what is, after all, an invasive medical procedure.  You chose to blame people who have every reason to lose trust in a dishonest, unethical industry, but you demand that they, and everyone else, trust it, anyway.

You are, essentially, asking people to believe in your religion.

You disparage and blame people who have exercised their LEGAL right to both criticize and decline a severely flawed, invasive, sometimes harmful medical intervention.  And your argument: a limp, half-truth of a whine, “but vaccines work,”and “we don’t need to relitigate the case for vaccines.”

You’re wrong, Mr. Paumgarten.  We absolutely do need to relitigate the case for vaccines, because they don’t work well enough, and more importantly, they don’t work safely enough.

Don’t you dare tell parents whose just-vaccinated children lost speech, brain function, and even their lives, that “vaccines work.” They didn’t work correctly for our children.

You have no right to sacrifice our children, nor anyone else’s.

Don’t you dare pretend that immunocompromised children matter more than children at risk for vaccine adverse reactions, or that ANY children matter more than others.

You don’t have that right.  Nobody does.

If you want children to be protected, then start advocating to repair the serious flaws and corruptive influences in our government and its vaccine program, and stop gaslighting its victims.

The Unsolved Mystery of Deaths in Healthy Migrant Children

By the Children’s Health Defense Team


The Children’s Health Defense team is concerned with all unexplained deaths of children. Lately, some media and government officials are calling attention to the sudden deaths of over half a dozen mostly Guatemalan children taken into U.S. custody at the border over the past year.

Despite media reports about the deaths, however, little critical analysis is taking place. In about half of the cases, news accounts indicate that the children (ranging from infants to 16-year-olds) were in good health upon arrival in the U.S. For other fatalities, information about the children’s baseline health status has gone unreported. In either scenario, no reporter has ventured to guess what might cause a healthy young person in custody to develop fatal symptoms literally from one day to the next.

U.S. government regulations call for an immediate medical exam for young refugees and immigrants and … “catch-up” vaccines during the exam to anyone who cannot prove that they previously received them.

A blank slate?

This past year, an unprecedented surge in border crossings by unaccompanied minors put the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) Office of Refugee Resettlement (ORR) “on track to detaining the most youth in history.” In 2018 alone, the number of migrant children in federal custody rose by 97%. Over 63,000 unaccompanied children crossed the U.S.-Mexico border from October 2018 through June 2019, with numbers apparently declining after that point due to policy changes and summer heat.

By law, ORR is supposed to take responsibility for unaccompanied children no more than 72 hours after their apprehension by Customs and Border Protection (CBP), although migrant advocates report that some children remain in Border Patrol facilities for longer. Once in ORR custody, youth reside in facilities run mostly by non-profit contractors. However, a for-profit conglomerate operates the nation’s largest shelter for unaccompanied migrant children—a rapidly expanding Florida facility that houses one in six of America’s migrant minors—and it also runs several facilities in Texas.

U.S. government regulations call for an immediate medical exam for young refugees and immigrants and require administering “catch-up” vaccines during the exam to anyone who cannot prove that they previously received them. In fact, catch-up vaccination is at the top of the ORR to-do list. According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s (CDC’s) catch-up schedule, the regimen for those aged four months through six years includes 11 different vaccines for 15 illnesses: hepatitis B, rotavirus, diphtheria-tetanus-acellular pertussis (DTaP), Haemophilus influenzae type b (Hib), pneumococcal conjugate, inactivated poliovirus (IPV), measles-mumps-rubella (MMR), varicella, hepatitis A, meningococcal and influenza. The catch-up schedule for children and adolescents ages 7-18 is similar; it adds the human papillomavirus (HPV) and Tdap (tetanus-diphtheria-acellular pertussis) or Td (tetanus-pertussis) vaccines while omitting the rotavirus, pneumococcal conjugate and Hib vaccines.

Studies show that many young immigrants are already immune or have previously received applicable vaccines in their home countries. A news account from Texas describes young Central Americans as “better-vaccinated than Texan kids.” ORR itself agrees, stating that the countries “where most of the unaccompanied children are from” all have childhood vaccination programs and that there are only a few vaccines (such as chickenpox or influenza) that such children may not have received. Nevertheless, ORR—“as a precaution”—vaccinates anyone lacking credible documentation of “previous valid doses of vaccine,” in essence treating at least some new arrivals as blank slates.

Five years ago, pediatricians working on the U.S.-Mexico border reported that many of the children crossing the border were of middle class origin and were “carrying their vaccination cards with them.” In the more chaotic recent context, however, it is hard to know how many apprehended children have been able to provide vaccine documentation that is up to HHS’s uncompromising requirements. Studies among other immigrant populations indicate that documentation of vaccination is often lacking. A study of new Mexican immigrants found that more than half “did not know when they had last received a tetanus shot.”

The boy stated, ‘I was vaccinated…eight times. I told them I was already vaccinated but they gave me eight different shots and I felt dizzy for the rest of the day. They told me it was normal.’

Questions without answers

How many vaccines do most young arrivals receive? Vaccine records shared with Children’s Health Defense by a teenage migrant indicate what catch-up vaccination may look like on the ground. The records show that the teen received eight vaccines for 12 diseases in one day. The teenage vaccine recipient stated, “The older children get eight vaccines one week, and six more vaccines 15 days later.” The teen also stated that the facility gives younger children six vaccines in one day. A July report in the Miami Herald, which investigated the story of an undocumented teenage boy who inadvertently ended up in a detention center, shared similar observations. Despite the boy having parents in the U.S. and having lived in the U.S. since infancy, the facility administered eight catch-up vaccines without parental consent. The boy stated, “I was vaccinated…eight times. I told them I was already vaccinated but they gave me eight different shots and I felt dizzy for the rest of the day. They told me it was normal.”

Did this year’s deceased migrant children receive more vaccines than they could handle? In infants, researchers have identified “a positive correlation between the number of vaccine doses administered and the percentage of [post-vaccination] deaths” and hospitalizations.

Four years ago, Crystal Williams, former executive director of the American Immigration Lawyers Association (AILA) described problems with over-administration of certain vaccines to detained children (timestamp 0:45–1:43). Over 250 children in one facility received a double dose of the hepatitis A vaccine, causing serious problems in some:

They were given a double dose…of the hepatitis A [hepA] vaccine. Many of them very likely already had a hepA vaccine just a couple of days before. The whole thing was inexplicable…. [S]everal of the children did develop problems from the vaccinations, whether it was from the hepA or not, we don’t know, because there were four to six vaccinations given to each child, but there were a couple of children whose legs swelled so much that they were unable to walk. There was a child with severe vomiting and diarrhea.

Did the migrant children who died this past year receive influenza vaccines? If so, it would make sense to pay attention to mounting reports of sepsis and respiratory-distress-related deaths—in both children and adults—that have occurred following flu shots. In at least three of the migrant children deaths, the autopsies listed flu as a partial cause of death, even though “child flu deaths are rare.” In the U.S., influenza vaccines lead the pack in reports of serious vaccine injuries. From 2014 to 2015, flu shot settlements from the notoriously stingy National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program increased from $4.9 million to $61 million—an 1100% increase.

Unfortunately, these types of questions do not appear to hold much interest for government vaccine scientists, whether for immigrant youth or American children in general. For example, why isn’t the CDC investigating the fact that heavily vaccinated U.S. children have some of the worst child health outcomes in the developed world?

When it comes to the young migrants, HHS’s rationale for catch-up vaccination tends to be framed in terms of concerns about immigrants being a reservoir of infectious disease, but some dispute such fears. If one were to consider young immigrants’ welfare instead of branding them as potential typhoid Joses or Marias, it would be reasonable to investigate whether simultaneous administration of eight shots for 12 diseases at a time—to children who may already have received the same vaccines in their countries of origin or even at other U.S. facilities—could produce the sorts of serious symptoms that the deceased Central American children experienced.

Media reports:

May 20, 2019: and

May 14, 2019: and

May 10, 2019: and

April 30, 2019: and and

December 28, 2018: and

December 8, 2018: and

September 29, 2018: and 

Judge to Hear Oral Argument on the Repeal of the Religious Exemption to Vaccination for New York Children

After the Wed., Aug. 14th, 10: 00 a.m. hearing, Attorneys Michael H. Sussman and Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. will answer questions on the Albany County, NY Courthouse steps, 16 Eagle Street.


Albany, NY—On July 10, attorneys Sussman and Kennedy filed a lawsuit in New York State (NYS) Supreme Court challenging the constitutionality of the legislature’s repeal of the religious exemption to vaccination. Suing on behalf of 55 NYS families who held lawful religious exemptions, Sussman and Kennedy requested that the court enjoin the repeal temporarily, preliminarily and permanently.

The Honorable Denise Hartman, Supreme Court judge, will hear oral argument Wednesday, August 14th. With school only three weeks away, plaintiffs present their case that on June 13, 2019, NYS halted more than fifty years of lawful religious exemptions from vaccination for those with genuine and sincerely-held religious beliefs. The law, which became effective immediately, threw more than 26,000 NYS families into chaos, barring their children from school and daycare. A representative group of affected families, from different regions and diverse faiths, including Christianity, Judaism and Islam, challenged the repeal as constitutionally defective and unlawful. They seek judicial intervention to enjoin the repeal and permit their children back to school and camp throughout the state. The ruling will not only affect the 55 plaintiffs but the thousands of other similarly situated families.

Since 1963, New York has provided religious exemptions to vaccination. Yet without a single public hearing, and at the very end of the legislative session, the Assembly, Senate and Governor rushed through the repeal bill in one day with expressions of overt hostility towards those holding religious beliefs against vaccination. Many families will attend the hearing and press briefing afterwards.

In an earlier statement, Kennedy, Chief Legal Counsel for Children’s Health Defense, stated: “Religious rights are fundamental. It is unconstitutional for the state to deprive people of such important rights when religious animus has played a key role. To enact such harsh legislation without any legislative fact-finding, and with the legislators’ open display of prejudice towards religious beliefs different than their own, is simply un-American; it is essential that we fight this.”

Verified Complaint, Plaintiffs’ Brief, Order To Show Cause, Affirmation Final



U.S. Births Are at Record-Low Levels—Why Aren’t We Asking Why?

By the Children’s Health Defense Team


The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) recently released its annual statistical overview of births in America. The agency reported that total U.S. births plummeted to a 32-year “record low” in 2018—particularly for teenagers and women in their twenties. But though 2018 may have set a new record, other recent years relay much the same story: total births and the general fertility rate (births per 1,000 reproductive-age women) have been falling steadily for well over a decade.

The “baby bust” trend is not unique to the United States. A Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation-funded study published in 2018 in The Lancet reported that nearly half of countries worldwide had fertility rates below the “replacement level” of approximately 2.1 children per woman’s lifetime—a situation unheard of anywhere on the planet back in 1950. Describing this “watershed” finding, a scientist told the BBC that the revelation that half of the countries in the world are poised to experience shrinking populations “will be a huge surprise to people.”

TIME magazine tells us that “it may not be a bad thing that fewer U.S. babies were born in 2018 than in any year since 1986,” and it emphatically denies that “Americans are…getting less fertile, biologically.” However, many studies highlight male and female fertility problems, including “significant downward trends” in sperm count and quality, and obesity-related fertility challenges in women. What is behind these problems? The U.S. media aren’t saying, but published science provides strong indications that “environmental exposures arising from modern lifestyle…are the most important factors.”

Among the range of possible environmental culprits, there is evidence to suggest a role—whether singly or in combination—for glyphosate, bisphenol A (BPA), radiation from wireless communication technologies and vaccines.

… identified rates of congenital abnormalities and miscarriages that were two to three times higher than the national average.


Glyphosate is the active ingredient in the ubiquitous herbicide Roundup. Animal and human research suggests that glyphosate exposure can affect sperm, female fertility and pregnancy outcomes, as well as leading to downstream reproductive and other effects in offspring. In a 2017 study of male rats, oral exposure to Roundup (mimicking herbicide residues in the food supply) significantly altered male reproductive hormone levels, reduced sperm counts, increased sperm abnormalities and produced “severe degenerative testicular architectural lesions.” A 2019 study of glyphosate exposure in female mice found that exposure during pregnancy and lactation affected male offspring’s reproductive and sperm cell development.

In females, a study in prepubertal lambs found that exposure to a glyphosate-based herbicide, whether orally or subcutaneously, altered “ovarian follicular dynamics and gene expression” and also affected the uterus. Rat studies likewise indicate that neonatal exposure to glyphosate can disrupt uterine development, thereby affecting female fertility.

Argentinian researchers have described related outcomes in humans. A study of one of the country’s industrial agriculture regions, characterized by disturbingly high concentrations of glyphosate in soil and dust, identified rates of congenital abnormalities and miscarriages that were two to three times higher than the national average.

BPA’s endocrine-disrupting effects are well studied, with a documented role in the pathogenesis of…female and male infertility …


BPA is a chemical in widespread use in food and beverage containers, with a tendency to bioaccumulate. In the early 2000s, nationally representative studies detected BPA in urine in over 90% of individuals at least six years of age, with higher levels in young adults (ages 18-25 years) than in adults over age 25. Although manufacturers later began to substitute other chemicals (bisphenol F and bisphenol S) for BPA, the most recent national studies indicate that BPA levels remain high in both children and adults.

BPA’s endocrine-disrupting effects are well studied, with a documented role “in the pathogenesis of…female and male infertility, precocious puberty, hormone dependent tumours such as breast and prostate cancer and several metabolic disorders including polycystic ovary syndrome.” Studies in animals illustrate negative impacts on the male reproductive system that include anatomical and hormonal defects as well as damage to sperm, with similar findings in some human studies. One study that included infertile men reported a correlation between BPA levels and DNA damage, especially “multiple semen profile defects.” Greek researchers who compared infertile and fertile men reported finding BPA in all men—but high concentrations of BPA only in infertile men—leading them to conclude that “high concentrations…could contribute to infertility.”

In women, studies report that exposure to BPA may be associated with a decreased probability of conception. Research reinforcing this observation comes from a study that detected the chemical in over three-fourths (77%) of infertile versus about one-fourth (29%) of fertile women. Researchers postulate that BPA “may alter overall female reproductive capacity” by affecting the form, structure and function of the uterus and ovaries as well as disrupting female cycles and implantation.

… EMFs affect cell physiology and can lessen the biological competence of sperm and female eggs before fertilization.

Wireless technologies

People entranced with wireless communication technologies often forget that these and other modern technologies are major sources of exposure to the radiofrequency portion of the electromagnetic spectrum (RF-EMFs). A comprehensive review of EMF effects on human reproduction, published in 2018, notes that EMFs affect cell physiology and can lessen the “biological competence” of sperm and female eggs (before fertilization). The review’s authors cite a “plethora” of studies “highlighting a decrease in the quality of sperm obtained from men using mobile phones”—especially heavy users—and widespread agreement that RFs have detrimental effects on “sperm vitality, motility, and morphology.”

There has been less research on RF-EMF effects on female fertility, but the type of DNA damage associated with RF effects on sperm could also, according to the Bioinitiative Working Group, “account for damage to ovarian cells and female fertility, and miscarriage in women.” In their 2012 report, the Working Group cites research that rats exposed to mobile phones during pregnancy (with the battery charging continuously and the phone mostly in “standby” position) exerted “toxic effects” on the ovaries. In pregnant women, research also shows that more than one hour of daily cell phone use affects “biochemical parameters of cord blood.”

With the advent of 5G, there may be even greater cause for concern. Pointing to the many studies documenting reproductive effects of existing RF-EMFs and the absence of any research on the safety of the more powerful and pervasive 5G infrastructure, many scientists are urging caution and adherence to the precautionary principle. The Environmental Health Trust has termed 5G “the next great unknown experiment on our children”—and the entire human population.

… young women with no prior abnormalities (vaccinated at ages 14, 13 and 21, respectively) received a diagnosis of primary ovarian failure (POF), with no other possible causes of POF…identified other than the HPV vaccine.


There are several reasons to suspect that childhood vaccines or their ingredients could be affecting fertility. The evidence is most pronounced for the human papillomavirus (HPV) vaccines Gardasil and Gardasil 9. Widely administered to adolescents and now approved in the U.S. for adults through their mid-40s, Gardasil has a documented association with primary ovarian insufficiency or failure—defined as ovarian failure before the age of 40. In a case report published in 2013, young women with no prior abnormalities (vaccinated at ages 14, 13 and 21, respectively) received a diagnosis of primary ovarian failure (POF), with “no other possible causes of POF…identified other than the HPV vaccine.”

In a 2014 case report out of Australia, three young women (ages 16, 16 and 18 at diagnosis) presented with “idiopathic premature ovarian insufficiency” following HPV vaccination. The authors condemned the absence of preclinical, clinical and postlicensure studies on “enduring ovarian capacity and duration of function following vaccination,” and in 2019, they again complained that “the establishment of [Gardasil’s] safety for the young girl target age group has been a source of unease” for “those with an interest in ovarian safety.”

A study that examined U.S. data (2007–2014) for eight million young women ages 25-29 found significant differences in fertility by HPV vaccination status. Among young women who had not received the vaccine, approximately 60% had been pregnant at least once versus only 35% of HPV-vaccinated women; for married women, the respective percentages were 75% versus 50%. Calling for study of the HPV vaccine’s effects on fertility, the researcher noted that “if 100% of females in this study had received the HPV vaccine, data suggest the number of women having ever conceived would have fallen by 2 million.”

Calling for study of the HPV vaccine’s effects on fertility, the researcher noted that “if 100% of females in this study had received the HPV vaccine, data suggest the number of women having ever conceived would have fallen by 2 million.”

Some researchers speculate that the aluminum adjuvants in HPV vaccines offer a possible mechanism to explain post-HPV vaccine ovarian failure. Animal studies indicate that aluminum exposure can “inhibit expression of female reproductive hormones and…induce histologic changes in the ovaries.” In addition to Gardasil and Gardasil 9, aluminum-containing vaccines include those with diphtheria, tetanus and pertussis components (DT, DTaP, Td and Tdap) and the Haemophilus influenzae type b (Hib), hepatitis A and B, meningococcal and pneumococcal vaccines.

Another problematic HPV vaccine ingredient is polysorbate 80, which is also present in many other vaccines, including DTaP-containing and Tdap vaccines, hepatitis B, rotavirus, the meningococcal and pneumococcal vaccines—and most flu shots. One study has linked influenza vaccination to as much as a 7.7 times greater risk of spontaneous abortion. In a study looking at adverse reactions to flu shots administered to pregnant women between 2010 and 2016, over 11% of the women reported spontaneous abortions.

Decades ago, researchers showed that polysorbate 80 induced “marked alterations in cell permeability”—hardly a desirable characteristic. And last year, industry insiders identified polysorbate degradation in pharmaceutical formulations as “a major quality concern and potential patient risk factor.” In the early 1990s, a study in female rats linked polysorbate 80 to effects on female reproductive organs. The above-mentioned Australian researchers recently pointed to this 1990s finding, noting that because the “threshold dose” for polysorbate 80’s ovarian effects remains unstudied in humans, its relevance to ovarian failure in Gardasil recipients also remains a pertinent question.

A new growth industry?

More and more couples are resorting to sperm donors and gestational surrogates, and assisted reproductive technologies now contribute to almost 2% of U.S. births. Pharmaceutical companies are eagerly embracing the fertility drug market as a growth sector. Some of the leading manufacturers of female fertility drugs—companies like Merck, Sanofi and Pfizer—also happen to be the primary makers of childhood vaccines in the U.S. Never mind that studies increasingly link assisted reproductive technologies to asthma, autism and chronic disease risks in the offspring—those problems just offer Pharma more money-making opportunities.



Paul Offit Unwittingly Exposes Scientific Fraud of FDA’s Vaccine Licensure

By Jeremy R. Hammond, Contributing Writer, Children’s Health Defense 


By telling parents not to do antibody blood tests to avoid needlessly vaccinating their child, Paul Offit unwittingly exposes scientific fraud by the FDA.


Many parents today are naturally concerned about the number of vaccine doses their children are exposed to by following the schedule recommended by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). To many parents, it makes sense to avoid vaccinating their children unnecessarily, and to this end a blood test can be done to determine an antibody titer, or the level of antibodies in the blood. If a child already has a protective antibody titer, indicating immunity to a given infectious disease, then there would be no reason for the child to undergo the risks associated with vaccinating against that disease.

To persuade parents that this is wrong thinking, the Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia (CHOP) has published a video in which Dr. Paul Offit argues that such blood tests are of little practical use, and that the best thing for parents to do is just to get their children all of the vaccinations strictly according to the CDC’s schedule.

Offit’s argument, however, is fallacious.

Moreover, the nature of his argument reveals how advocates of existing public vaccine policy rely on deception in order to persuade the public to comply with the wishes of the bureaucrats and technocrats who determine that policy.

In fact, properly understood in its context, Offit’s argument undercuts the case for public vaccine policy inasmuch as it highlights how, in order to get vaccine products to the market, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) colludes with the pharmaceutical industry in what is arguably scientific fraud.

… just because someone doesn’t have a protective level of antibodies doesn’t necessarily mean that they aren’t immune.

Offit’s Argument

In the video, Paul Offit introduces himself as coming from the so-called “Vaccine Education Center” at the CHOP. Then he acknowledges parents’ concern about unnecessary vaccinations:

One thing that parents worry about, or wonder about is, do I really need a vaccine if I’ve already had one or two doses? Do I really need to finish out the schedule, for example? Or maybe I’ve already been exposed to a virus or bacteria, so I don’t really need to even get vaccines at all.

So instead, how about if I just have my blood tested to see whether or not I have a protective immune response already against that particular virus or bacteria.

But, Offit argues, this is “not as easily done as you would think” because antibody titers are not necessarily indicative of immunity.

He names the hepatitis B virus and the Haemohilus influenzae type B bacterium as examples of pathogens for which a certain quantity of antibodies in the blood is equivalent to immunity.

This is not the case, however, for other pathogens, including the measles virus; rotavirus; and the pertussis bacterium, which causes whooping cough.

With measles, having a certain antibody titer does correlate with immunity, but a lack of antibodies isn’t necessarily indicative of a lack of immunity. In Offit’s words (bold emphasis added):

However, there was an outbreak of measles in the late 1980s, early 1990s that swept through the United States that caused more than 50,000 hospitalizations and caused about 120, children mostly, to die from measles.

When people looked back at that outbreak, you found that there were many people who had been vaccinated, but who didn’t have antibodies against measles who were still protected. The reason they were still protected is they had something called memory cells. Memory immunological cells, like B- and T-cells, which then when they were exposed to the virus became activated, differentiated, made antibodies, which then protected them. So even though they didn’t have circulating antibodies in their bloodstream, they still have these memory cells in their immune system that could then respond when they were exposed. So, if you looked at those people and saw they didn’t have antibodies, you would have falsely concluded they weren’t protected when they were.

In short, just because someone doesn’t have a protective level of antibodies doesn’t necessarily mean that they aren’t immune. One can still be immune to a disease due to what is known as cell-mediated immunity, which is a different branch of the immune system from humoral, or antibody, immunity.

Conversely, Offit continues (bold emphasis added):

Sometimes you can have antibodies in your bloodstream and not be protected.

So, for example rotavirus or pertussis bacteria affect really just the mucosal surfaces. So, rotaviruses just infect the lining of the small intestine. Pertussis or whooping cough infects sort of the lining of the trachea or windpipe and the lungs. That virus and that bacteria don’t really spread into the bloodstream and cause a systemic infection. They’re so-called mucosal infections. So when you look at immunity in the bloodstream, that doesn’t necessarily predict whether or not there’s going to be adequate immunity at that mucosal surface.

In short, just because someone has a high antibody titer doesn’t mean that they are immune. Cell-mediated immunity and mucosal immunity—or both—may also—or instead—be required to provide adequate protection against disease.

Offit summarizes by saying that “titers are difficult” and “not a perfect predictor” of immunity, concluding that “the best way of knowing that you’re protected is to get the vaccines that are recommended at the time they are recommended.”

Thus, Offit dismisses the idea of trying to avoid vaccination with a blood test as practically useless while characterizing vaccination as the best guarantee of immunity.

But this argument is neither logically valid nor honest.

That it’s safe to vaccinate children according to the CDC’s schedule, by his reasoning, is merely assumed.

Legitimate Concerns about Vaccine Safety

Today, children vaccinated according to the CDC’s schedule will have received fifty doses of fourteen vaccines by the age of six. By the age of eighteen, children may may have received upwards of seventy-two doses of nineteen vaccines.

As acknowledged by the Institute of Medicine in a 2013 report, no studies have been done to test the entire vaccination schedule to determine the long-term effects of the cumulative number of vaccines and their ingredients, which include the known neurotoxins aluminum and mercury.

(Aluminum is used in some vaccines as an adjuvant, or a substance intended to provoke a stronger immune response, i.e., an increased level of antibodies. Mercury is used as a preservative. Specifically, the preservative thimerosal is about half ethylmercury by weight. It was included in numerous childhood vaccines until the turn of the century, when it was removed from most after it became publicly known that the CDC’s schedule was exposing children to cumulative levels of mercury that exceeded the government’s own safety guidelines. Multi-dose vials of the inactivated influenza vaccine, which is recommended for pregnant women and infants as young as six months, still contain thimerosal.)

Naturally, the large number of vaccine doses and the lack of safety studies, coupled with alarming rates of chronic disease and developmental disorders among children, is a cause of concern for many parents. The idea that they should try to avoid unnecessary vaccinations is certainly a reasonable one.

Yet in his response to these parents, not even the slightest effort is made by Offit to address the question of safety. That it’s safe to vaccinate children according to the CDC’s schedule, by his reasoning, is merely assumed.

That, of course, is the fallacy of begging the question. But Offit’s fallacies don’t end there.

… during the mid to late 1980s, about 40 percent of measles cases were occurring in vaccinated schoolchildren, according to a study published in the journal of the American Medical Association, JAMA, in 1990.

Vaccine Failure

To strengthen his characterization of vaccines as the best guarantee of immunity, Offit highlights cases in which vaccinated individuals did not have a protective antibody titer and yet were still immune to measles.

Naturally, he doesn’t mention that the outbreak he speaks of was to a much greater extent characterized by large numbers of children who were vaccinated and yet who still got measles.

Bringing up the phenomenon known as “vaccine failure” just wouldn’t do, given his purpose of persuading parents to vaccinate their children strictly according to the CDC’s schedule.

In fact, during the mid to late 1980s, about 40 percent of measles cases were occurring in vaccinated schoolchildren, according to a study published in the journal of the American Medical Association, JAMA, in 1990.

Most of these cases were attributed to what is known as “primary vaccine failure”, which refers to the failure of the vaccine to confer immunity. Another possible explanation was “secondary vaccine failure”, which refers to the waning effect of vaccine-conferred immunity.

For outbreaks occurring in the year 1989, according to a paper published in Clinical Microbiology Reviews in 1995, “Approximately 80% of the affected school-age children were appropriately vaccinated.” As prior studies had shown, “epidemics of measles can be sustained in school-age populations despite their having very high vaccination rates.”

Among the explanations for this were both primary and secondary vaccine failure.

Until that time, a single dose of measles vaccine was recommended for children by the CDC, to be administered between the ages of twelve and fifteen months. It was precisely because measles outbreaks were occurring in highly vaccinated populations, however, that the CDC’s Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) began considering adding a second dose to the schedule, to be administered between the ages of four and six years.

As the CDC itself explains in its Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report (MMWR) of June 14, 2013, “measles outbreaks among school-aged children who had received 1 dose of measles vaccine prompted ACIP in 1989 to recommend that all children receive 2 doses of measles-containing vaccine, preferably as MMR vaccine.”

Moreover, the CDC openly acknowledges that for most children who’ve received the first dose of measles vaccine, the second dose is unnecessary.

In the CDC’s own words (with my bold emphasis), “The second dose of measles-containing vaccine primarily was intended to induce immunity in the small percentage of persons who did not seroconvert after vaccination with the first dose of vaccine (primary vaccine failure).”

Offit’s argument is that since a negative antibody titer after the first dose is not necessarily indicative of a lack of immunity, therefore parents should just go ahead and get their child the second dose, too. But that argument doesn’t make any sense. It’s a non sequitur fallacy. The conclusion simply does not follow from the premise.

Rather, the conclusion that follows, in the case of the measles vaccine, is that parents who think that the second dose might provide no additional benefit and would hence pose an unnecessary risk for their child are probably correct in their assessment.

… for the purposes of licensure by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA), vaccine manufacturers are not required to demonstrate that their product is actually protective against the target disease.

The FDA’s Unscientific Surrogate Marker of Immunity

The second part of the argument presented by Paul Offit on behalf of the Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia is that, in the case of other pathogens such as rotavirus and pertussis, a high concentration of antibodies in the blood is not a good indicator of immunity.

It does not follow, however, that there’s no point in getting a blood test to determine antibody titer.

To illustrate, if a child has not yet received any doses of pertussis vaccine and yet has a high antibody titer, it would indicate that the child has already been exposed to and successfully mounted an immune response against the bacterial infection, hence rendering vaccination an unnecessary risk.

Nevertheless, Offit is correct to conclude that, for vaccinated children, there is little use in parents getting a blood test to determine antibody titer. But that’s just because of the differences between natural and vaccine-conferred immunity.

The example of pertussis is salient. Natural immunity to pertussis confers both cell-mediated (Th1) and mucosal immunity (Th17), whereas vaccination skews the immune system toward an antibody response (Th2). And as observed in a paper published in February 2019 in the Journal of the Pediatric Infectious Diseases Society, “The Th17/Th1 response prevents infection and disease and also provides longer-lasting protection than does the Th1/Th2 response.”

In other words, the immunity conferred by natural infection is superior to that conferred by the vaccine.

In light of that acknowledged fact, now consider the fact that, for the purposes of licensure by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA), vaccine manufacturers are not required to demonstrate that their product is actually protective against the target disease. Instead, the FDA uses antibody titers as a surrogate measure of immunity, which is unscientific precisely for the reason given by Paul Offit and the CHOP: antibody titers are not necessarily evidence of immunity.

As an example, take Infarix, the brand name for the diphtheria, tetanus, and acellular pertussis vaccine (DTaP) produced by GlaxoSmithKline Biologics (GSK). The pertussis component was approved by the FDA on the basis of blood tests to measure the antibody response to the pertussis antigens included in the vaccine.

The FDA did so even though, as GSK itself admits right on the package insert for Infarix, “The role of the different components produced by B. pertussis in either the pathogenesis of, or the immunity to, pertussis is not well understood. There is no well established serological correlate of protection for pertussis.” (Emphasis added.)

In other words, they don’t really understand how immunity to pertussis works or hence how the vaccine works (although continued science is illuminating those questions, as reflected in the recent study elucidating differences between naturally acquired and vaccine-conferred immunity). What they do know is that in most children, the vaccine stimulates the production of antibodies against the included pertussis antigens, but that doesn’t necessarily mean that the vaccine confers immunity to those children.

In short, what Offit and the CHOP fail to inform their viewers when trying to convince parents that there’s no practical use for getting antibody blood tests is that antibody production is precisely the endpoint the FDA considers for vaccine licensure as a surrogate for demonstrated immunity.

Other inconvenient facts that Offit and the CHOP choose not to disclose to their viewers are that (1) the antibody protection conferred by vaccination lasts only two to four years, (2) vaccination does not prevent people from becoming carriers and spreading pertussis to others, and (3) mass vaccination has caused a genetic shift so that the dominant strains in circulation today lack a key antigen component of the vaccine called pertactin (PRN).

As the CDC itself concluded in 2013 based on data from pertussis outbreaks in Washington and Vermont, “vaccinated patients had significantly higher odds than unvaccinated patients of being infected with PRN-deficient strains.” Hence, pertactin-deficient strains “may have a selective advantage in infecting DTaP-vaccinated persons.”

Far from providing parents with a convincing argument for why they should strictly comply with the CDC’s childhood vaccine schedule, what Paul Offit and the CHOP have provided us with in this video is a strong argument for why the very process by which vaccines obtain licensure by the FDA is scientifically invalid.

Indeed, the conclusion seems inescapable that the FDA’s use of antibody titers as a surrogate measure of immunity for the purposes of vaccine licensure amounts to scientific fraud.

Offit and the CHOP’s Undisclosed Conflicts of Interest

That Paul Offit and the Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia would produce a piece of propaganda intended to manufacture parents’ consent for public vaccine policy should come as a surprise to no one.

After all, Paul Offit is a vaccine industry insider who has worked for both the pharmaceutical industry and the government. In fact, he once sat on the CDC’s advisory committee, and during his time on the ACIP, he advocated the rotavirus vaccine for routine use in children. At the same time, he was working on the development of a rotavirus vaccine under a grant from the pharmaceutical giant Merck.

The Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia co-owned the patent for that rotavirus vaccine with Offit. The patent was later sold to Merck under a deal in which Offit profited handsomely. He has publicly acknowledged making “several million dollars; a lot of money” from the deal.

In addition to profiting from the development of Merck’s RotaTeq vaccine and directing the so-called “Vaccine Education Center” at the CHOP, he also holds the hospital’s Maurice R. Hilleman Chair in Vaccinology, which was created in honor of the former senior vice president of Merck, which provided a $1.5 million endowment to the CHOP and the University of Pennsylvania to “accelerate the pace of vaccine research”.

Naturally, Offit didn’t disclose his or CHOP’s lucrative partnership with the pharmaceutical industry when introducing himself as coming from the “Vaccine Education Center” of a children’s hospital and presenting his argument that parents should strictly comply with the CDC’s recommendations by getting their children all of the vaccine doses on the schedule.

The Takeaways

Paul Offit and the Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia argue that there’s no practical use to parents getting blood tests for their child to determine antibody titers and that vaccination is the best guarantee of immunity. But neither of those premises are true.

For one, in this propaganda video, Offit begs the question by presuming that its safe for children to be vaccinated strictly according to the CDC’s schedule despite no long-term clinical studies ever having been done to determine the schedule’s safety.

For another, he characterizes the measles vaccine as conferring a long-lasting immunity even after antibody levels have waned while completely ignoring the known phenomenon of vaccine failure.

He tries to dissuade parents from doing a blood test to avoid vaccinating unnecessarily, but the reality is that parents who believe the second dose of measles vaccine may be unnecessary for their child are likely correct, given the CDC’s acknowledgment that the second dose is specifically intended to try to stimulate a protective antibody titer among those who didn’t seroconvert after the first dose.

The argument presented is that the lack of correlation between antibodies and immunity for some pathogens, including rotavirus and pertussis, means parents should forego blood testing and just get their children all the vaccine doses on the CDC’s schedule. But the more valid conclusion to be drawn from this lack of correlation is that, in order to get vaccines to market, the FDA colludes with the pharmaceutical industry in what is arguably scientific fraud.

Paul Offit and the Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia in this video aren’t presenting parents with the knowledge they need to know in order to make an informed choice about whether to vaccinate their children. Instead, they are issuing deceitful propaganda intended to manufacture consent for public vaccine policy, which isn’t too surprising given Offit and the hospital’s own partnership with the pharmaceutical industry.

This article was originally published at and has been republished here with permission.

Jeremy R. Hammond is an independent political analyst, publisher and editor of Foreign Policy Journal, author, and contributing writer for Children’s Health Defense. To stay updated with his independent journalism on vaccines, subscribe to his newsletter.

Fully Vaccinated vs. Unvaccinated—Part 4

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


Fully Vaccinated Versus Unvaccinated—The Science is an on-going series summarizing the results of different studies comparing the health of fully vaccinated people versus unvaccinated people. Part four takes a look at Swine Flu, Tdap,  Rotavirus, Measles and DPT vaccines and the higher rates/occurrences of  Narcolepsy, Chorioamnionitis, Intussusception, Allergy and Asthma, plus Thimerosal exposure as a whole and its relationship to Motor Tics and Premature Puberty.

Titles of Vaxxed/Unvaxxed Slides Below:

  • Swine Flu Vaccine (Pandemrix) Increases Rate of Narcolepsy in Swedish Children by 25X;
  • Risk of Chorioamnionitis in Pregnant Women Vaccinated with Tdap Versus Pregnant Women Not Vaccinated with Tdap;
  • First Dose of Rotavirus Vaccine (Rotarix) Increases Intussusception Odds by 5.8X;
  • Measles Vaccination Versus Measles Infection Increases the Odds of Atopy (Allergy) by 2.8X;
  • Higher Exposure to Thimerosal from Infant Vaccines Increases the Odds of Motor Tics (2.19X) in Boys;
  • Delaying the First Three DPT Doses Reduces Asthma Risk by 61%;
  • Exposure to Higher Levels of Thimerosal in Infant Vaccines Before 13 Months of Age Increases the Rate of Premature Puberty by 6.45X;

(See full-sized Part 4 slides or see the complete Vaxxed-Unvaxxed presentation, Parts 1-7.)


Fully Vaccinated vs. Unvaccinated — A Summary of the Research

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


The Institute of Medicine (IOM) has repeatedly asked CDC to create studies which explain, “How do child health outcomes compare between fully vaccinated and unvaccinated children?”

During a November 2012 Congressional hearing on autism before the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, Dr. Coleen Boyle, the Director of the National Center on Birth Defects and Developmental Disabilities, gave evasive answers to lawmakers pressing her on this point. After considerable badgering, she finally stated, “We have not studied vaccinated versus unvaccinated [children].” That was perjury.

Verstraeten found a dramatic link between mercury-containing hepatitis B vaccines and several neurological injuries including autism and prepared the study for publication.

Boyle knew that CDC had commissioned an in-house researcher, Thomas Verstraeten to perform vaccinated/unvaccinated study on CDC’s giant Vaccine Safety Datalink (VSD) in 1999 (I summarize Verstraeten’s secret findings on slide 2). Verstraeten found a dramatic link between mercury-containing hepatitis B vaccines and several neurological injuries including autism and prepared the study for publication. CDC shared Verstraeten’s analysis with the then four vaccine makers but kept it secret from the American public.

The data in CDC’s 1999 Verstraeten study clearly inculpated thimerosal as the principle culprit behind the autism epidemic.

… removing all unvaccinated children, to bury the autism signal before publishing a sanitized version purporting to exculpate the vaccine.

Burying the results

The world’s largest vaccine maker GlaxoSmithKline (GSK) then whisked Verstraeten off to a sinecure in Brussels and CDC handed his raw data to his CDC boss Frank DeStefano and another researcher, Robert Davis who served as a vaccine industry consultant. Those two men tortured the data for 4 years, removing all unvaccinated children, to bury the autism signal before publishing a sanitized version purporting to exculpate the vaccine. The CDC then cut off public access to the VSD and to this day aggressively blocks any attempts by researchers to study health outcomes in vaccinated vs. unvaccinated populations.

Contemporary emails among CDC officials— obtained under the FOIA— and the transcripts from a secret 2000 meeting between government regulators and vaccine makers at Simpsonwood, Georgia, show HHS officials plotting to create phony studies to exonerate vaccines. CDC officials hired a Scandanavian, Poul Thorsen, giving him $10 million to create a series of fraudulent reports from Denmark. Thorsen dutifully produced the predetermined results but allegedly stole at least $1 million of the grant from CDC. He is now an international fugitive under Federal indictment and on HHS’s “Most Wanted” list (scroll down to see Thorsen). CDC continues to cite Thorsen’s studies as the bedrock for its claim that vaccines don’t cause autism.

Attempting to debunk the link

CDC officials Frank DeStefano and Coleen Boyle knew they needed to study an American population to convincingly debunk the vaccine/ autism link. They believed it would be safe to study the MMR vaccine because the MMR did not contain thimerosal. They assigned senior scientist and CDC whistleblower, Dr. William Thompson, and three other researchers from the Immunization Safety Office to study the MMR vaccine in Georgia children. Thompson worried about being dragged into another “circus” like the Verstraeten study. His bosses promised Thompson that this time there would be no mid-course shenanigans to bury unpleasant data. They would agree on protocols up front and stick to them no matter what the data revealed.

Nevertheless, when the data showed a shocking 364% increase in autism among African American boys given the MMR on time, Destefano ordered the four CDC scientists to destroy the damning information in large garbage cans. “I can’t believe we did what we did, but we did it”, recalls Thompson. That sanitized study is now cited in 97 subsequent publications as the proof that vaccines don’t cause autism. “I have great shame now when I meet the parent of a child with autism because I have been part of the problem.” Slide 12 shows the true results of Dr. Thompson’s original data.

Despite CDC’s efforts at suppression, independent scientists and research institutions (including UCLA) have managed to conduct and publish several additional vaccinated/unvaccinated studies since 1999. Those studies indicate high incidence of chronic diseases and brain and immune system injuries among vaccinated compared to unvaccinated cohorts. Some of those studies are summarize in this presentation.

See the 45 slides of the Vaxxed-Unvaxxed presentation.

Fully Vaccinated vs. Unvaccinated — Part 2

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

The data in CDC’s 1999 Verstraeten study clearly inculpated thimerosal as the principle culprit behind the autism epidemic. Contemporary emails among CDC officials— obtained under the FOIA— and the transcripts from a secret 2000 meeting between government regulators and vaccine makers at Simpsonwood, Georgia, show HHS officials plotting to create phony studies to exonerate vaccines. CDC officials hired a Scandanavian, Poul Thorsen, giving him $10 million to create a series of fraudulent reports from Denmark. Thorsen dutifully produced the predetermined results but allegedly stole at least $1 million of the grant from CDC. He is now an international fugitive under Federal indictment and on HHS’s “Most Wanted” list.

CDC continues to cite Thorsen’s studies as the bedrock for its claim that vaccines don’t cause autism. CDC officials Frank DeStefano and Coleen Boyle knew they needed to study an American population to convincingly debunk the vaccine/ autism link. They believed it would be safe to study the MMR vaccine because the MMR did not contain thimerosal. They assigned senior scientist and CDC whistleblower, Dr. William Thompson, and three other researchers from the Immunization Safety Office to study the MMR vaccine in Georgia children. Thompson worried about being dragged into another “circus” like the Verstraeten study. His bosses promised Thompson that this time there would be no mid-course shenanigans to bury unpleasant data. They would agree on protocols up front and stick to them no matter what the data revealed.

Nevertheless, when the data showed a shocking 364% increase in autism among African American boys given the MMR on time, Destefano ordered the four CDC scientists to destroy the damning information in large garbage cans. “I can’t believe we did what we did, but we did it”, recalls Thompson. That sanitized study is now cited in 97 subsequent publications as the proof that vaccines don’t cause autism. “I have great shame now when I meet the parent of a child with autism because I have been part of the problem.” Slide three shows the true results of Dr. Thompson’s original data.

Titles of Vaxxed/Unvaxxed Slides Below:

  • Polio Vaccination Increases Type I Diabetes 2.5X;
  • Raw CDC Data Shows Vaccination on Time with MMR Increased Odds of Autism 3.64X;
  • Thimerosal-Containing Hepatitis B Series Increases Odds of Autism 3.39X;
  • Human Papilloma Virus Vaccine Increases the Odds of Asthma 8.01X;
  • Thimerosal-Containing Hepatitis B Series Increases Odds of Premature Puberty 2.1X;
  • MMR Vaccine Increases Risk of Crohn’s Disease 3.01X and Ulcerative Colitis 2.53X.

(See full-sized Part 2 slides or see the complete Vaxxed-Unvaxxed presentation, Parts 1-7.)


View/Download PDF

Mental Health Problems—The Sad “New Normal” on College Campuses

By the Children’s Health Defense Team


College campuses are witnessing record levels of student mental health problems, ranging from depression and anxiety disorders to self-injurious behaviors and worse. A clinician writing a few years ago in Psychology Today proclaimed it neither “exaggeration” nor “alarmist” to acknowledge that young Americans are experiencing “greater levels of stress and psychopathology than any time in the nation’s history”—with ramifications that are “difficult to overstate.”

The problems on college campuses are manifestations of challenges that begin sapping American children’s health at younger ages. For example, many students enter college with a crushing burden of chronic illness or a teen-onset mental health diagnosis that has made them dependent on psychotropic or other medications. The childhood prevalence of different forms of cognitive impairment has also increased and is associated with subsequent mental health difficulties. In addition, a majority of American students are now unprepared academically for their college careers, as evidenced by historically low levels of achievement on standardized tests. Once in college, large proportions of students—increasingly characterized as emotionally fragile—blame mental health challenges for significantly interfering with their ability to perform. The outcomes of these trends—including rising suicide rates among students and declining college completion rates—bode poorly for young people’s and our nation’s future.

… more than three in five (63%) respondents reported experiencing overwhelming anxiety in the past year, while two in five (42%) reported feeling so depressed that it was difficult to function.

Crippling anxiety and depression

A 2018 survey at 140 educational institutions asked almost 90,000 college students about their health over the past 12 months. The survey found that more than three in five (63%) respondents reported experiencing “overwhelming anxiety” in the past year, while two in five (42%) reported feeling “so depressed that it was difficult to function.” Students also reported that anxiety (27%), sleep difficulties (22%) and depression (19%) had adversely affected their academic performance.

In the same survey, 12% of college students reported having “seriously considered suicide.” Another study, which looked at college students with depression, anxiety and attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) who had been referred by college counseling centers for psychopharmacological evaluation, found that the same proportion—12%—had actually made at least one suicide attempt. Half of the students in the latter study had previously received a prescription for medication, most often antidepressants.

Colleges are feeling the squeeze, with demand growing nationally for campus mental health services. A study by Penn State’s Center for Collegiate Mental Health reported an average 30% to 40% increase in students’ use of counseling centers between 2009 and 2015 at a time when enrollment grew by just 5%. According to Penn State’s report, the “increase in demand is primarily characterized by a growing frequency of students with a lifetime prevalence of threat-to-self indicators.”

College vaccines

Most colleges expect new students to have had the full complement of CDC-recommended childhood vaccines and to top up before college matriculation with any vaccines or doses that they may have previously missed. In particular, universities are likely to emphasize tetanus-diphtheria-pertussis (Tdap) and measles-mumps-rubella (MMR) boosters; the human papillomavirus (HPV) vaccine; meningococcal vaccination; and annual flu shots.

… found particularly strong associations for three disorders common on college campuses—anorexia nervosa, obsessive-compulsive disorder and anxiety disorders—and observed a surge in diagnosed disorders after influenza vaccination (one of the vaccines that college students are most likely to get).

It is unlikely that clinics are issuing warnings to freshly vaccinated college students about potential adverse consequences to watch out for, yet two universities (Penn State and Yale) made news in 2017 when their researchers published a study showing a temporal relationship between newly diagnosed neuropsychiatric disorders and vaccines received in the previous three to twelve months. Although the researchers analyzed health records for 6- to 15-year-old children, not college students, they found particularly strong associations for three disorders common on college campuses—anorexia nervosa, obsessive-compulsive disorder and anxiety disorders—and observed a surge in diagnosed disorders after influenza vaccination (one of the vaccines that college students are most likely to get). They also detected significant temporal associations linking meningitis vaccination to both anorexia and chronic tic disorders.

To distance themselves from too strongly implicating vaccines, these researchers later proposed several less controversial mechanisms to explain their findings, including the presence of predisposing inflammatory or genetic factors. One of the researchers even suggested that the “trauma” of getting “stuck with needles” might be triggering the adverse neuropsychiatric outcomes.

This absurd sidestepping ignores considerable experimental evidence from both animals and humans linking the immune responses produced by vaccines (and vaccine adjuvants) to adverse mental health symptoms. In fact, some researchers vaccinate healthy animals or people on purpose just to study this phenomenon. For example:

  • A study intentionally injected mice with the vaccine used against tuberculosis (BCG vaccine) to induce “depression-like behavior,” finding that the vaccine-induced depression was resistant to treatment with standard antidepressants.
  • Another study in mice found that both the antigens and the aluminum adjuvant in the Gardasil HPV vaccine produced significantly more behavioral abnormalities, including depression, in the exposed mice compared to unexposed mice.
  • University of California researchers followed healthy undergraduates for one week before and one week after influenza vaccination; in the absence of any physical symptoms, they detected increased post-vaccination inflammation that was associated with more mood disturbances—especially “depressed mood and cognitive symptoms.”
  • Another study of influenza vaccination compared vaccine recipients who had preexisting depression and anxiety to “mentally healthy” recipients, finding that both groups had “decreased positive affect” following vaccination; however, the vaccine’s impact on mood was “more pronounced for those with anxiety or depression.”
  • Neuroscientists at Oxford injected healthy young adults with typhoid vaccine to explore “the link between inflammation, sleep and depression,” finding that the vaccine “produced significant impairment in several measures of sleep continuity” in the vaccine group compared to placebo; the researchers noted in their conclusions that impaired sleep is both a “hallmark” and “predictor” of major depression.
  • Another group of UK researchers who likewise injected healthy young adult males with the typhoid vaccine found that, within hours, the vaccine had produced measurable social-cognitive deficits.

Interestingly, a study conducted in 2014 found that vaccine-mental health effects may cut both ways. Researchers who assessed self-reported depression and anxiety (and other measures) in 11-year-olds before and up to six months after routine vaccination found that children who reported more initial depressive and anxious symptoms had a stronger vaccine response (defined by “elevated and persistently higher antibody responses”) and that this association remained even after controlling for confounders. Given that this type of overactive vaccine response can be a harbinger of autoimmunity, some researchers have urged more attention to these “bidirectional” effects.

… we are kidding ourselves if we ignore the possible contribution of a cumulative vaccine load that has children receiving dozens of doses by age 18 …

Safe spaces or safe vaccines?

As “safe spaces” multiply on college campuses, and elite private institutions offer dumbed-down for-credit courses like “The Sociology of Miley Cyrus” or “Beginning Dungeons and Dragons,” it is time to take stock of the health challenges—both mental and physical—that are sabotaging college students’ chances of success. Researchers already have noted a disturbing mismatch between available cognitive abilities and the types of “non-routine analytical-cognitive” skills that our nation will increasingly need in the future. While variables such as student debt certainly factor into college students’ stress equation, we are kidding ourselves if we ignore the possible contribution of a cumulative vaccine load that has children receiving dozens of doses by age 18—and piles on even more when kids go off to college.


Close Ties and Financial Entanglements: The CDC-Guaranteed Vaccine Market

—Conflicts of Interest Undermine Children’s Health, Part V

By the Children’s Health Defense Team


[Note: This is Part V in a series of articles adapted from the second Children’s Health Defense eBook: Conflicts of Interest Undermine Children’s Health. The first eBook, The Sickest Generation: The Facts Behind the Children’s Health Crisis and Why It Needs to End, described how children’s health began to worsen dramatically in the late 1980s following fateful changes in the childhood vaccine schedule.]

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s (CDC’s) Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) has issued annual vaccine recommendations for the U.S. civilian population since 1995. ACIP works in partnership with leading medical trade organizations such as the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP), the American Academy of Family Physicians (AAFP), the American College of Physicians (ACP) and the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG).

ACIP’s industry-beholden membership roster reads like a “who’s who” of the individuals and organizations who spearhead the nation’s vaccine business: fifteen voting members from leading medical schools, children’s hospitals and universities; eight ex officio members from federal agencies such as the FDA and the Department of Defense (DOD); and thirty non-voting representatives serving as liaisons with entities ranging from Sanofi to Cigna and Planned Parenthood (with the latter being a leading promoter and provider of HPV vaccines).

A tangled web

The longstanding conflicts of interest that hold ACIP members captive to pharmaceutical industry interests are well known and well documented. In the early 2000s, a four-month investigation by United Press International (UPI) identified “a web of close ties” and financial entanglements between ACIP members and vaccine companies, including:

  • Sharing vaccine patents
  • Owning vaccine company stock
  • Getting research funding or money to monitor vaccine testing
  • Receiving funding for academic departments or appointments
According to an investigation by the Committee on Government Reform in 2000, the CDC not only frequently grants waivers but also looks the other way when ACIP members provide incomplete financial disclosure.

In 2003, Congressman Dan Burton described the “paradox” of the CDC “routinely allow[ing] scientists with blatant conflicts of interest to serve on influential advisory committees that make recommendations on new vaccines, as well as policy matters,” even though “these same scientists have financial ties, academic affiliations, and other vested interests in the products and companies for which they are supposed to be providing unbiased oversight.”

As per the Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA), individuals appointed to ACIP must file an Office of Government Ethics form and annually update a financial disclosure report. Voting members also are expected to publicly disclose “all vaccine-related interests and work” at the beginning of each ACIP meeting. However, the CDC has shown itself only too willing to issue conflicts of interest waivers if it ascertains (as it routinely does) that “the need for the individual’s services outweighs the potential for conflicts of interest created by the financial interests involved.” According to an investigation by the Committee on Government Reform in 2000, the CDC not only frequently grants waivers but also looks the other way when ACIP members provide incomplete financial disclosure. Moreover, a loophole allows a considerable amount of ACIP’s work to get done in Work Groups whose members are exempt from the FACA procedural conflict-of-interest requirements, even though the Work Groups “serve a key scientific role in support of vaccine policy development.”

Golden ticket

After ACIP makes its vaccine recommendations, the CDC publishes them in the Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report. The recommendations (in CDC officials’ own words) “have [a] major impact on immunization policies and practice in the United States and in other countries.” Stated another way, ACIP’s “imprimatur” is a “golden ticket” for vaccine manufacturers. Vaccines on the CDC’s schedule become virtually mandatory for American children attending a “public or private elementary, middle or secondary school, child care center, nursery school, family day care home or developmental center.”

At present, the childhood vaccine schedule requires almost six dozen doses through age 18 for sixteen diseases.

Vaccine exemptions are currently available to varying degrees in 47 states for medical, religious or philosophical reasons. Reflecting the public’s growing concerns about vaccine safety, the use of non-medical exemptions increased by 19% from 2009 to 2013. However, all three types of exemptions are under aggressive attack. Supported by pharmaceutical industry lobbying and CDC edicts, 12 of 13 exemption-related bills signed into law between 2011 and 2017 “limited the ability to exempt,” erecting more legal barriers for concerned parents.

Within the no-liability context of the 1986 National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act (NCVIA), the CDC and ACIP played a major role in opening the floodgates for the childhood vaccine schedule’s dramatic expansion. In the early 1980s, children received three vaccines for seven illnesses—two combination vaccines (diphtheria-tetanus-pertussis and measles-mumps-rubella) and a polio vaccine—totaling two dozen doses by age 18. In the decade following 1989 (beginning soon after the NCVIA’s implementation), the CDC packed multiple doses of several more vaccines onto the childhood schedule, including those for Haemophilus influenzae type b (Hib), hepatitis B (on the day of birth) and varicella (chickenpox), as well as a rotavirus vaccine (withdrawn a year after its introduction). Next, in the first decade of the 2000s, the CDC recommended an even larger batch of new vaccines, going after not just children but also adolescents and adults: hepatitis A, human papillomavirus (HPV), meningococcal conjugate, pneumococcal conjugate, rotavirus (again) and zoster (shingles), along with an adult tetanus-diphtheria-pertussis booster (Tdap) and a massive expansion of influenza vaccine recommendations for all ages. At present, the childhood vaccine schedule requires almost six dozen doses through age 18 for sixteen diseases.

Profits and patents

The CDC is a major player in the vaccine marketplace, buying half of all childhood vaccines in the U.S. and then selling them to contracted public health agencies through the Vaccines for Children (VFC) Program, which pushes free and low-cost vaccines on indigent children. Over the past three decades, the CDC’s vaccine purchases have increased 15-fold as the average cost of fully vaccinating a child to age 18 rose from $100 to $2192—while vaccine companies have raked in the profits.

… the large number of patents held by the CDC deserves an in-depth review to determine exactly what current financial relationships with vaccine makers now exist and what…current impact those revenue streams are likely having on vaccine safety positions.

The agency’s involvement with vaccine manufacturers also extends to patents, licensing agreements and collaboration on projects to develop new vaccines. In fact, the CDC and the National Institutes of Health (NIH) profit handsomely from their ownership or co-ownership with private sector partners of vaccine-related patents. An early 2017 analysis of Google Patents results showed that the CDC held 56 patents pertaining to various aspects of vaccine development, manufacturing, delivery and adjuvants. By May 2019, the search terms “Centers for Disease Control and Prevention vaccines” retrieved 143 results in the Google Patents search engine, and a separate legal website displayed 10 screens worth of CDC patents, both vaccine- and non-vaccine-related. The author of the 2017 analysis suggests that the large number of patents held by the CDC “deserves an in-depth review to determine exactly what current financial relationships with vaccine makers now exist and what…current impact those revenue streams are likely having on vaccine safety positions.”

Gardasil is “perhaps the leading example of a new form of unconstrained government self-dealing, in arrangements whereby [HHS] can transfer technology to pharmaceutical partners, [and] simultaneously both approve and protect their partners’ technology licenses while also taking a cut of the profits.” It seems doubtful that agencies can remain impartial in the face of these profits.

At NIH, the influence on policy of profit-generating patents and licenses warrants similar scrutiny. According to one in-depth report, because “NIH frequently funds research with commercially valuable outcomes,” when NIH patents its inventions, the patents become “valuable commercial property” for the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), the patents’ owner. In 2006, researchers described commercial partners as “essential to the NIH’s role of helping to facilitate the formation of novel healthcare products for the public.”

Some of the key technologies underlying the development of the HPV vaccines Gardasil and Cervarix emerged from research patented by the NIH’s National Cancer Institute (NCI), which then licensed the technology to Merck, MedImmune and GlaxoSmithKline. By 2009, HPV licensing had become NIH’s top generator of royalty revenues. Gardasil is “perhaps the leading example of a new form of unconstrained government self-dealing, in arrangements whereby [HHS] can transfer technology to pharmaceutical partners, [and] simultaneously both approve and protect their partners’ technology licenses while also taking a cut of the profits.” It seems doubtful that agencies can remain impartial in the face of these profits.


Pertussis: Vaccine Failure, Not Failure to Vaccinate

By the Children’s Heath Defense Team


This is the latest peer reviewed science-not “vaccine misinformation.” These studies show that the Pertussis (whooping cough) vaccine has now failed. Studies show that by five years after completion of the DTaP series, children were up to 15 times more likely to acquire pertussis compared to the first year after the series. California schools are now suffering a Pertussis outbreak (3,455 cases in 2018 compared to 14 Measles cases) affecting primarily vaccinated children.

With mandates legislation sweeping across the nation, the stakes are too high for citizens to tolerate laziness, scientific illiteracy and a default to collegiality in our elected leaders. It’s time for lawmakers to fact-check their sources.
“More recent studies show that by 5 years after completion of a DTaP series, children were up to 15 times more likely to acquire pertussis compared to the first year after the series. Studies have also documented rapid decline in pertussis antibodies within as few as 2–3 years of the most recent aP vaccination, often to pre-vaccination levels and although antibody levels alone are not necessarily indicative of waning immunity, in this case given the higher risk of infection after aP vaccine with time, it is strongly suggestive of it.”…/the-112-year-odyssey-…/
“In the last 13 years, major pertussis epidemics have occurred in the United States, and numerous studies have shown the deficiencies of DTaP vaccines, including the small number of antigens that the vaccines contain and the type of cellular immune response that they elicit. Because of linked-epitope suppression, all children who were primed by DTaP vaccines will be more susceptible to pertussis throughout their lifetimes, and there is no easy way to decrease this increased lifetime susceptibility.”…/1…/s12916-015-0382-8
“In this paper, we have presented empirical evidence — from both case and genomic data — for asymptomatic B. pertussis transmission following the switch from the wP to the aP vaccine in the US and UK. Then, using mathematical and computational transmission models, we have demonstrated that an aP vaccine which blocks symptomatic disease but not asymptomatic transmission is able to account for the observed increase in B. pertussis incidence…public health authorities may be facing a situation similar to that of polio, where vaccinated individuals can still transmit infection.”

The Research (Click on each image to see each full study or download the slides as a PowerPoint presentation):




The California Senate Voted to Give Your Child Whooping Cough

This is the latest peer reviewed science-not “vaccine misinformation.” These studies show that the Pertussis (whooping cough) vaccine has now failed. Studies show that by five years after completion of the DTaP series, children were up to 15 times more likely to acquire pertussis compared to the first year after the series. California schools are now suffering a Pertussis outbreak (3,455 cases in 2018 compared to 14 Measles cases) affecting primarily vaccinated children.

So why did 20 California Democratic senators vote to mandate this dangerous vaccine to our children? “The science is complicated” one Senator explained to RFK, Jr., “so mainly we rely on Richard Pan. It’s about collegiality to Richard.”

With mandates legislation sweeping across the nation, the stakes are too high for citizens to tolerate laziness, scientific illiteracy and a default to collegiality in our elected leaders. It’s time for lawmakers to fact-check their sources.

The Research (Click on each image to see each full study or download the slides as a PowerPoint presentation):




Vaccination as Orthodoxy: Conflicts of Interest Undermine Children’s Health Part I

By the Children’s Health Defense Team


Note: With this article, Children’s Health Defense is launching its second eBook: Conflicts of Interest Undermine Children’s Health. The first eBook, The Sickest Generation: The Facts Behind the Children’s Health Crisis and Why It Needs to End, described how children’s health began to worsen dramatically in the late 1980s following fateful changes in the childhood vaccine schedule. This part of our new eBook outlines the political developments in the late 1980s that allowed these changes to happen and describes the widespread conflicts of interest that continue to overshadow the U.S. vaccine program.

Vaccination has been a cornerstone of U.S. government public health policy for decades. Although the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC)—initially called the Communicable Disease Center—opened its doors in the early 1940s with a mandate primarily focused on malaria eradication, it rapidly pushed to “extend its responsibilities to other communicable diseases,” including many of the illnesses subsequently targeted by vaccination.

The CDC has operated as the standard-bearer for the nation’s vaccination efforts ever since. However, a close look at the agency’s behavior—and the statements of internal whistleblowers—reveals that, for all intents and purposes, the CDC functions as a subsidiary of a “rapacious” pharmaceutical industry in partnership with the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and numerous “outside parties and rogue interests” that all benefit from their endorsement of a highly profitable vaccine orthodoxy. The powerful vaccine “gospel” has swept up regulators, medical trade associations, physicians, science journals, the popular press and others “in a kind of consensus dogma” that has become “more important than the children [these institutions were] supposed to protect.”

Over a century later, it is clear that vaccine policy-makers are the ones whose “organized and aggressive” public relations apparatus is relentlessly waging war on questioners, effectively branding them as heretics.

The Medical Marketplace Comes First

Click on the image above to get your free copy of our new eBook: Conflicts of Interest Undermine Children’s Health.

Economic and political interests have steered U.S. vaccination programs since at least the 19th century, when the medical establishment and its government and industry allies recognized that vaccination provided a new income stream and a compelling opportunity “to augment their authority in a competitive medical marketplace.” Historical documents show that, from the earliest days, vaccine proponents have promoted a one-sided agenda, sidelining deeper inquiry into safety and efficacy and castigating individuals who dare to raise questions. In a blatant example of the pot calling the kettle black, Dr. William Bailey belligerently declared in an 1899 issue of Public Health Papers and Reports (a precursor to the American Journal of Public Health) that vaccination’s “enemies are organized and aggressive in their warfare against it.”

Over a century later, it is clear that vaccine policy-makers are the ones whose “organized and aggressive” public relations (PR) apparatus is relentlessly waging war on questioners, effectively branding them as heretics. Independent scientists who cast doubt on vaccine orthodoxy find themselves facing personal attacks rather than impartial scrutiny of their research.

In recent months, the “war” has intensified, seemingly with buy-in from legislators, regulators, researchers and the private sector. Consider the following:

  • In November 2018, payouts from the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program crossed over the $4 billion threshold, and the government reported a surge in autism rates (1 in 40 children)—yet when two congressional Committees held kangaroo-court vaccine hearings a few months later, they ignored vaccine safety issues and instead used the proceedings to demonize the unvaccinated.
  • Reflecting the “outsized dependence of both political classes and media outlets on pharmaceutical industry contributions and advertising revenue,” a Congressman requested that private social media and Internet companies censor information critical of current vaccine policies and products. In a cogent response, another Congressman asked, “If vaccines do not cause injuries, why has the Vaccine Injury Trust Fund paid out $4,061,322,557.08 for vaccine injuries?”
  • 2019 has marked a ballooning of legislative attempts to violate the bedrock principle—and fundamental human right—of free and informed consent to all medical interventions, including vaccines. Citizens seeking to uphold their religious and philosophical rights to vaccine exemptions face increasingly punitive actions. Even medical exemptions are under attack.

There is more and more evidence of a coordinated effort to suppress any and all information that might be unfavorable to the vaccine program. Some of this verges on the slapstick, such as the last-minute cancellations by four pro-vaccine-mandate speakers who declined to show up at a scheduled event at Yale to debate “The Science of Vaccines” with Children’s Health Defense Chairman Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. in March 2019. Other incidents are less entertaining:

  • In February 2019, Dr. Anthony Fauci, Director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID), gave false information to Congress, denying that measles vaccination can cause encephalitis (brain inflammation), even though vaccine package inserts have always listed encephalitis as a risk of measles vaccination.
  • In January 2019, a renowned medical expert signed a sworn affidavit explaining how he told Department of Justice (DOJ) lawyers in 2007 that “vaccinations could cause autism” in a subset of children. The DOJ fired him as an expert witness, kept his opinion secret from the public and misrepresented his opinion in federal court in order to continue to debunk vaccine-autism claims.
  • In a March 2017 publication, CDC authors acknowledged that many individuals involved in California’s 2015 measles outbreak were “recent vacinees,” briefly citing “unpublished data” showing that the vaccine strain of measles caused the infection in almost two-fifths (38%) of the tested cases.

Nonetheless, the CDC continues to demand that parents unhesitatingly allow their children to receive endless vaccine doses during pregnancy, infancy, childhood and adolescence. If someone (even an experienced doctor) dares to propose a less immunologically burdensome approach, the PR machine instantly jumps into overdrive to discredit him or her, despite the fact that respected, peer-reviewed science—including from the Institute of Medicine (IOM)—supports these concerns.

When companies perpetuate misleading vaccine safety claims—exaggerating the benefits and concealing the risks—and regulators obligingly politicize their vaccine recommendations and decisions, trust is damaged still further.

Waning Public Confidence

Although a barrage of assurances, both nationally and globally, continues to tell consumers that vaccines are safe, confidence in vaccine programs is declining worldwide. The medical journal Pediatrics reported in 2013 that nearly nine in ten U.S. pediatricians (87%) had encountered parents who questioned the CDC childhood vaccine schedule, up from 75% of children’s doctors in 2006. The surveyed pediatricians also reported receiving frequent requests to follow an alternative vaccine schedule (almost one in five parents) and, over the seven-year period, a doubling of the percentage of parents refusing at least one vaccine. Where honored, parents’ wishes for a slower and more selective vaccine schedule are amply rewarded, with practice data demonstrating better health outcomes and a far lower risk of autism.

Even the most ardent vaccine proponents recognize that the erosion of public trust is at least partially their own fault—the result of factors such as “heightened [public] awareness of the profit motives of the vaccine industry,” lack of transparency on the part of industry and conflicts of interest among policy-makers. These observers even admit that “financial and bureaucratic reasons” prompt “vaccine manufacturers, health officials, and medical journals… not…to acknowledge the risks of vaccines.” When companies perpetuate misleading vaccine safety claims—exaggerating the benefits and concealing the risks—and regulators obligingly politicize their vaccine recommendations and decisions, trust is damaged still further.

In 1967, when childhood vaccines were much fewer and farther between, Dr. Graham Wilson (one-time Director of the Public Health and Laboratory Service for England and Wales) warned of the need to pay ongoing attention to vaccine safety, stating:

“It is for us, and for those who come after us, to see that the sword which vaccines and antisera have put into our hands is never allowed to tarnish through over-confidence, negligence, carelessness, or want of foresight on our part.”

Forty years later, Congressional Representative Dave Weldon, himself a physician, harshly criticized the federal agencies charged with ensuring vaccine safety for failing to heed Wilson’s cautions.

The loss of confidence in vaccine safety must be addressed with independent, unbiased science.

The U.S. government’s Healthy People 2020 initiative states that “childhood immunization programs provide a very high return on investment,” but Americans should be asking just who is garnering the positive returns. Globally, the vaccine industry is on track to more than double its worldwide revenues by 2024—from $32 .5 billion in 2015 to a projected $77 billion—but highly vaccinated children in the U.S. and elsewhere are suffering. As described by Children’s Health Defense in the eBook, The Sickest Generation: The Facts Behind the Children’s Health Crisis and Why It Needs to End, children’s health has worsened dramatically since the late 1980s—“precisely the same time that the U.S. started expanding the types and total number of vaccines required for school attendance.” Over half of American children have at least one chronic illness, and neurodevelopmental disorders and pediatric autoimmune conditions have climbed to historically unprecedented levels. There is abundant evidence that vaccines are making children sicker, not healthier—representing an unquestionably negative return on investment for children, families and society.

Click on the image above to get your free copy of our new eBook: Conflicts of Interest Undermine Children’s Health.

In this eBook, CHD takes the position that conflicts of interest and unethical behavior encumber the key public and private players involved in U.S. and global vaccination programs to such an extent that public skepticism is not only understandable, but justified. The loss of confidence in vaccine safety must be addressed with independent, unbiased science. As we publish subsequent parts of the eBook, we will illustrate how lack of integrity and ethical betrayals are impeding sound public health policy and vaccine safety science, while gravely undermining children’s health.



Most of You Think We Know What Our Vaccines Are Doing—We Don’t

What the WHO doesn’t want us to know. Dr. Peter Aaby announced: “This vaccine (DPT) is killing children” at the Symposium About Scientific Freedom, Copenhagan, March 9, 2019.

Dr. Aaby is a world renown researcher with an impressive list of peer- reviewed, published scientific articles on vaccines. Here is Dr. Aaby’s extensive research list of 376 articles in the National Institutes of Health (NIH) website “PubMed.”

Watch the full video:

Transcript: (Download the transcript)

Dr. Peter Aaby:  We are going to change gears now in terms of we are going to the low-income countries, and we are also going talk more about children than adult problems, but it will still be about power structures.

I have based 40 years ago I started what is it called a health and demographics surveillance system, where we are registering sort of all the tracking system deliveries, child interventions and survival, and that’s the basis for the data I am going to present you. I’ve also collaborated with a lot of other health and demographic surveying sites in Africa and Asia, so some of the data will be coming from there.

This is about vaccines, and I think it’s important to recognize that no routine vaccine was tested for all the effect on mortality in randomized trials before being introduced. I guess most of you think that we know what all our vaccines are doing, we don’t.

The program we are talking about at this time the vaccine program was introduced sort of in the late seventies after the successful eradication of smallpox. WHO made the first immunization program for the low income countries.

The program used initially was BCG for tuberculosis and oral polio vaccine at birth and then they got free doses of DTP – diphtheria, tetanus and pertussis and oral polio vaccine free dose in the first month alive. Then you got measles vaccine around nine month and then booster dose of DTP and OPV. That has been the basic of the program and now they’re a lot more of vaccines being introduced and that’s part of the problem we are going to talk about.

If you thought that public health was a rational science, you should look at this curve. This is what has happened in the 40 years I have been in Guinea-Bissau. Mortality dropped 85%. That’s a staggering reduction in under five mortality. 85%. I don’t think that ever happened in the human history.

But it’s not like a learning curve. If it had been a learning curve, it would have gone down gradually like this. This is going down and up, down and up. It is essentially saying we don’t know what we are doing. Sometimes we are doing something which is very good, but we have no clue of what we are actually doing here.

The first point here is when we introduced used Measles vaccine. So from one year to the next mortality dropped threefold you have it here and that was a very strange experience—it is out of your mind suddenly see that the data coming out. All the children we had vaccinated that didn’t die. Whereas those who had been traveling and they’d also got the vaccine, they still continued to have high mortality.

I guess that experience defined my life and therefore I’ve been trying to look at what has happened in other places. What do we actually know about the introduction of measles vaccine and there are already five studies in the literature you have them here. All of them show more than 50% reduction between the year before and the year after the introduction of vaccine.

This is not selection bias, this is everyone in population. Some of them will not have been vaccinated but there were some campaign they introduce measles vaccine and mortality dropped with 50%. Measles is assumed to reduce mortality with something like 10 to 15% by WHO.

We have a contradiction here. Measles vaccine protects much more against much too much. How’s that possible? I was very encouraged with this first experience and therefore I want to just go, can’t we vaccinate earlier to save more children’s life.

Saving had developed some interesting and new measles vaccine, which could be immunized in the present and maternal antibody. Saving is the guy with the oral polio vaccine. Then it showed that you could actually immunize in the present and maternal antibodies, so therefore you could potentially to give it earlier. We start randomized children at four to five months of age and we randomized to high titer a measles vaccine and we are giving them in up higher dose and then inactivated polio vaccine as a controlled vaccine. Then we switch over at nine month this is the recommended age for measles vaccine, and these guys got IPV after the measles vaccine and this one got the recommended measles vaccine.

Something very strange happened in both Bissau and Senegal. If you can see the curve, it might be a bit difficult but the blue lines are the boys and so there are no difference in mortality, in the control group whose got measles at nine month or that those who got the new measles vaccine around four month and the same, you see the same thing in Senegal.

If you look at the red ones, which are the girls that is two-fold higher female mortality if they got the new Measles vaccine, if they’ve got the measles vaccine early. When you saw the first part of this curve, I wrote to WHO and said, “Please check with other people who have used this vaccine. Is there anything going on here?” And yet I got a letter back saying, “Thank you for your interest, but we note that you have small numbers”. Which meant that, if you look at the girls and no doubt there’s a problem here, but you can’t do a subgroup analysis unless you had planned it.

I’m a naive anthropologist, so I don’t know nothing about statistics, but I can look at data and see this does not make sense. They didn’t do anything but then eventually because it was a Dane who was the director of the vaccination program at that time, I managed to convince them that had to have an expert panel to discuss these data and we presented the data that we saw in Senegal.

The expert decided this is not plausible. There’s no biological explanation, so it can’t be true. Secondly, you said it had not been planned and I said you cannot plan to kill children. What does that mean as an argument? This is what it is in the public on the record in the weekly Premedical record that there was unplanned studies so you couldn’t rely on them.

Luckily one of the members of the panel was American from Johns Hopkins. He went back to answer how you think, where he used the vaccine and he found the same thing and they the Sudan found out, Canadians in Sudan found similar observations, so just one year later WHO withdrew the vaccine.

There were no real explanations that just went back and interestingly they made no attempt to understand what has happened. If that kind of thing can happen with our vaccine it can obviously happen again. Well there’s nothing-I think there are three very importantly elements here, one is that you can have a vaccine which is fully protective against the specific disease but associated with higher mortality. How’s that possible? That’s nowhere in the textbooks.

Secondly that it’s sex differential. Everything we do is about children. No one who report children data separately for girls and boys.

Thirdly it’s the size of these problems. The next analysis of the African studies showed that the mortality between four months and five years of age, so that’s most of childhood mortality, was at 33% increase all of it being female increase in mortality. Just in Africa that would have meant half a million, at least half a million deaths, additionally female deaths pay year.

We are talking about big numbers If we play with the immune system. What about the other vaccines? This office raised the issue. What does the other vaccines do? I started, I went back to look at the data we had been collecting in the interior, where we visited the village to stay for six months. We registered, we weighed the children, and then we registered their vaccination stages based on the vaccination cards.

We are coming back every six months. That’s why the line here is six months. If you take the children who had received no vaccine at the first visit, you see here, they had, over these six months they have 5% mortality. Very high mortality but that was not uncommon in Africa at that time.

If you take the children who have received BCG they have only half the mortality. All of those who have been trained to be even volunteers, they will know, this is because it’s the best children getting vaccinated.

This is a selection bias. You shouldn’t pay attention to this. However, if you get another vaccine, then mortality should have been up here. That should be even better if you get the next vaccine, but actually if you’ve got both BCG and DTP you ended up very close to the un-vaccinated group in terms of mortality.

If you put this data into survival analysis what comes out is that BCG reduces mortality with 45% but DTP, diphtheria, tetanus, pertussis, which is the most commonly used vaccine in the world, increases mortality by 84%. I had sent this data for years earlier to WHO and nothing happened at our first analysis. Then when BMJ accepted the paper they got a bit nervous.

We were called to a meeting in Geneva and I invited them, you’re welcome to come to Bissau and check our data. They sent a mission of three people to Bissau. Then they started sponsoring several other sites in terms of finding out can we find the data somewhere else.

I clearly had the feeling that they were going to come after me. That’s the feeling you get if you come up with something which is unpleasant to those who hold power. You know they will be coming after you, so I said I’d better go back and see what data do we actually have, can we use some of our data, is this a fault, a track or is there anything to this evidence?

I went back to when we had introduced DTP in ’84 in the rural areas of Guinea Bissau. It was my team which was visiting the villages every six month. We were weighing the children in terms of identifying the malnourished children. The malnutrition was really the issue of our research agenda and that was what we had been paid to do, but and we did provide the vaccine as a service to the community. Not really as a research project, but the data was there. We had registered who had been vaccinated, who had been absent and who had been too sick to be vaccinated.

The un-vaccinated children here are children who were traveling or were sick and there were days where the fridge didn’t work in the regions so we couldn’t have any vaccines there. You shouldn’t expect that those kinds of children should have been higher mortality, they had low on nutritional stages so they should be worse off.

However, what you see here is that over the next six month there were two times higher mortality with those who had received DTP, so the whooping cough vaccine or pertussis vaccine was associated with two-fold higher mortality. Please note that the tendency is that this seems to be slightly worse for girls.

By now, I had made three studies of the introduction of DTP in the early 80’s. They all show a negative effect. These are methodologically the best studies as a natural experiment, we won’t have time to go into the detail, but what you see here in the selection bias, it is the worst children who are not getting vaccinated.

In spite of that what comes out here is you had 2.3 times higher mortality if you are DTP vaccinated, and that is the most commonly used vaccine in the world. Note again that this is clearly worse for girls than for boys. It’s not good for boys but it’s, look, the girls do worse. By now we have I think 16 studies on what happens on if what happens-no selection bias here- This is boys and girls getting vaccination and in West Africa, the coverage for boys and girls is essentially the same. They are all compliant.

You are comparing what happens to the mortality of boys and girls who receive the vaccine. It’s 50% higher mortality for the girls than for the boys who have received DTP vaccine. That is an unnatural observation because prior to the introduction of vaccines there were no, there were no excess female mortality, was slightly lower female mortality, and it’s always unnatural in the sense once you give them measles vaccine, girls have lower mortality than the boys.

This is clearly an unnatural event. Please note that this seems to be negative boosting. DTP one is 20% higher mortality, but then when you come to DTP three it’s 70% higher mortality for the girls for the boys. You should know that DTP three is the vaccine they use to monitor the vaccination program in low income countries. It means that all vaccine performers out in the low income countries, they will emphasize and getting DTP three out. They won’t pay too much attention to measles and BCG coverage, but they will pay attention to DTP three because that’s what’s determined whether they get rewards and promotion.

That vaccine is actually killing children. It’s not just a differential effect. It’s killing children. It’s not because it saves boys. The vaccine is killing children and that’s the vaccine that we are using for monitoring the performance. We need to have a vaccine which is, have beneficial effect for covering the vaccination program.

This observation on the sex differential effect of DTP suddenly gave a totally different interpretation of what we had already showed through the high titer vaccine. When we introduced the high titer vaccine what had happened was that we gave measles vaccine already at four to five months of age. That was so early at that time that most of them, and nearly all of them got DTP after the Measles vaccine.

Then we said let’s go and see what happens if you’ve got DTP after measles, if you did not get DTP after measles and here is all the data from Africa and you can see these are what’s shown here is the number of female and male deaths. If you have a no DTP after high titer measles vaccine, you have essentially no difference in the mortality, but if you’ve got DTP or IPV after measles vaccine, there are two-fold higher mortality for the girls.

In a sense that solves the problem with the high titer vaccine. It was a question of the sequence of vaccination and it’s the last vaccine which has a strongest immunological influence. It was associated with very strongly higher mortality.

This was published in 2003 and in 2004 WHO actually got their act together in terms of having analyze the data that they had commissioned and therefore what’s called the Global Advisory Committee on Vaccine Safety. That’s the main party in the world to decide about vaccine safety issues and they came with a statement. Analysis of WHO sponsored Studies is now complete. The studies did not show any negative effect of DTP vaccination and no difference was found between males and females. The committee concluded that the evidence is sufficient to reject the hypothesis of an increased nonspecific mortality following vaccination, and the effect seen in Guinea-Bissau was properly explained by a confounding factor in the dataset.

They could have said that I was an idiot but they didn’t say it directly. They just said that there is a confounding factor in your dataset. They didn’t help me by saying which confounding factor, how could that actually happen if it’s the worst children who are not vaccinated, how can it be a confounding factor? It doesn’t make sense.

There were several other dataset already at that time, but they only came with their statement that their own studies had shown no negative effect. Then to back up their point they got an esteemed group of very well-known professors from the London School to come with, to form a task force on routine infant vaccination on child survival. This taskforce was only about the DTP issue.

The conclusion of this task force, that their report is not published. The data they actually analyzed is not there but the conclusion is on the Internet. It’s like the task force were unanimous that the totality of the evidence provided in the paper review does not suggest a deleterious effect of DTP vaccine. On the contrary, they provided substantial evidence against such an effect.

Furthermore, with the exception of the studies from Guinea-Bissau, there was little differential effect between boys and girls. That’s saying yet another time that I’m an idiot and I have to report back to my foundation that I was being declared idiot, however we had actually predicted this when they had the discussion on the vaccines in 2001, we said that the WHO sponsors studies would produce survival bias.

Survival bias is that and you give information is better for those who survive. That happens very easily in this situation. Give you a simple example. You visit two children and then you come back six months later, one child survive he was vaccinated three months ago, and you will count that child as vaccinated from three months ago, but there is another child would have died. You actually don’t know anything the parents threw the card away. What happens? It declares the client as un-vaccinated because we have no information, but no information is not un-vaccinated. If you put that into survival, it means that this time it’s risk free because if the child had died, it would have been classified as un-vaccinated.

If you put that data into survival analysis, you essentially get not garbage, you get nonsense out of it. That was what WHO studies had done. It took several of us 30 years to convince the people from the London School. Yes there was a problem with survival bias and they eventually wrote an editorial, a global advisory task force accepted this and then the Global Advisory Committee on Vaccine Safety came to us with an issue. They said we will watch out for potential deleterious effects. WHO then in 2014 made their own review. We had produced enough data to say there are nonspecific effects of the vaccines, and then they made a review which included 10 of the 16 studies with age on DTP and vaccination.

They came out with an estimate that DTP was associated with 38% higher mortality. That would be difficult to see, but what they said is the finding were inconsistent with a majority of the studies indicating a detrimental effect of DTP and two studies indicating a beneficial effect. These studies aren’t here.

However those two studies have major survival bias, so they in spite of the previous discussion they had included the studies with survival bias. If you exclude the studies with survival bias, which comes out is for the studies we have now is that there are two-fold higher mortality if you have received DTP vaccine.

The findings were not inconsistent, the methodology had been inconsistent. One interesting aspect here is you’ve triggered all the studies in this review you will see a very clear pattern. These the studies where you evaluated both DTP and some of the live vaccines tuberculosis and measles vaccine. You see all of the DTP effects are about one and all of the effect of measles and BCG is about well below in terms of in fact on survival.

We are talking about BCG and measles being associated with 45% lower mortality and DTP clearly being associated with higher mortality. Most of you have not been trained in this the immunology is coming now. It’s been developing for the last five to 10 years that we forgot about the innate immune system. That’s the first line of defense, it’s not about T cells and B cells. It’s about innate immune system, and the innate system is changed when you get these vaccines, so you can induce enhance performance by the live vaccine, but you can also induce tolerance with an activated vaccine and that’s what happening. If you give DTP after measles vaccine, you get the same picture, two-fold higher mortality. Again, it’s the girls.

I’m saying this because WHO had planned to introduce booster dose that we have in the Western world problem with a booster dose. Therefore, they wanted to introduce a booster dose also in the low income countries that will have negative effect. This is not just about DTP, I’m just showing you so there was one of the last slide that GSK have developed a malaria vaccine and that’s going to be introduced now. We eventually got the data by sex from the malaria vaccine.

What you can see here is that didn’t really matter for the boys, but for the girls there were two-fold higher mortality if you have received them. In spite of the protection against malaria, there were two-fold higher mortality for the girls who had received the new malaria vaccine. We are currently testing this. WHO is testing this vaccine in Africa in three countries with 720,000 children.

If there’s anything to their own data, we are going to kill somewhere between 2,000 and 5,000 girls unnecessarily. What I have been trying to give you here is a very brief in 20 minutes to give you 40 years of work, but there’s good news and there’s bad news, and the good news is every time we introduce a live vaccine, measles, BCG, measles again and what has happened towards in the last 20 years is not appreciated. The information is nowhere. We don’t know why did mortality drop 70% in the last 20 years.

Mortality dropped because we made campaign after campaigns after campaigns with BCG, inevitable with measles vaccine and OPV and we have documented this for both of these vaccines. When you have these campaigns then your mortality level is dropped, so you have to de-learn everything you learned at the university. It’s not about specific diseases is how you train the immune system and these live vaccines, apparently train the vaccines beneficially but the negative part is when we introduce DTP or DTP booster, that was what I showed you earlier when you introduce DTP booster mortality goes up. When we introduce Hepatitis B, was this also an inactivated vaccines, the same thing happened. By now we have shown negative effect for girls for six inactivated vaccines. I would argue that we should have to do something about a DTP and that’s in the sense I think is the question to this new center.

What to do, how can we actually approach this kind of situation? WHO has said that they would recommend nonspecific and thorough research on nonspecific effects, but they also said they cannot study DTP, so the committee which was sit down to work on these issues has declared that they cannot study DTP. That’s a challenge.

No Enigma: Vaccines and the Food Allergy Epidemic

By the Children’s Health Defense Team

The United States faces an ever-worsening food allergy epidemic. An estimated 1 in 12 children (8%) have food allergies, and prevalence has risen by at least 50% since 1997. Childhood food allergies are the most common cause of anaphylaxis (a “severe allergic reaction that is rapid in onset and may cause death”). A decade-long analysis of billions of health care claims reported a nationwide increase of 377% in claims for anaphylactic food reactions, and a separate analysis of emergency department (ED) visits over roughly the same period documented a 214% increase in visits for food-induced anaphylaxis—observed in children of all ages but with the highest rates in infants and toddlers. Peanut and tree nut allergies—which have tripled since 1997—are the most frequent triggers of ED visits for anaphylaxis, and over a third (35%) of the children who experience peanut-related anaphylaxis do so following their very first exposure.

… multiple strands of published evidence—including experiments dating back over a hundred years—indicate that injected vaccines are major culprits.

Whereas there is widespread agreement that these food allergy trends spell out bad news for children and families, there is little consensus on the epidemic’s supposedly “enigmatic” causes. This declared bafflement is itself puzzling because—as Children’s Health Defense has written previously—multiple strands of published evidence—including experiments dating back over a hundred years—indicate that injected vaccines are major culprits. The massive expansion of the vaccine schedule since the late 1980s, day-of-birth hepatitis B vaccination, changes in vaccine technology and the growing use of immune-dysregulating aluminum adjuvants are all factors that can explain the immune system overactivation currently manifesting in the form of food allergies. In addition, as discussed in a new article in the International Journal of Pharmaceutical Research, proteins in vaccines often produce “off-target immune responses” and, concerningly, these protein components are entirely untested and unregulated.

Japan chose to remove gelatin from vaccines two decades ago after confirming a relationship between the protein’s presence in vaccines and anaphylactic and allergic reactions. Not so in the U.S. …

Proteins in vaccines

Scientists use a variety of components to prepare vaccines—“active immunizing antigens, conjugating agents, preservatives, stabilizers, antimicrobial agents, adjuvants and culture media…as well as inadvertent contaminants that are introduced during vaccine handling.” Researchers acknowledge that any of these components is capable of triggering an allergic reaction, but they believe that proteins such as egg and gelatin may be especially likely to do so.

In fact, allergic reactions to gelatin are well known, “especially in injected medications and vaccines.” Japan chose to remove gelatin from vaccines two decades ago after confirming a relationship between the protein’s presence in vaccines and anaphylactic and allergic reactions. Not so in the U.S., which still includes gelatin in the measles-mumps-rubella (MMR), varicella (chickenpox) and other vaccines, despite documented anaphylactic reactions related to the gelatin in vaccines. Concerns recently intensified following the news that gelatin is now a vehicle for the introduction of glyphosate into vaccines. Researchers Anthony Samsel and Stephanie Seneff, who brought this problem to the public’s attention in a seminal 2017 publication in the Journal of Biological Physics and Chemistry, noted that vaccine manufacturers grow vaccine viruses on gelatin sourced from cows and pigs who consume large amounts of glyphosate-contaminated genetically modified (GM) feed.

Far from engendering a carefully controlled immune response directed solely against the targeted virus or bacterium, adjuvant-enhanced vaccines also end up triggering antibodies against non-targeted plant proteins.

In the 2019 Pharmaceutical Research study, the authors’ use of protein sequencing methods shows that it is not just animal proteins in vaccines that are problematic; the sequencing data indicate that at least five plant proteins present in vaccines (soy, peanut, sesame, maize [corn] and wheat) are likewise capable of fostering food allergies. The authors explain that when scientists add powerful aluminum adjuvants to vaccines, the “boosted immune response” becomes a blunt weapon. Far from engendering a carefully controlled immune response directed solely against the targeted virus or bacterium, adjuvant-enhanced vaccines also end up triggering antibodies against “non-targeted” plant proteins. When this happens, there is a “high probability” that the antibodies will cross-react with similar human proteins—with pathogenic consequences. This type of overactive immune response can easily explain not just the epidemic of “food-associated immune-mediated disorders” but also the dreadful rise of autoimmune and neurodegenerative disorders.

One of the authors’ principal findings is that there is “strong sequence alignment” (regions of similarity) between the five plant proteins and human glutamate receptors. Although glutamate is the body’s most abundant neurotransmitter, it follows the “Goldilocks Principle,” requiring the release of “just the right amount” of glutamate in “the right places for only small amounts of time.” Dr. Russell Blaylock, an expert on the problem of overabundant glutamate (called “excitotoxicity”) has suggested that excessive vaccination and use of aluminum adjuvants are part of an “immunoexcitotoxic” cascade he and others associate with food allergies, gut imbalances and autism. In fact, the scientific literature has firmly established that glutamate abnormalities are a key feature of autism. Thus, it should not be surprising that food allergies are much more common in children with autism versus those without autism, or that food anaphylaxis outcomes are worse when conditions such as asthma or other allergies are also present.

For its manufacture, polysorbate 80 relies on a variety of plant sources (including wheat and corn) as well as vegetable, legume and nut oils.

A note about polysorbate 80

The presence in numerous vaccines of a stabilizer called polysorbate 80 also warrants brief attention. Vaccines containing polysorbate 80 include those against hepatitis B, human papillomavirus (HPV), rotavirus, combination vaccines with a diphtheria-tetanus-pertussis component, virtually all influenza vaccines and others. For its manufacture, polysorbate 80 relies on a variety of plant sources (including wheat and corn) as well as vegetable, legume and nut oils. In a prior publication in 2015, one of the co-authors of the Pharmaceutical Research study reported the “impossibility” of guaranteeing that polysorbate-80-containing vaccines are free of “residual allergen proteins from these food sources,” noting that the “residual allergens that may be present…are not even listed in the vaccine package inserts.” A team of allergy experts recently asserted that hypersensitivity to polysorbates “may be underrecognized,” and a study in Brazil implicated another stabilizer called dextran in “hypersensitivity-type adverse events” associated with MMR vaccination.

Medical practitioners who continue to tell these families that they “don’t know what is causing the rise in food allergies” are being disingenuous or worse.

It should be noted that glyphosate is likely to be present in many of the plant sources used to produce polysorbate 80 and other vaccine components, either as a result of “Roundup Ready” crops (e.g., corn and soy) or through glyphosate’s use as a pre-harvest dessicant (e.g., wheat). Glyphosate’s documented ability to disrupt gut health suggests that its presence in food and vaccines could be contributing to the rise of food allergies, which are so completely intertwined with gut imbalances.

Living with food allergies is stressful, with the potential for significant emotional, social and financial impacts. Parents describe “living in fear” and having difficulty leading an “ordinary” family life. Medical practitioners who continue to tell these families that they “don’t know what is causing the rise in food allergies” are being disingenuous or worse. If Nobel Laureate Charles Richet could demonstrate  over a century ago “that injecting a protein into animals or humans causes immune system sensitization to that protein”—this is what the author of the 2015 paper calls the “Richet allergy model”—then there is no excuse for depicting the food allergy epidemic as an unsolved mystery.


CDC CASE STUDY: Death From Measles Vaccine Virus 15 Months After Vaccination

A 20-year-old’s death highlights vaccine dangers the CDC has known about for decades.

By Celeste McGovern, Ghost Ship Media 

On September 3, 1992, a 20-year-old man with haemophilia A and asymptomatic HIV infection received an MMR shot to fulfill a college vaccination requirement for a second dose of measles-containing vaccine.

By July the following year, ten months after the vaccination, he had developed a dry cough and chills and was waking with night sweats. On July 30, 1993, he visited his physician and a month later he was hospitalized as he had lost weight, was feverish and struggling to breathe.

On October 6, 1993, 13 months after being vaccinated, doctors performed an open-lung biopsy on the young man. Biopsy specimens revealed measles infection in his lungs and he was diagnosed with measles pneumonia. The virus samples were stored. He was treated and stabilized and was discharged from hospital on October 29.

The following month he returned to the hospital, however, because of increased shortness of breath, chest pain, nausea and vomiting. He was treated again, his chest was drained and he was discharged on November 23.

On November 27,  the young man returned to the hospital because of nausea, vomiting and dehydration.

On December 13 he became encephalitic — his brain was swelling.

On December 17, 1993, 15 months after his vaccination, he died.In 1995, for undisclosed reasons, medical researchers decided to examine the measles virus isolated from lung biopsy tissue samples taken from the young man in October 1993. They sequenced the genome of this virus and compared it to the sequence of the Moraten vaccine virus strain and reported they differed by only two nucleotides, essentially confirming the identity of the virus isolated from the lung biopsy specimen from the young man as a Moraten vaccine virus.“[The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention] CDC was notified of these findings in March 1996, and supplemental sequence studies performed at CDC support the conclusion that Moraten vaccine was the source for the measles virus isolate,” the agency reported in its  Mortality and Morbidity Weekly Report (MMWR) in 1996.

While [the CDC] whips up terror about wild measles outbreaks, it’s hiding the dangers it knows about its engineered vaccine virus.

Vaccine-associated measles

The case study reviewed here is from the 1990s but that is all-the-more troubling since it raises a number of serious public health questions that the CDC has known about for decades and has not yet attempted to address. Worse yet, it has not yet disclosed these known dangers to the public. While it whips up terror about wild measles outbreaks, it’s hiding the dangers it knows about its engineered vaccine virus.

The CDC has known for decades that its measles vaccine virus can cause infections, that those infections can lurk silently in people for a long time and they can kill, that the virus sheds in the urine of vaccinated individuals and that it can spread. In 2011, for example, doctors released a 22-year-old theatre worker in New York City from hospital with full-blown measles to roam the streets. They thought she was only sick with vaccine-associated measles. It looks just like measles but doctors are told not to count it when it occurs in the recently vaccinated and that it can’t spread.

They were wrong. The vaccinated “Measles Mary” spread the vaccine disease to four of her contacts (two of whom were fully vaccinated) who spread the disease until it became a full-on measles outbreak. Like today that was almost certainly blamed on irresponsible “anti-vaxxers” at the time, though it all began in a vaccine needle.

Vaccinated people shed live viruses that can infect and replicate uncontrollably in immune-compromised patients.

Fake warning

Public health does warn immunocompromised patients that they might get the disease they are being vaccinated against with a live-virus vaccine.  But does it tell them that the signs of infection might show up more than a year later? Or that they could die from it? No.  The rest of us are told the story that we must all take vaccines to promote “herd immunity” so that people who have weak or damaged immune systems are protected. But the truth is that immune-compromised individuals are the most vulnerable to the dangers vaccinated individuals pose. Vaccinated people shed live viruses that can infect and replicate uncontrollably in immune-compromised patients. These people are the most likely to experience grave side effects of vaccination. Public health knows that many of the most susceptible to infection damage are also the most vulnerable to vaccine damage — like the case study described above or these ones here, here and here.

Who is at risk?

The truth is that CDC people know that some children will be devastatingly diseased by vaccines and they don’t know who they are beforehand. Vaccination is a gamble. How do we know a child isn’t immune-compromised before we give him a vaccine?  These children are the most at risk of serious vaccine injury yet there is nothing to identify them. No one in public health is advocating screening children before vaccination to protect them. They just aren’t interested in those children who will pay the price for the “herd.”

Also, if public health has known for decades that a person can develop an infection from a supposedly attenuated virus more than a year after injection, why do all the vaccine safety studies only follow patients for weeks or even just days after vaccination?

And how common is late-onset vaccine infection?  How many patients who develop infections are biopsied and how many of those biopsies are sequenced and compared to vaccine strain? Almost none, I’d bet. Although the CDC gives no reason for the research on the case study, it likely came as a result of a damage claim for the patient’s death.  It could be that hundreds or thousands of infections are due to vaccine-related strains but never tested for it. If that sounds like an assumption, it is. But until there is vaccine science to study it, then it can’t be ruled out. The science is hardly settled if we don’t know answers to basic questions like how often people are infected by vaccine virus.

The truth is that the public health narrative about a benign, multi-billion dollar engineered vaccine virus stamping out a terrifying wild measles virus is unravelling. Nearly 30 years ago, a young man died and public health knew that story wasn’t true.  They should have dealt with the problem in front of them. But they didn’t.


Once Burned, Twice Shy—Why “Anti-Vaxxers” Are Really “Ex-Vaxxers”

By the Children’s Health Defense Team


In the 1920s, Edward Bernays, the so-called “father of public relations,” wrote several influential books outlining the principles of successful propaganda. In his book by that title, Bernays argued that “the mind of the people…is made up for it by…those persons who understand the manipulation of public opinion” and know how to skillfully supply the public with “inherited prejudices” and “verbal formulas.”

Bernays’ comments come to mind in the current climate of hostility and intolerance being directed against individuals pejoratively dubbed by the vaccine lobby as “anti-vaxxers.” The dumbed-down propaganda being plastered across the mainstream media on an almost daily basis would have the public believe that anyone who questions any aspect of vaccination is ignorant, selfish or both. However, there is a glaring flaw with this logic. The incontrovertible fact—which the legislators, regulators, reporters and citizens who are participating in mass tarring and feathering are not honest enough to admit—is that many of the people classified as “anti-vaxxers” are actually “ex-vaxxers” whose dutiful adherence to current vaccine policies led to serious vaccine injury in themselves or a loved one.

Parental compliance with the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s (CDC’s) heavy-duty vaccine requirements for infants is often the catalyst for the injuries that start families down the path of becoming ex-vaxxers.

From compliance to injury

Vaccine coverage in the United States is high. In their first three years, over 99% of American children receive some vaccines. By the government’s indirect admission, however, vaccine-related adverse events are also common—with fewer than 1% of vaccine injuries ever getting reported.

Parental compliance with the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s (CDC’s) heavy-duty vaccine requirements for infants is often the catalyst for the injuries that start families down the path of becoming “ex-vaxxers.” In one tragic case, a parent who followed doctors’ orders lost her six-week-old infant girl 12 hours after the child received eight vaccines; medical experts’ conclusion that vaccination was the cause of death prompted a different valuation of risks and benefits with a subsequent child. There are many other such stories. Moreover, when individuals who suffer nonfatal vaccine injuries stick to the standard vaccination regimen, research shows that they often experience even more severe injuries the next time around.

In the U.S., vaccines have been liability-free since 1986—and evidence suggests that vaccine safety has deteriorated significantly as a result. The only current recourse for the vaccine-injured is to file a petition with the stingy and slow-moving National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program (NVICP). Although the NVICP has paid out over $4 billion in taxpayer-funded compensation, it denies far more petitions than it awards. The family of the six-week-old described in the preceding paragraph eventually received NVICP compensation, but not before the program expended considerable effort to leave the cause of death unexplained. And, literally adding insult to injury, the maximum payout for any vaccine-related death is only $250,000.

The chair of a Food and Drug Administration (FDA) committee has stated, ‘Congress is getting paid to not hold pharma accountable.’

Money talks

When people or their loved ones are vaccine-injured, many begin to unravel the unscrupulous world of pharmaceutical influence on our media, government agency leaders and lawmakers. Connecting the dots is a horrifying and enlightening experience, exposing facts to which the general public generally remains oblivious. These revelations weigh heavily when someone makes the decision to permanently change into an “ex-vaxxer.”

Why would the people’s elected representatives (and the officials they appoint) propagate smears, promote censorship and ignore the testimonials of the many families that have experienced devastating vaccine injuries?

Why would officialdom ignore the escalating fiscal implications of vaccine injuries, which are imposing a staggering financial burden on households and taxpayers?

Why do the media increasingly advocate for the elimination of informed consent and vaccine choice?

One of the inescapable answers has to do with the overt and covert influence of pharmaceutical industry funding on those who shape vaccine policy and public opinion.

At the government level, senior Senators openly admit that “drug companies have too much influence in Washington,” with big pharma spending more than any other industry on lobbying and campaign contributions. For example, the pharmaceutical industry poured an estimated $100 million into the 2016 elections, rewarding politicians on both sides of the aisle with its largesse. The chair of a Food and Drug Administration (FDA) committee has stated, “Congress is getting paid to not hold pharma accountable” [emphasis added].

…studies show that medical journal advertising generates “the highest return on investment of all promotional strategies employed by pharmaceutical companies.”

Not content to just influence legislators, the pharmaceutical industry puts equally high value on print advertising directed at doctors—the all-important “gatekeepers” between drug companies and patients. In fact, studies show that medical journal advertising generates “the highest return on investment of all promotional strategies employed by pharmaceutical companies.”

Covering all bases, pharmaceutical companies also advertise vaccines and other drugs directly to U.S. consumers. The U.S. is one of only two countries in the world (along with New Zealand) that permits this type of direct-to-consumer pandering. Drug company spending on television and print advertising in the U.S. rose to $5.2 billion in 2016—a 60% increase over 2012—with untold additional amounts spent on digital and social media advertising. Astoundingly, pharmaceutical companies even get a tax break for these marketing expenditures, a corporate deduction that costs taxpayers billions annually.

The media benefit handsomely from the steady infusion of pharma advertising dollars. Four networks (CBS, ABC, NBC and Fox) received two-thirds of the TV ad monies spent on top-selling drugs in 2015, with the Prevnar 13 vaccine representing the eighth most-advertised pharmaceutical product that year. Under these bought-media circumstances, it is somewhat astonishing that a few media outlets were willing to concede that drug money “coursing through the veins of Congress” directly contributed to the opioid crisis. So far, however, no reporters have been willing to connect similar dots between drug money and unsafe vaccines.

What the WHO failed to mention, however, is the preponderant role of “commercial interests”—and especially pharmaceutical industry interests—in shaping its goals and strategies.

Pharmaceutical industry influence makes itself felt not just domestically but also globally, and this has led to a corresponding amping-up of rhetoric against “anti-vaxxers” around the world. In early 2019, the World Health Organization (WHO) hyperbolically declared “reluctance or refusal to vaccinate” to be one of ten major “global health threats.” What the WHO failed to mention, however, is the preponderant role of “commercial interests”—and especially pharmaceutical industry interests—in shaping its goals and strategies.

Back in 2009, sleight of hand by WHO scientists rebranded the swine flu from “a ‘perfectly ordinary flu’” into a “dangerous pandemic.” This maneuver successfully generated billions in profits for vaccine and anti-flu drug manufacturers; however, the vaccine in question (Pandemrix) caused cases of narcolepsy—many in young people—to surge all over Europe to nearly four times higher than prevaccine levels. In all likelihood, the parents of the narcolepsy-afflicted youth joined the ranks of “ex-vaxxers.” A researcher looking back on the Pandemrix fiasco recently stated:

If vaccine regulators were serious about safety, the entire vaccine fleet would have been grounded following the Pandemrix narcolepsy disaster, to check for the same mechanism of failure in other vaccines. But nothing of that sort happened….”

Double standards

If consumers want to learn about the potential risks of widely used FDA-approved drugs, they can—with a little legwork—find detailed information on hundreds of drugs on the FDA’s website. For azithromycin, for example, the FDA links to studies showing that the antibiotic increases risks of cancer relapse and cardiovascular problems. A link for fentanyl clearly warns of “the potential for life-threatening harm from accidental exposure” and “deadly” risks to both children and adults. Although it can be an uphill battle to get drugs taken off the market, the ongoing pressure of lawsuits has succeeded in removing some egregious offenders such as Vioxx—and Merck, Vioxx’s manufacturer, has been forced to pay out billions in settlements.

In contrast, consumers who go to the FDA website for risk information about vaccines (classified as “biologics” rather than “drugs”) will search almost in vain, finding sparse information for only four vaccines. One of the four is Gardasil—also manufactured by Merck, and one of the most notoriously dangerous vaccines ever rushed onto the market. While the FDA cautiously states that “concerns have been raised about reports of deaths occurring in individuals after receiving Gardasil,” the agency asserts that “there was not a common pattern to the deaths that would suggest they were caused by the vaccine.” The 2018 book, The HPV Vaccine on Trial, contradicts this benign narrative and describes how Gardasil has caused thousands of perfectly healthy young women and men to “suddenly lose energy, become wheelchair-bound, or even die” while Merck continues to enjoy “soaring revenues.”

For government and the media to dismiss these and other accounts of serious vaccine injuries as insignificant—while falsely labeling injured individuals and their advocates as irresponsible “anti-vaxxers”—is both shameful and insulting. After revealing how the mainstream narrative about Gardasil is riddled with “discrepancies and half-truths,” the authors of The HPV Vaccine on Trial issued a call for greater civility. Noting that marginalization and bullying of the vaccine-injured “destroys civil public discourse and discourages scientific inquiry,” they pointed out that “we urgently need both.”


Japan Leads the Way: No Vaccine Mandates and No MMR Vaccine = Healthier Children

The Promise of Good Health; Are We Jumping Off the Cliff in the U.S.?

By Kristina Kristen, Guest Writer


In the United States, many legislators and public health officials are busy trying to make vaccines de facto compulsory—either by removing parental/personal choice given by existing vaccine exemptions or by imposing undue quarantines and fines on those who do not comply with the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s (CDC’s) vaccine edicts. Officials in California are seeking to override medical opinion about fitness for vaccination, while those in New York are mandating the measles-mumps-rubella (MMR) vaccine for 6-12-month-old infants for whom its safety and effectiveness “have not been established.”

The U.S. has the very highest infant mortality rate of all industrialized countries, with more American children dying at birth and in their first year than in any other comparable nation—and more than half of those who survive develop at least one chronic illness.

American children would be better served if these officials—before imposing questionable and draconian measures—studied child health outcomes in Japan. With a population of 127 million, Japan has the healthiest children and the very highest “healthy life expectancy” in the world—and the least vaccinated children of any developed country. The U.S., in contrast, has the developed world’s most aggressive vaccination schedule in number and timing, starting at pregnancy, at birth and in the first two years of life. Does this make U.S. children healthier? The clear answer is no. The U.S. has the very highest infant mortality rate of all industrialized countries, with more American children dying at birth and in their first year than in any other comparable nation—and more than half of those who survive develop at least one chronic illness. Analysis of real-world infant mortality and health results shows that U.S. vaccine policy does not add up to a win for American children.

Japan and the U.S.; Two Different Vaccine Policies

In 1994, Japan transitioned away from mandated vaccination in public health centers to voluntary vaccination in doctors’ offices, guided by “the concept that it is better that vaccinations are performed by children’s family doctors who are familiar with their health conditions.” The country created two categories of non-compulsory vaccines: “routine” vaccines that the government covers and “strongly recommends” but does not mandate, and additional “voluntary” vaccines, generally paid for out-of-pocket. Unlike in the U.S., Japan has no vaccine requirements for children entering preschool or elementary school.

Japan also banned the MMR vaccine in the same time frame, due to thousands of serious injuries over a four-year period—producing an injury rate of one in 900 children that was “over 2,000 times higher than the expected rate.” It initially offered separate measles and rubella vaccines following its abandonment of the MMR vaccine; Japan now recommends a combined measles-rubella (MR) vaccine for routine use but still shuns the MMR. The mumps vaccine is in the “voluntary” category.

Here are key differences between the Japanese and U.S. vaccine programs:

  • Japan has no vaccine mandates, instead recommending vaccines that (as discussed above) are either “routine” (covered by insurance) or “voluntary” (self-pay).
  • Japan does not vaccinate newborns with the hepatitis B (HepB) vaccine, unless the mother is hepatitis B positive.
  • Japan does not vaccinate pregnant mothers with the tetanus-diphtheria-acellular pertussis (Tdap) vaccine.
  • Japan does not give flu shots to pregnant mothers or to six-month-old infants.
  • Japan does not give the MMR vaccine, instead recommending an MR vaccine.
  • Japan does not require the human papillomavirus (HPV) vaccine.
No other developed country administers as many vaccine doses in the first two years of life.

In contrast, the U.S. vaccine schedule (see Table 1) prescribes routine vaccination during pregnancy, calls for the first HepB vaccine dose within 24 hours of birth—even though 99.9% of pregnant women, upon testing, are hepatitis B negative, and follows up with 20 to 22 vaccine doses in the first year alone. No other developed country administers as many vaccine doses in the first two years of life.

The HepB vaccine injects a newborn with a 250-microgram load of aluminum, a neurotoxic and immune-toxic adjuvant used to provoke an immune response. There are no studies to back up the safety of exposing infants to such high levels of the injected metal. In fact, the Food and Drug Administration’s (FDA’s) upper limit for aluminum in intravenous (IV) fluids for newborns is far lower at five micrograms per kilogram per day (mcg/kg/day)—and even at these levels, researchers have documented the potential for impaired neurologic development. For an average newborn weighing 7.5 pounds, the HepB vaccine has over 15 times more aluminum than the FDA’s upper limit for IV solutions.

Unlike Japan, the U.S. administers flu and Tdap vaccines to pregnant women (during any trimester) and babies receive flu shots at six months of age, continuing every single year thereafter. Manufacturers have never tested the safety of flu shots administered during pregnancy, and the FDA has never formally licensed any vaccines “specifically for use during pregnancy to protect the infant.”

Japan initially recommended the HPV vaccine but stopped doing so in 2013 after serious health problems prompted numerous lawsuits. Japanese researchers have since confirmed a temporal relationship between HPV vaccination and recipients’ development of symptoms.

U.S. vaccine proponents claim the U.S. vaccine schedule is similar to schedules in other developed countries, but this claim is inaccurate upon scrutiny. Most other countries do not recommend vaccination during pregnancy, and very few vaccinate on the first day of life. This is important because the number, type and timing of exposure to vaccines can greatly influence their adverse impact on developing fetuses and newborns, who are particularly vulnerable to toxic exposures and early immune activation. Studies show that activation of pregnant women’s immune systems can cause developmental problems in their offspring. Why are pregnant women in the U.S. advised to protect their developing fetuses by avoiding alcohol and mercury-containing tuna fish, but actively prompted to receive immune-activating Tdap and flu vaccines, which still contain mercury (in multi-dose vials) and other untested substances?

Japan initially recommended the HPV vaccine but stopped doing so in 2013 after serious health problems prompted numerous lawsuits. Japanese researchers have since confirmed a temporal relationship between HPV vaccination and recipients’ development of symptoms. U.S. regulators have ignored these and similar reports and not only continue to aggressively promote and even mandate the formerly optional HPV vaccine beginning in preadolescence but are now pushing it in adulthood. The Merck-manufactured HPV vaccine received fast-tracked approval from the FDA despite half of all clinical trial subjects reporting serious medical conditions within seven months.



Best and Worst: Two Different Infant Mortality Results

The CDC views infant mortality as one of the most important indicators of a society’s overall health. The agency should take note of Japan’s rate, which, at 2 infant deaths per 1,000 live births, is the second lowest in the world, second only to the Principality of Monaco. In comparison, almost three times as many American infants die (5.8 per 1,000 live births), despite massive per capita spending on health care for children (see Table 2). U.S. infant mortality ranks behind 55 other countries and is worse than the rate in Latvia, Slovakia or Cuba.

If vaccines save lives, why are American children dying at a faster rate, and…dying younger compared to children in 19 other wealthy countries—translating into a 57 percent greater risk of death before reaching adulthood?

To reiterate, the U.S. has the most aggressive vaccine schedule of developed countries (administering the most vaccines the earliest). If vaccines save lives, why are American children “dying at a faster rate, and…dying younger” compared to children in 19 other wealthy countries—translating into a “57 percent greater risk of death before reaching adulthood”? Japanese children, who receive the fewest vaccines—with no government mandates for vaccination—grow up to enjoy “long and vigorous” lives. International infant mortality and health statistics and their correlation to vaccination protocols show results that government and health officials are ignoring at our children’s great peril.

Among the 20 countries with the world’s best infant mortality outcomes, only three countries (Hong Kong, Macau and Singapore) automatically administer the HepB vaccine to all newborns—governed by the rationale that hepatitis B infection is highly endemic in these countries. Most of the other 17 top-ranking countries—including Japan—give the HepB vaccine at birth only if the mother is hepatitis B positive (Table 1). The U.S., with its disgraceful #56 infant mortality ranking, gives the HepB vaccine to all four million babies born annually despite a low incidence of hepatitis B.

Is the U.S. Sacrificing Children’s Health for Profits? 

Merck, the MMR vaccine’s manufacturer, is in court over MMR-related fraud. Whistleblowers allege the pharmaceutical giant rigged its efficacy data for the vaccine’s mumps component to ensure its continued market monopoly. The whistleblower evidence has given rise to two separate court cases. In addition, a CDC whistleblower has alleged the MMR vaccine increases autism risks in some children. Others have reported that the potential risk of permanent injury from the MMR vaccine dwarfs the risks of getting measles.

Why do the FDA and CDC continue to endorse the problematic MMR vaccine despite Merck’s implication in fraud over the vaccine’s safety and efficacy? Why do U.S. legislators and government officials not demand a better alternative, as Japan did over two decades ago? Why are U.S. cities and states forcing Merck’s MMR vaccine on American children? Is the U.S. government protecting children, or Merck? Why are U.S. officials ignoring Japan’s exemplary model, which proves that the most measured vaccination program in the industrialized world and “first-class sanitation and levels of nutrition” can produce optimal child health outcomes that are leading the world?

A central tenet of a free and democratic society is the freedom to make informed decisions about medical interventions that carry serious potential risks. This includes the right to be apprised of benefits and risks—and the ability to say no. The Nuremberg Code of ethics established the necessity of informed consent without “any element of force, fraud, deceit, duress, over-reaching, or other ulterior form of constraint or coercion.” Forcing the MMR vaccine, or any other vaccine, on those who are uninformed or who do not consent represents nothing less than medical tyranny.


CHD Launches Immediate Legal Challenge Against New York City’s Public Health Emergency Due to Measles

Watch Mayor Bill de Blasio Issue State of Emergency

In an unprecedented move, the New York City Health Commissioner on April 9, 2019 has imposed an emergency forced vaccination order, requiring ALL people living in four Brooklyn zip codes to receive the MMR vaccine (if they do not have proof of immunity or medical contraindication) within 48 hours or risk criminal and civil penalties. New York Mayor Bill de Blasio made the announcement.

New York Governor Andrew Cuomo said today that it’s “legally questionable” whether people can be forced to get vaccinated if it violates their religious beliefs. “Look it’s a serious public health concern, but it’s also a serious First Amendment issue and it is going to be a constitutional, legal question,” Cuomo said.  “Do we have the right — does society, government have the right to say ‘you must vaccinate your child because I’m afraid your child is going to infect my child, even if you don’t want it done and even if it violates your religious beliefs?’ So that is, that’s an issue that’s going to be legally questionable and I’m sure it’s going to go down that path,” Cuomo added.

Children’s Health Defense is supporting a legal effort to restrain this order immediately. Vaccination choice is a human right. While New York City unquestionably has the authority to isolate infectious individuals, and even to quarantine them, and to exclude unvaccinated children from schools during an outbreak in that school, it does not have the authority to require vaccination for all individuals on the basis of zip codes with vaccines that explicitly carry the risk of death. This government overreach requires challenge.


SUPPORT CHD’S LEGAL EFFORTS THROUGH ONLINE DONATION. Or, mail a check to CHD\. (You can also authorize a bank transfer or open a donor advised fund. Contact us for more information.)

MMR Vaccine’s Poison Pill: Mumps After Puberty, Reduced Testosterone and Sperm Counts

This article represents Part I of a two-part series on mumps. Part II will delve further into the mumps vaccine’s spillover effects on fertility.


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

Across the country, frenzied legislators are responding to the pharmaceutical industry’s orchestrated fear campaign around measles by seeking to impose further mandating of Merck’s measles, mumps and rubella (MMR) vaccine. Although ongoing mumps outbreaks involving thousands of at-risk adolescents and young adults completely dwarf the number of measles cases, no one is covering the mumps story—because it will expose the fact that Merck has been in court for over eight years due to scientists blowing the whistle on Merck’s fabrication and falsification of the effectiveness of the mumps component of its MMR vaccine. Instead of punishing Merck for its chicanery, legislatures are rewarding the company by making it impossible to refuse Merck’s profitable vaccine, subjecting a generation of American children to the risk of serious complications from mumps infection at an age that nature never intended.

When younger children experience mumps, the virus is relatively harmless; infected children often exhibit no symptoms. When mumps strikes adolescents or adults, on the other hand, the infection can cause far more serious adverse effects, including inflammation of various organs (brain, pancreas, ovaries and testicles)—as well as damage to male fertility.

Inflammation of one or both testicles (a condition called orchitis) occurs in approximately one in three post-pubertal men who get mumps and can contribute to sperm defects and subfertility as well as impairing the function of cells that produce testosterone. An estimated 30% to 87% of men with bilateral orchitis induced by mumps experience full-blown infertility—a major cause for concern given the significant declines in male fertility observed over the past several decades. Thus, it appears that Merck’s vaccine, instead of protecting children, not only delays onset of disease to later age cohorts but has the potential to cause serious and permanent injury.

Merck and mumps vaccines

Let’s look at a quick history of mumps and MMR vaccination in the United States. The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) licensed Merck’s initial mumps-only vaccine in 1967. In 1971, Merck introduced its first combination MMR vaccine, followed by the MMR-II vaccine in 1978 (which repurposed the rubella component) and the MMR-plus-varicella (MMRV) ProQuad vaccine in 2005. Since the initial 1967 vaccine, Merck has enjoyed a unique monopoly position in the U.S. market for mumps and MMR vaccines, with combined sales of MMR-II and ProQuad bringing in over $720 million in 2014 alone. Merck consistently places in the top five pharmaceutical companies globally, and the market valued its stocks at a seven-year high as of late 2018.

… Merck has willfully and illegally maintained its monopoly through ongoing manipulation and by representing to the public and government agencies a falsely inflated efficacy rate for its Mumps Vaccine.

In order to score the lucrative MMR monopoly, Merck needed to satisfy the FDA that all three components of the combination vaccine could achieve 95% efficacy, but the mumps portion was bedeviling. In fact, as alleged in a lawsuit filed by two senior Merck scientists in 2010 under the False Claims Act, the company has known since the late 1990s that the mumps component of the MMR is “far less” than 95% effective. A 2005 study published in Vaccine estimated the effectiveness of mumps vaccination to be closer to 69%, and the authors noted that their results were consistent with other studies.

The two whistleblowers assert in the lawsuit—which is reportedly headed to trial sometime this year—that Merck has “willfully and illegally maintained its monopoly” through “ongoing manipulation” and by “representing to the public and government agencies a falsely inflated efficacy rate for its Mumps Vaccine.” Specifically, the two scientists claim that Merck executives ordered them to use “rigged” methodologies, including taking antibodies from rabbits and adding them to human blood vials, in order to gull regulators into assuming an antibody response robust and durable enough to merit licensing. When those “enhanced” tactics did not achieve Merck’s “fabricated [95%] efficacy rate,” the whistleblowers allege, the company resorted to simply falsifying the test data and engaging in other fraudulent activities.

The fact that we have mumps showing up in highly immunized populations likely reflects something about the effectiveness of the vaccine.

Unprotected adolescents and young adults

The poor performance of the MMR’s mumps component and the doubtful “durability” of mumps-specific immunity following vaccination are of concern. In fact, we are already living with the legacy of this badly flawed vaccine. Rather than protecting a generation of American children from mumps infection in childhood, the vaccine has merely postponed the onset of the virus to older age groups, putting them at much greater risk. Researchers confirm an increase in the median age of mumps patients, a surge in the size and number of mumps outbreaks in highly vaccinated populations and higher rates of complications—including orchitis.

Across the country, galloping mumps epidemics have been ravishing an older generation of vaccinated individuals. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) reported 150 outbreaks (9,200 cases) in the year and a half from January 2016 to June 2017, affecting “schools, universities, athletics teams and facilities, church groups, workplaces, and large parties and events.”

Over the past several years, the number of college campuses reporting mumps outbreaks has exploded—at institutions ranging from Harvard and Temple to Syracuse, Louisiana State and Indiana universities. At the University of Missouri, which in 2016 reported 193 mumps cases on campus, the health center director reported not having seen anything like it “in her 31 years at the school.” Commenting on the fact that all of the afflicted students had had the requisite two doses of MMR, she noted, “The fact that we have mumps showing up in highly immunized populations likely reflects something about the effectiveness of the vaccine.”


The mumps virus has also made a “comeback” in other settings where younger adults congregate. For example, a naval ship deployed to the Persian Gulf, the USS Fort McHenry, has been unable to come ashore since early January because of a mumps contagion that has devastated its crew—even though the military vaccinates all personnel against the virus and despite the Navy having immediately subjected the crew in question to another MMR booster. News accounts have declined to comment on mumps complications but describe the quarantine as “a morale killer” for crew members who are accustomed to having monthly port calls. Infection control protocols stipulate that the Navy cannot declare the situation “under control” until “50 days after the last affected service member recovers.”

Endangering rather than protecting youth

All of these cohorts are part of an age group that should never get mumps. As Children’s Health Defense recently noted, whereas “flares of illness in vaccinated groups should prompt some serious questions about vaccine failure,” legislators and government agencies “are displaying a dangerous indifference to vaccination’s unintended consequences.” Dancing to puppet strings manipulated by Merck, legislators across the country are trying to foist even harsher MMR mandates on unwilling Americans, dooming a generation of children to the serious risks of late-onset mumps infections.


Measles, Measles, Everywhere!

While government and media are turning Nazi on “anti-vaxxers” for the latest outbreak, Ghost Ship Media looks at the thousands of documented ER visits of children with fevers, seizures and rashes from measles vaccine virus. Public health erases cases of “vaccine-associated measles” from outbreak data. And did you know that vaccine measles virus is in urine after a shot?


By Celeste McGovern, Ghost Ship Media 

2019 is proving to be the year of the reign of measles terror. In January, it was reported that infected children were milling about the international airport in Portland, Oregon. Neighboring Washington declared a state of emergency a mere 10 days later when 31 cases of measles had been reported in the state. This week, five states were dealing with outbreaks and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention confirmed 314 cases across the nation – almost half the high of 667 cases in 2014.

Clearly, according to the united mainstream media, “anti-vaxxers” are responsible for returning this measly plague from “near extinction.” As one commentator said,  parents who do not ensure that their children get the bare minimum of 23 needles by age five are the moral equivalent of  “drunk drivers” — a menace to everyone on the public highway who should “opt out of society.” Following this vein, one New York county took the extraordinary measure this week of instituting a ban on unvaccinated children in public indoor spaces. Violators will be fined $500 and face up to six months in prison if they dare let an unvaccinated child “…enter into any indoor place of public assembly” in Rockland County, a mostly Orthodox Jewish community north of New York City where 153 cases of measles were reported.

“We will not sit idly by while children in our community are at risk,” Rockland County Executive Ed Day said, launching something eerily akin to marking Jews in Berlin in 1939.  He didn’t say how this would work – are children to show papers before entering shops or synagogues? Or are they to wear stars on their jackets to identify them?  They must have a way.  And they have justified it. “This is a public health crisis and it is time to sound the alarm.”

Thousands of kids, show up in emergency rooms and clinics across the nation with spiking fevers, rashes and seizures caused by measles virus … ‘clinically indistinguishable’ from wild-type measles but it is caused by a vaccine virus.

Vaccine-induced vs. vaccine-preventable

While the measles five-alarm is ringing, it is worth looking into the peer-reviewed, published medical literature about recent infections. The funny thing is that there are hundreds of documented cases – maybe thousands undocumented — of measles going unreported to the CDC every year. Not secret cases of feverish children with mottled rashes, hidden away in the houses of Orthodox Jews or anti-vaxxer wellness types. No. Thousands of kids, show up in emergency rooms and clinics across the nation with spiking fevers, rashes and seizures caused by measles virus. The medical literature describes their illness as “clinically indistinguishable” from wild-type measles but it is caused by a vaccine virus.

“Vaccine- Associated Rash Illness”  looks so much like wild measles that parents go in droves to emergency rooms, usually seven to 12 days after a shot.  Even doctors have to be educated to distinguish  “vaccine-associated measles” from “vaccine-preventable” measles. The only accurate way to do this is by genotyping the virus using polymerase chain reaction (PCR) testing. Good thing we can do that, right? Except that doctors are told not to do PCR tests on children with measles who were recently vaccinated. Public health agencies tell doctors that they must report every case of measles – unless it is in children (or adults) who were recently vaccinated.

ER visits

It’s true, public health agencies tell parents to expect loss of appetite, mild fever and rash — “a mild form of measles”  — seven to 12 days after a measles injection. But for many, many children the reaction is not mild.   One study, published in 2017 in  Vaccine  (the journal of the vaccine industry) found that 7,480 (0.8 percent) of 946,806 American babies — that’s approaching one in 100 — who had recently received a first shot of MMR or MMRV between 2000 and 2012 were taken to an emergency room or clinic and had a “medically-attended” fever 7 to 10 days later.  The study excluded children in hospital earlier than day 7 as well as children who spiked fevers beyond day 10, so actual hospital visits for vaccine fevers is under-reported. This was not an expected vaccine reaction, the researchers said, but “considered an adverse event” to immunization and the study was trying to distinguish those children, clumped in certain genetic families it turns out, who are vulnerable to the reaction so that vaccines could one day be “personalized.” So, if vaccine researchers have found that some kids react differently to vaccines in a bad way than others, should county executives be issuing mandates that all children must be vaccinated?  One shot clearly does not fit all.

An earlier study from Canada also found that one in every 168 babies end up at an ER within two weeks of a measles shot. That’s a lot higher than the one-in-a-million vaccine risk that parents are told about, isn’t it?  The study said the babies were seen mostly for spiking fevers, rashes and seizures. The CDC recognizes an increased risk of seizures after vaccines, including the MMR. Parents take seizures seriously. Maybe they’d be inclined to join the growing ranks of “anti-vaxxers” who don’t want to take any risk – no matter how small the CDC thinks it is –of seizures in their healthy baby.

… our state-of-the-art surveillance systems have huge, gaping holes in their data collection because 1) they don’t understand the virus, 2) they don’t understand their vaccines, 3) they are hiding information, or 4) all of the above.

Erasing cases

In the midst of measles outbreaks we hear so much about, epidemiologists exclude vaccine-associated measles from the public picture. In one study of a measles outbreak in Ontario, Canada in 2015, health officials found that only 17 of 36 confirmed measles-positive cases were “wild type”– likely imported from abroad. Gene sequencing revealed that sixteen of the rest of the confirmed cases were from vaccine measles strain. Another two cases were thrown out before gene sequencing because they were from recently vaccinated individuals and assumed to be “vaccine-associated.” This means that half of the measles cases in the study (18 out of 36) were in people who were infected with vaccine measles, but the public health authorities only recognized 17 cases and could conclude that “most cases occurred in unimmunized individuals.’  In truth, most of the cases occurred in vaccinated people – and they were caused by the vaccine. But public health concluded, of course, that everyone should get vaccinated.

Apart from their staggering omission of cases, why didn’t the health authorities exclude the other 16 cases of vaccine-associated measles before PCR analysis? Perhaps they couldn’t identify them because they were not recently vaccinated. How long ago were they vaccinated? Or were they infected by another recently vaccinated person? What’s remarkable, is these measles cases didn’t interest the Ontario public health officials. These patients, sick with confirmed measles from vaccines, were thrown out of the data pool and, apparently, not further investigated.

In the midst of another measles outbreak,  public health people in British Columbia, Canada were surprised in 2013 when they tested a two-year-old baby girl who had a hot case of measles 37 days after her vaccine shot. The researchers said they “presumed” her illness must have been wild because 37 days is way beyond the expected seven to 21-day window of illness after immunisation described by the Canadian adverse event following immunization (AEFI) surveillance system.  What’s scary about this is that our state-of-the-art surveillance systems have huge, gaping holes in their data collection because 1) they don’t understand the virus, 2) they don’t understand their vaccines, 3) they are hiding information, or 4) all of the above.

… should we be worried that public health has stopped looking for what it doesn’t want to find?

Vaccine virus shedding

Scarier still is the researchers’ conclusion that “Further investigation is needed on the upper limit of measles vaccine virus shedding.” In other words, they know that people shed the live vaccine virus after they are immunized, but they don’t know for how long. Or how infectious it is. We could only find one case of transmission of vaccine virus (brother to sister) — a vaccinated child infecting an unvaccinated child — in the literature. Are we supposed to believe that this has only happened once since 1989 after millions of vaccinations? Or should we be worried that public health has stopped looking for what it doesn’t want to find?

There are horrific anecdotes of people who got measles from their children after they were vaccinated. That’s not hard to believe when studies show that the vaccine measles virus is readily detected in the urine of most children throughout a two-week testing period after vaccination.  Watch out changing diapers of vaccinated children.

Some of those most vulnerable to full-blown vaccination-induced measles are those with compromised immune systems. (e.g. here, here, and here.) Aren’t we told that we’re all supposed to be vaccinated to protect those with weak immune systems? The truth, from the medical literature, is that it is immunocompromised immune systems may not mount a full defense against the live virus in the vaccine. It is these individuals who have also been found to be shedding measles virus long after infection so it would not be surprising to find they shed vaccine virus long afterwards too.

Vaccine measles virus could be airborne like natural disease, as well. This study describes a three-year-old boy who was diagnosed with bronchitis — not measles — after an MMR vaccine. He had no measles rash but genotyping of the virus that he was excreting from his infected throat proved that it was an “attenuated” measles strain.

See no evil

It’s clear that doctors don’t usually test the children who show up at a hospital with measles rashes when they know it must be a vaccine reaction. In fact, they are told not to. “Testing for measles should only be considered in specific circumstances for which there is a possible exposure history to wild-type virus,” public health agencies say. In other words, don’t order the tests if it is going to confirm a vaccine strain.

It’s also clear that public health definitions of measles effectively omit the vaccine-induced disease. If it’s not included, it’s not recorded.  “Given that the standard provincial case definition excludes those who have been recently vaccinated, it was initially not clear that case managemen