It seems we are rapidly moving towards compulsory vaccination in the West. This likely move is widely supported and promoted by the mainstream media (MSM) who accuse all those who choose not to vaccinate themselves or their children of being a public health risk.
The bandwagon they have created is overwhelmingly populated by those who have a limited grasp of science. Like me, as lay men and women, they are solely reliant upon what they are told, unless they do their own research.
I’m not a scientist and do not profess to have a full grasp of the scientific evidence surrounding vaccines. However, nor do I simply trust everything I am told by someone else, simply because they try to impress upon me their expert status. Especially when they have a very clear conflict of interest. While I defer to those with knowledge, and hope to learn from them, I maintain the right to do my own research, exercise due diligence and reserve judgment.
Nor am I medically trained. I am not advising anyone not to be vaccinated. I firmly believe that should be a choice for them, based upon their own knowledge and awareness. I do not wish people to be forced to accept an invasive medical procedure against their will.
Speaking to your doctor is advisable but you should also know that, in all likelihood, your doctor, throughout many years of medical training has spent less than a day learning about vaccines and the vaccine schedule. Hopefully they will have done additional research, but they certainly won’t have received much ‘education’ during the course of their medical training.
Anecdotally, having worked in health and social care for nearly 30 years, I can tell you that many doctors can’t even remember being trained about vaccine safety at medical school. Any subsequent training they may have done was paid for by the vaccine manufacturers.
It seems pretty clear to me there are grounds for skepticism regarding both the efficacy and safety of vaccines. I do not claim to know anything, all I have are questions. However, whenever I am told that those questions will not be addressed, but instead censored, it serves only to deepen my suspicion.
In Part 1 we’ll look at the reasons for doubting the official vaccine narrative. In Part 2 we’ll look at the science which brings vaccine safety into question and, in Part 3, the systemic scientific and regulatory fraud which appears to permeate the vaccine industry.
Often people labelled ‘anti-vaxxers’, who raise doubts over the safety of vaccines are vilified as ‘tinfoil hat, looney conspiracy theorists,’ dangers to society or even child abusers. There is a considerable amount MSM alarmism being churned out at the moment in a coordinated global effort to maximize public fears about the risks of low vaccine uptake. The pharmaceutical industry is the single largest source of MSM advertising revenue.
I’m knocking on a bit and remember, as a child, being sent to measles, chickenpox and mumps parties by my parents. Pretty much every parent knew it was important to expose their child to these diseases. Having contracted all three, the experience was not pleasant but it was simply a normal part of growing up.
As a result, I have acquired some degree of natural immunity to these diseases. That immunity may have waned slightly, but in all likelihood I’m fine. My own daughter had both chicken pox and measles a few years ago and I am thankful that she too has some natural immunity as a result. Neither I nor her mum, who also had these childhood illnesses, had any symptoms at all, despite providing the physical care she required.
Like most so called ‘anti-vaxxers’ I am not refuting the potential benefits of all vaccines, nor denying the existence of evidence which suggests they are a useful component of effective public health practice. All I am saying is that there is also evidence to question vaccines and, in particular, to doubt they are the panacea for disease and the spread of infection, as claimed.
The MSM and the state have created a febrile environment within which it is impossible to have a reasonable debate about these issues. We should be able to openly and freely discuss the evidence but that opportunity is being crushed as we become increasingly polarized amidst spurious claims of ‘anti-vaxxers’ killing babies. Instead of calling for calm reflection, the state intends to roll out mass censorship and force people to be vaccinated against their will.
Even if you believe vaccine uptake is essential, only the most dimwitted can deny the inherent dangers of such policy. It is all very well you insisting that ‘me and mine’ be forced to undergo medical procedures today, but you should also acknowledge that you are committing yourself to the same state enforcement. Should the state, at some time in the future, decide to inject you or your child with something you don’t want them to, your protestations will come too late.
No amount of shouting at me and calling me a ‘baby killer’ will make a jot of difference. I love my family, wish no one harm, especially my children, have worked all my life to support people in need and won’t be lectured by a bunch of self-righteous bigots whose opinions appear to be entirely ignorant of the counter argument. In my experience anyone who is certain and ‘knows’ the truth invariably doesn’t and their certainty is worthless.
In fact, rather than in MSM created mythology, most who question vaccines don’t reject all vaccines out of hand. Rather they question the need for their rapidly increasing number and suggest we should be cautious. Whether you like it or not, the financial drivers for injecting more babies with more vaccines are immense. As far as I am aware, there is no corresponding increase in the number of diseases. Far from it.
Other concerns raised by ‘anti-vaxxers’ include the untested safety of vaccines and in particular the health impacts of the heavy metal and other adjuvants added to many. Other worries relate to apparently poor licensing and scientific research standards, frequent examples of scientific fraud, examples of regulatory corruption, obfuscation of evidence and more.
This argument that ‘anti vaxers’ refuse to accept science is based upon the notion that there is no scientific or empirical evidence bringing vaccines into question. This is a wholly inaccurate claim. Over this post, and the next two, we will look at just a small sample of that evidence.
While there are many papers which attest to the safety and efficacy of vaccines there are also a significant number of peer reviewed papers which cast doubt. Most of the vaccine supporting papers are based upon research funded by the same pharmaceutical giants, such as Merck, who manufacture and sell vaccines for huge profits. A situation not dissimilar to the one which persisted for many years with the tobacco industry’s funding of ‘scientific research’ which consistently ‘proved’ smoking was harmless.
In 2018 the global Vaccine market was conservatively estimated to be worth $33.7 billion annually. Providing governments force more people to be vaccinated, revenue is planned to soar to an estimated $57.5 billion per annum by 2025. If this enforcement is extended to all adults, which seem inevitable unless we stop it, then those revenues will be measured in the trillions. Largely at the expense of tax payers. Seamlessly transferring wealth from the population to the major shareholders of multinational corporations. Again.
Many people simply cannot believe that the ‘men & women in white coats’ would ever knowingly do anything to harm them. This is a pathetically naive faith. Unfortunately, it is the ‘men & women in gray suits’ who run the show and their only concern is profit. While vaccine profits are relatively low at the moment, compared to prescription drug sales, they are still very healthy and the potential growth is significant.
It is worth noting that the corporations investing billions into vaccine R&D, who are actively lobbying government around the world to promote their products, have an awful lot to lose but far more the gain. The ‘anti-vaxxers,’ who question vaccines, do so because they are concerned for their own, their famly’s and their fellow human beings health. They have no financial incentive at all.
You need to be a special kind of gullible to imagine that Big Pharma’s funding and lobbying power doesn’t shape the alleged balance of scientific ‘proof’ cited by those who are certain all vaccines are fantastic. It appears that any research which questions the safety of vaccines is either stopped in its infancy or fails to secure any long term funding.
This skewing of scientific research is only likely to get worse. Here in the UK, the government recently released their Online Harms White Paper in which they purport to have concerns about, what they call, vaccine ‘disinformation.’ They say these claimed falsehoods lead to a reduced uptake in vaccinations with alleged impacts upon public health. In order to combat this ‘disinformation,’ they intend to censor the sharing of ‘anti-vaxxer lies.’ They propose to work with UK Research and Innovation (UKRI,) who are a governmental organisation, to ‘improve’ the scientific evidence base. There is nothing ‘independent’ about UKRI. The state is going to determine what constitutes ‘evidence’ and will use the evidence it has cherry-picked to justify whatever policy it chooses.
This is deeply concerning because the science and empirical evidence which underpins doubt about the efficacy of vaccines, raising concerns about their potential to cause significant harm, is quite clear.
To call this ‘disinformation’ is grossly misleading. What it shows is that the evidence for compulsory vaccination is debatable. For the state to pretend otherwise certainly warrants further investigation. ‘Follow the money’ would seem a reasonable starting point.
However, for now, let’s look at the common narratives surrounding vaccines. Why don’t we consider if what we are told to believe is actually based upon evidence?
Reason for Scepticism Regarding Some Common Vaccine Narratives
One of the most common argument for the efficacy of vaccines is that, without them, diseases like Smallpox would never have been eradicated. This appears to be based upon a number of false assumptions and is not backed up by evidence.
The concept of variolisation, first used by physicians in India and China, proposed introducing a limited infection to prompt the body’s immune system to build resistance against subsequent, perhaps more severe, infection. This was widely adopted in the West during the 18th century and led to the development of the Smallpox vaccine, the first ever, in 1796 by Edward Jenner.
The state was concerned that Smallpox was killing military personnel before they had an opportunity to be killed in battle. Convinced by ‘the science’ the UK government passed a number of compulsory vaccination laws, including the despised 1867 Vaccination Act.
The UK town of Leicester had some geographical disadvantages which led to unusually poor sanitation and relatively high rates of smallpox. It fared no worse than many other larger conurbations and slightly better than most inner cities, but smallpox was a problem for the people of Leicester in the early 19th century. Much as it was for the rest of the UK. However, Leicester did not fare at all well from compulsory smallpox vaccination. Neither did other towns and cities but, unlike the majority, Leicester resisted.
Following enforcement, which began in 1853, by 1867 94% of all children born in Leicester were vaccinated. Nearly universal vaccination coverage coincided with a huge increase in smallpox among infants. By 1873 the smallpox death rate in Leicester had soared to 3,673 per million. The people of Leicester resisted and disorder erupted as the citizens fought with the authorities to oppose a law, and medical practice, which appeared to be killing their children.
The government was forced to back down and, by 1897, infant vaccination rates in Leicester had dropped to just 1.3%. Following their refusal to abide by the law, and active resistance against compulsory vaccination, the death rate dropped to just 1/30th of that endured during the vaccinated period. By 1894 it stood at 115 per million and it stood at 136 in 1 million in 1902. Elsewhere, in the vaccinated regions of the UK like Sheffield, the death rate remained appalling. Following a national outbreak in 1903/04 the death rate in vaccinated London was 300% higher than in vaccine free Leicester.
While we should acknowledge that science has progressed considerably since 1902, Leicester demonstrates the inherent danger of compulsory vaccination policy where the science and empirical evidence is poorly understood. It appears that current policy makers’ grasp of vaccine ‘science’ is no better informed than those of the 19th century. That they apparently believe there is no evidence to question vaccine efficacy and safety, illustrates the fact.
What was also notable about events in Leicester was the development of a public health technique which came to be known as the Leicester method. The method dictates the rapid diagnosis of cases, followed by swift quarantine and isolation of infected patients, thorough disinfection of infected areas, restricted access to those areas and the use of strict barrier nursing protocols. It proved extremely successful and has been adopted globally as the proper response to the outbreak of disease. Its impact upon death rates should not be overlooked. Yet, by claiming Smallpox was eradicated by vaccines, that is precisely what inoculation acolytes are doing.
The decrease in Smallpox death rates across the world preceded the widespread use of vaccinations. Between 1900 and 1970 mortality rates from disease dropped by 74% worldwide. Smallpox has been almost entirely eradicated since. Disease related death rates in general have also greatly reduced. Proponents of vaccines claim this is because of inoculation. The evidence does not support that view. In reality, it shows that vaccination played only a small, even negligible, part in the story.
A 1977 study by the Boston Department of Sociology looked at the reasons for the huge improvements in U.S public health that occurred during the early to mid 20th century. More than 90% of the improvement came prior to 1950, before the common use of vaccines.
Improvements in sanitation, water security, diet, income and deployment of the Leicester Method, were found to be by far the most significant factors. The study estimated that between just 1% and 3.5% of the improvements could be directly attributed to all medical interventions, of which vaccination was but one facet.
This finding was further supported by numerous studies including a 2000 study by John Hopkins University Center for Disease Control (CDC) which stated:
“….vaccination does not account for the impressive declines in mortality seen in the first half of the century…nearly 90% of the decline in infectious disease mortality among US children occurred before 1940, when few antibiotics or vaccine were available.”
In 1980 the World Health Organisation declared that vaccines had rid the world of Smallpox. However, the empirical evidence clearly shows that Smallpox was well on the way towards eradication before vaccination programs were widely established. Had they not been, there is no reason at all to assume eradication would not have been achieved. Furthermore, as pointed out in 2013 by scientists at the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases smallpox disappeared long before the advent of modern molecular techniques. This means, to this day, there is no clear understanding of smallpox pathology:
“In summary, many important questions about naturally occurring smallpox remain unanswered. Some facets of smallpox pathogenesis, such as the natural route of infection, the site of primary viral replication and the role of concurrent bacterial infections, have been discussed in the literature for over 100 years, yet definitive answers are still lacking……In addition, our understanding of the systemic pathology of human smallpox is severely limited.”
There is no scientific proof that vaccines eradicated smallpox. In fact, the actual empirical evidence suggests this was unlikely. To put it bluntly, the WHO claim is unsubstantiated gibberish.
In 2017 the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation confidently announced, thanks to vaccines, Polio would soon be defeated. This extravagant claim resulted from the work of the Global Polio Eradication Initiative (GPEI). The GPEI was formed of five international organisations. The World Health Organization (WHO), Rotary International, the US Center for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), the United Nations Children’s Fund (UNICEF) and the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation.
The Poliovirus is an infection of the gastrointestinal tract and was one of the most feared diseases of the 19th and 20th century due to the widely held perception of a high risk of childhood paralysis. The additional risk of respiratory paralysis and death was also considered to be high.
While disability caused by disease is a terrifying prospect, like most whipped up, vaccine related alarmism, the level of fear was totally disproportionate the actual risk. The worst U.S Poliomyelitis year was in 1952 when 3,000 people died. The same year 34,000 people died from Tuberculosis and 36,088 were killed, and more than 100,000 permanently disabled, on the roads. While the U.S state funded its National Foundation for Infantile Paralysis (the NFIP,) touring the country with its ‘March of Dimes’ to raise Poliovirus awareness and cash, it did precisely nothing to tackle housing inequality or improve road safety. While the people were petrified of Polio they were practically oblivious to much greater threats of living in overcrowded shacks or crossing the road.
A similar situation exists today with the fear of diseases, such as measles, far outweighing the actual risk. Deaths from measles in the UK consistently plummeted from a peak of 1145 in 1941 to just 51 in 1968. This was due to remarkable improvements in public health during the post war period. The measles vaccine was licensed in 1968 and the MMR vaccine in 1988. The notifications of infection rates continued to fluctuate but the general decline in mortality and reported cases, continued. More than 95% of the decline in UK measles infection and death rates occurred before vaccines were available in the UK.
So it is unfathomable why the Wikipedia page for the measles vaccine makes the following, totally evidence free claim:
“Before the widespread use of the vaccine, measles was so common that infection was considered as inevitable as death and taxes.”
Clearly inferring that it was the vaccine that reduced measles outbreaks. This statement is 95% inaccurate (for the UK) and can therefore be legitimately considered ‘disinformation.’ However, in the UK, the state has decided that pointing out this fact is the ‘disinformation’ it intends to outlaw.
The widely despised Dr Andrew Wakefield has been blamed for causing the reduction in uptake of the MMR vaccine, thereby ‘killing the children.’ I discuss his case in more detail here. However, when we look at MMR coverage in the UK it is notable, although Wakefield’s published research broadly coincided with a reduction in child MMR uptake, from more than 90% on 1998 to a low of 79% in 2003, infection and death rates continued to decline. The reduction in vaccine uptake, according to Public Health England’s statistics, had absolutely no effect whatsoever.
With regards to the Poliovirus it is this potentially unjustified fear of lower vaccine uptake which prompts those who believe in herd immunity to frequently accuse alleged ‘anti-vaxxers’ of pushing children into iron lungs. They insist that Polio vaccinations must achieve ‘herd immunity’ of 95% to save the children. Anyone who suggests any possible doubt is therefore accused of ‘child abuse.’
The Poliovirus results in paralysis for less than 1% of those infected. Of these most will recover eventually. More than 90% of infected people experience polio as a fever with stomach upset. The vast majority of people who have ever contracted the Poliovirus never knew it. In a very small number of cases Poliomyelitis develops which can cause permanent paralysis and is potentially fatal. It certainly is a disease we should be glad to see the back of.
However, this means that 99% of people naturally infected with Poliovirus will both recover and thereafter have lifelong immunity. Which is 4% higher that the suggested 95% ‘herd immunity’ demanded by vaccine ‘experts.’
As part of the GEIP, the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation was particularly active in India, promoting Polio and other vaccines to poorer, rural communities in particular. They were delighted to announce that their vaccination program had finally eradicated Polio from India in 2013. The MSM fell over themselves to tell the world about the wonder of vaccines.
However, the Indians weren’t so impressed. While the last ‘reported case of Polio’ was recorded in 2012, a new, far more deadly form of Poliomyelitis had emerged instead. Writing in the peer reviewed Indian Journal of Medical Ethics (IJME) researchers stated:
“While India has been polio-free for a year, there has been a huge increase in non-polio acute flaccid paralysis (NPAFP). In 2011, there were an extra 47,500 new cases of NPAFP. Clinically indistinguishable from polio paralysis but twice as deadly, the incidence of NPAFP was directly proportional to doses of oral polio received.”
Not such a resounding success then. The other slight problem is that it is impossible to eradicate Polio. Something the scientific community has known since 2002. The Poliovirus genome is well known and can be synthesised in vitro. Meaning it can never be considered extinct. Polio vaccination will have to continue forever, with no end in sight.
The other niggle with the miracle vaccine is that it mutates creating new ‘Vaccine Derived Polioviruses (VDPV’s).’ While the GEIP were keen to stress that VDPV outbreaks were rare, with only 20 recorded in 2011, and could be controlled by, you guessed it, more Polio vaccine, the actual data told a different story.
Not only is NPAFP far more deadly than its naturally occurring Polio predecessor, the total residual paralysis and death rate is 43.7%. Which is 43.7 times worse than the Polio Bill and Melinda saved everyone from.
The WHO have categorically stated that the peer reviewed findings of the IJME are flawed. They say that although NPAFP is identical to Poliomyelitis, just more deadly, and despite the fact that the data showing its emergence was recorded during the trials run by GEIP, it is not Polio because Polio has been eradicated. However, the WHO are a contributing member of the GEIP. Make of that what you will.
Obviously it would be good to know more about this new, presumably man made virus. Unfortunately, having spent nearly $2.5 billion on GEIP’s rescue mission, India couldn’t justify throwing anymore of their already overstretched resources at it. As for the GEIP, they simply couldn’t be bothered either to report or investigate the data. Search the GEIP website for any mention of NPAFP and there isn’t one. It is like it never happened and you certainly won’t have heard anything about it from the Western MSM.
Maybe the Merck, Pfizer and Johnson & Johnson major shareholder Bill Gates really does want to save the children. However, he’s a shrewd business man who also knows a good opportunity when he sees one.
Speaking to CNBC in January 2019, the B&MG Foundation head reported that he had invested “a bit more than £10 billion,” into vaccination programs, adding “we feel there has been a 20 to 1 return.” Yielding a $200 billion return from an initial $10 billion investment is good going. Fantastic news for his tax exempt foundation. Not so good for the people of India.
So perhaps he was happy to walk away with the cash when the Indian government made his foundation distinctly unwelcome after it was embroiled with Merck in illegal vaccine trials on unsuspecting Indian children. Killing 7 in total.
Herd Immunity – Another Pro Vaccine Canard
One of the most common reasons given for castigating any who refuses to vaccinate either themselves or their children is that they are undermining herd immunity, ruining the ‘herd effect.’ The idea being, when a critical mass within a herd develop natural immunity to a disease, the chances of those with poorer natural immunity succumbing to illness is greatly reduced.
Therefore the state, and its MSM propaganda machine, are constantly claiming that vaccine rates of 95% must be achieved in order to maintain ‘herd immunity.’ Achieving this figure is also the basis for the projected profit growth. Venture capitalists the world over are cuing up for a slice of the pie.
Those who apparently believe everything they are told by the state, the vaccine manufacturers and the MSM about vaccines, consequently accuse people who oppose some vaccines of ‘killing children.’ Irrespective of their clear predisposition to hysteria, these ‘pro vaccine zealots’ are deluded for another, far more important reason.
As with any good science there is considerable doubt about “herd immunity.” Even a casual glance at basic statistical data raises some obvious questions, especially in relation to claims that vaccines can achieve the ‘herd effect.’
One of the ‘anti-vaxxers’ concerns is that there doesn’t appear to be any need for many of the newer vaccines, and certainly no empirical evidence at all to suggest vaccines coverage has ever come close to the allegedly required 95%. There is no data even to suggest what supposed vaccine herd immunity might look like, because it has never been achieved.
Simply look at the CDC’s own 2016 data for overall U.S population vaccination coverage. As the most vaccinated country on Earth, these statistics evidence the highest percentage of vaccine coverage anywhere.
Only the Tetanus and HepB ‘vaccines’ have managed to eclipse 60% coverage, with most vaccines at or below 40%. There is no empirical data evidencing the vaccine related herd effect. All the claims of ‘anti vaxxers’ killing children are based on nothing but speculative hypothesis. From a very basic, logical standpoint, these obscene allegations are total nonsense. They are founded entirely upon conjecture.
In 1985 vaccine coverage in the U.S only related to a few diseases. The majority of the numerous ‘vaccines,’ which currently comprise the U.S vaccine schedule, didn’t exist. If achieving vaccine herd immunity is essential to protect against these diseases then we should have seen some epidemic outbreaks for the universally unvaccinated at the time. However, we didn’t.
Not only is vaccine herd immunity an unproven hypothesis, claims about the herd effect relate to the development of natural immunity. Even if the hypothesis is correct, which is doubtful, there is absolutely no evidence at all that herd immunity would or should apply to the artificial immunity supposedly induced by vaccines. Natural immunity against disease, acquired through natural infection, is more or less lifelong. Claimed vaccine derived immunity is generally far more short lived, hence the need for your ‘booster.’
In addition viruses have their own life-cycle, and further variation occurs via different strains. The idea that you can pick one particular strain, vaccinate against it and assume immunity for whatever the pathogen mutates into is complete tosh. Seeing as the actual evidence shows that some vaccination can effectively stimulate viral mutation, VDPV’s for example, the vaccinated won’t be protected either. Acting merely as incubators for new, potentially more lethal strains, like NPAFP.
Another major problem with the hypothesis is that human beings are biologically and sociologically unique. The idea that all are equally susceptible to infection is rubbish, as is the suggestion that our individual behavior patterns carry equal risks of spreading infection. Characteristics such as ethnicity, age & gender, behaviour, and even our stress levels, all have an impact on our varying risk both of contracting and spreading infectious diseases.
The whole point of the MMR parties I was forced to attend as a child was that everyone knew a child’s developing immune systems was able to adapt to infection and produce immunity that would protect that individual for life. Artificially stimulated immunity in the young stops that natural adaptive process. Thereby pushing the time of first infection towards adolescence and adulthood when the natural immune system is far less flexible. Consequently, some studies show that widespread vaccination of children increases the chances of more dangerous pathogens emerging.
In 2015 mathematicians at Rutgers University analysed the pre and post vaccine era public health data and came to a rather concerning conclusion.
“Our calculations show that negative outcomes are 4.5 times worse for measles, 2.2 times worse for chickenpox, and 5.8 times worse for rubella than would be expected in a pre-vaccine era in which the average age at infection would have been lower.”
Vaccines come in a variety of forms. Live Attenuated Vaccines contain live viruses, Inactive Vaccines are synthesized from dead pathogens, Subunit, Recombinant, Polysaccharide, and Conjugate Vaccines target specific elements of a live pathogen and Toxoid Vaccines are extracted from pathogenic toxins. With more planned vaccine types in the pipeline, including GMO variants, vaccines are not all alike. Neither are virus strains.
The MSM have spent years trying to convince you that you must be either one of the sensible people, believing that all vaccines are great, or a dangerous ‘anti-vaxxer’ lunatic, who must believes all vaccines are lethal. The polarisation and preposterous oversimplification of this debate is dangerous rhetoric which appears to serve but one purpose. To make the debate itself virtually impossible.
To question vaccines is not to claim all vaccines are dangerous, let alone lethal. To think all vaccines are equal is not rational.
When anyone is vaccinated they will hopefully develop immunity against the targeted disease. If they receive a Live Attenuated vaccine, such as MMR, the Nasal Flu vaccine or the Oral Polio vaccine, there is clear, peer reviewed science that, while they may not experience the symptoms, they could well be infectious to others. This is referred to as ‘shedding.’
Viruses require a host to replicate. As they do, they shed into the blood stream of the host organism. In the natural world this isn’t necessarily a bad thing. Large complex organisms, such as human beings, have shared the planet with their little viral siblings for millions of years. There is evidence that acquiring viral infections is an essential component of developing a healthy immune system.
Further evidence indicates that we have evolved in concert with millions of viruses, fungi, bacteria, and all manner of potential nasties, in what is called the ‘microbiome.’ This living environment, inside all of us, is unique to every individual. This is why some people are immune from one disease yet susceptible to another. It is also another reason to doubt the notion of herd immunity. We should think twice before artificially interfering with this process and should also question anyone who claims people should be forcibly vaccinated for the good of the herd.
For a variety of medical reasons, a percentage of the population are either immuno-suppressed or resistant to vaccination. If compulsory vaccination is forced upon us, there is a distinct possibility the mass population would shed potentially more lethal strains of a virus, thereby presenting a far greater risk, not only to the vulnerable, but to themselves and everyone else.
It gets worse (possibly.) Repeated vaccination, over time, frequently reduces immunity, potentially leaving the vaccinated unable to resist naturally occurring viruses in later life. We could see a significant decrease in average lifespan.
Prior to widespread vaccination the population possessed inbuilt natural immunity and generally had healthy microbiomes. The evidence clearly shows that the significant advancements in public health were achieved through better standards of sanitation and other essential infrastructure developments. It was not due to vaccines, which actually played a relatively minor role. If vaccines were the savior then, certainly in the post war period until the 1970’s, we should have seen far more epidemics and the massive reduction in infection rates should not have occurred.
None of this means vaccines don’t work. For example there are a many peer reviewed, scientific papers which demonstrate how vaccination could have reduced the impact of the Poliovirus.
However there is solid justification for some skepticism. Questions definitely need to be answered before we start throwing people in prison for expressing reasonable doubt. For the pro vaccine majority to ignore these questions, without ever considering them, simply because they have been convinced by the MSM and vaccine manufacturer funded research, is to deny scientific debate.
Unquestioned science is not science. It’s belief.
My own confirmation bias leads me to be highly skeptical of any scientific research which is funded by corporations with a massive vested interest in the outcome. I could be wrong, but that is my opinion. Therefore the vast amount of papers ‘proving’ that various vaccines are perfectly safe can be discarded as untrustworthy. Personally, I only find research compelling if it is genuinely independent and based upon measurable, empirical data. Modeling and projections are far less convincing in my view.
Vaccination: Do your own research, exercise due diligence and reserve judgment – Part 2
by Iaian Davis
In Part 1 we looked at some of the evidence which casts doubt upon the common narratives asserted by those who unquestioningly support all vaccines. This included evidence that vaccines had minimal impact upon the eradication of Smallpox, that claims of Poliovirus being ‘defeated’ by vaccines are dubious and that improvements in public health practices were far more influential in the overall reduction of disease than vaccines appear to have been.
We looked at the lack of evidence to support the hypothesis of ‘herd immunity.’ We also considered the medical evidence which makes any notion that vaccines can ever achieve the ‘herd effect’ extremely unlikely.
I am not suggesting that all vaccines are useless, nor potentially dangerous. Vaccines come in a variety of forms and human susceptibility, both to contracting and spreading infection, is unique to the individual. As are our immune system’s responses to inoculation. Contracting viruses naturally is a vital component for the healthy development of our individual immune systems. At a very basic level, some skepticism regarding the potential risks of interfering with this natural process is warranted.
Having received some feedback on the post from the Twitterati, the problem we face in establishing any kind of reasonable dialogue about vaccines was painfully apparent. I wrote Part 1, partly out of my own interest, but also to respond in full to those who, contrary to my understanding, insisted there was no empirical evidence questioning vaccines.
I cited peer reviewed papers, government statistics and intergovernmental inoculation campaign statements throughout the post. Yet still most of these people refused to consider, or even look at this evidence. Preferring instead to call me an idiot, accuse me of being a child abuser or claim that I was spreading dangerous ‘anti-vaxxer’ disinformation. One individual, who claimed to be eminently qualified, said he was looking forward to the day I would be imprisoned. This hysterical reaction is based upon the narrative forced upon people by a MSM. It is very easy to be convinced that all the ‘science’ supports your point of view if you never look at any.
The overwhelming body of scientific studies and evidence strongly supports vaccines. In Part 3 we’ll look at the evidence which raises concern about the possibility of widespread scientific fraud in vaccine R&D and corruption of both the licensing authorities and the adverse reaction reporting system. Remarkably, given the overwhelming bias in research funding, there is still a significant body of scientific research which does question vaccine safety. You are free to dismiss this research if you like but you can’t pretend it doesn’t exist, no matter what you are told to believe.
Some of the studies which question vaccines are written off by vaccine supporters because they claim they were not published in ‘reputable scientific journals,’ such as the British Medical Journal. However, it should be noted that ‘respected’ journals such as the BMJ and the Lancet have financial partnerships with the vaccine manufacturers. So if we are going to question the ‘respectability’ of a journal we might start by looking at its independence and who funds it. Many of the studies I cite here are published in so called reputable journals. This is a prerequisite for some to even accept the ‘science’ as real. Personally, I don’t see it lends them any additional credibility at all.
Another objection is that the studies which question vaccinations are not ‘properly’ peer reviewed or, even when they are, that peer review process isn’t ‘trusted’. Aside from the fact that the peer review process itself is in deep trouble this often boils down to people’s choice, or preference. This appears to be based upon some arbitrary set of standards they apply independently to the science they either ‘accept’ or ‘reject.’
If you reject the peer review process, for some science, because you disagree with the reviewers then you reject the entire peer review process because you acknowledge it is subjective. Inevitably this leads to a situation where you only ‘believe’ the peer reviewed science you already agree with. Which makes a mockery of any claims to respect either the peer review process or science, both of which should maintain high standards of objectivity.
So we are now going to consider a small fraction of the peer reviewed scientific evidence which suggests there may be health risks associated with vaccines. If for no other reason than to provide a semblance of balance.
Dr Lucija Tomljenovic Ph.D from the Neural Dynamics Research Group, criticising the statement made by the Center for Disease Control and Prevention senior epidemiologist Dr Robert Chen, outlined the wide availability of scientific research questioning vaccines:
“…….The statement by Dr Chen that ‘the science behind vaccination safety is rock solid’ is factually inaccurate and contradicts a large body of scientific literature published on this subject. As with any medication, vaccines can carry risks of adverse reactions (ADRs). However, in spite of the widespread notion that vaccines are largely safe and serious adverse complications are extremely rare, a close scrutiny of the scientific literature does not support this view. For example, to date the clinical trials that could adequately address vaccine safety issues have not been conducted (i.e., comparing health outcomes in vaccinated versus non-vaccinated children).”
As ever, I recommend you do your own research on everything discussed at In This Together and make up your own mind. If you ‘Google’ Dr Lucija Tomljenovic you will immediately encounter the ‘debunking’ of someone going by the name of the Skeptical Raptor. This anonymous character, who makes claims about their own scientific knowledge, none of which can be verified, is often cited by those who call Dr Tomljenovic an ‘anti-vaxxer.’ For her part Dr Lucija Tomljenovic has a Ph.D. in biochemistry and is currently a senior research fellow at the University Of British Columbia School Of Medicine in Vancouver.
Alphabet inc. is the multinational conglomerate holding company for Google. It’s venture capitalist arm GV is a major investor in vaccine technology and research. I suggest avoiding Google for anything but basic information searches. DuckDuckGo is currently a far more informative and reliable alternative.
A 2013 study published in the Journal of Toxicology scientists from the University of British Colombia and MIT outlined how Aluminum is harmful to the Central Nervous System (CNS). The paper points out how CNS problems are correlated with neurological disorders like Autistic Spectrum Disorder (ASD), and makes a strong argument that Aluminum adjuvants in the form of pediatric vaccines, could be contributing to increased rates of ASD.
Statistical analysis demonstrates that the increase in the diagnosis of ASD’s correlates directly with the rapid expansion of the vaccine schedule. However, improved diagnostic tests could also account for the increase. Similarly there is also a strong correlation with the increasing level of Glyphosates in food stuffs. So this statistical analysis alone certainly doesn’t ‘prove’ a link between ASD and the vaccine schedule. Equally, what cannot be claimed, is that the apparent correlation between ASD diagnosis and the vaccine schedule doesn’t exist.
This potential link between vaccines and Autism, first widely acknowledged following the 1998 paper by Dr Andrew Wakefield et al, has emerged in a number of other papers. For example a 2010 study by the Stony Brook Medical Center found that the Hepatitis B vaccine more than trebled the likelihood of developing ASD. A more direct possible link between ASD and the MMR vaccine emerged in a paper by the Utah Department of Biology and Biotechnology Center who found elevated levels of MMR antibodies in children diagnosed with ASD.
A further 2007 study by researchers at the University of Iowa, looking at data sets from 2004, found a suggested link between the mercury adjuvant in many vaccines (Thimerosal) and rates of autism. The potential damaging effect of injecting unprecedented levels of metals directly into the blood stream of small children was effectively conceded by the vaccine industry and the CDC who recommended that Thimerosal, in particular, be removed or ‘reduced.’ However, contrary to numerous studies, they maintained that the risks were low.
Consequently Thimerosal was removed as a ‘precautionary measure.’ Which does beg the question, if there was certainty that the risks were low, why this precaution was necessary. Contrary to the reassurance studies showed this increased exposure to mercury may have been linked to increased fetal ASD risks. Therefore, while we can welcome its removal, we might question how it ever passed supposed licensing safety standards in the first place. Something we’ll explore in Part 3.
Concerns over increased exposure to metals via vaccination have been roundly dismissed by vaccine proponents because numerous studies suggest no elevated risks. We commonly encounter both heavy and other metals, such as Aluminum, in our environment and the levels found in vaccines are deemed to be safe by the vast majority of both scientific researchers and the public.
However, the debate centers around the way in which vaccines introduce these metals into the body, especially with regard to infants. Most studies which have looked at potential risks have tended only to consider immediate, short term, reactions. Very few, and certainly none funded by the vaccine manufacturers, have studied the potential longer term impacts.
The argument for this lack of inquisitiveness by the manufacturers and regulatory authorities is that metal based adjuvants are absorbed quickly, rapidly excreted and are unable to pass the Blood Brain Barrier (BBB). Consequently, longer term studies into these potential risks are one of the few areas of ‘vaccine science’ where the weight of evidence tends towards skepticism.
There is significant evidence to challenge what appears to be an assumption, within many of the short term studies, regarding how metals, and in particular Aluminum Adjuvant Nanoparticles (AAN’s), are absorbed. The assumption is that the absorption and excretion mechanism following ingestion of aluminum also applies when it is injected directly into the bloodstream via vaccination. The scientific evidence suggests this is not the case.
Aluminium (Al) is naturally absorbed via ingestion in a water soluble ‘ionic’ form. It is toxic but natural ingestion and environmental exposure means we are adapted to process and excrete this toxin. Our immune response dispatches cells called macrophages (MF) to attack and digest the Al in a process called ‘phagocytosis.’ We then excrete it in the normal way.
AAN’s are not digested within the MF’s, remaining in the body for a much longer duration. The ‘infected’ MF’s effectively become toxic and transport the AAN’s around the body. MF’s freely traverse the BBB and the brain is extremely sensitive to Al. The studies which demonstrate this process are numerous and experimental proof is consistent and repeatable. For example Khan et al stated:
“…continuously escalating doses of this poorly biodegradable adjuvant in the population may become insidiously unsafe, especially in the case of overimmunization or immature/altered blood brain barrier…”
From a legal perspective there is no doubt that vaccines can and do cause significant harm. The only question is the level of risk associated with vaccines. Vaccine manufacturers in the U.S are immune from prosecution. In 1986 the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program was set up to ensure such cases would not be heard in open court. The NVICP dictates:
“….claims against vaccine manufacturers cannot normally be filed in state or federal civil courts, but instead must be heard in the U.S. Court of Federal Claims, sitting without a jury.”
This level of secrecy is maintained by ensuring that most vaccine claims remain unpublished. However you can view some of them here if you are interested. Bear in mind this report is for just one quarter.
The situation in the UK and other European nations is similar. However, as this freedom of information request illustrates, the indemnity is on more of an ad-hoc basis in the UK. However, we might ask why vaccine manufacturers should be afforded any indemnity. Why do so many states consider it important that they be protected against prosecution?
In the U.S the pharmaceutical industry successfully lobbied for state protection after their profits were eroded by the mounting costs of insurance liability payouts claimed by people ‘allegedly’ injured by the DTP vaccine. Thus the NVICP was created to protect the manufacturer from having to admit any liability and keep their insurance costs low. To date the NVICP has paid out more than $4 billion in compensation to people who were supposedly ‘not injured’ by vaccines.
Nonetheless, there have been a number of cases which have slipped through the secrecy net where the details are known and the vaccine has clearly been identified as a causal factor. For example, in 2017, the family of Christina Tarsell was awarded compensation for her death as a result of receiving the Gardasil Vaccine. This has been strenuously denied by vaccine advocates but it is beyond reasonable doubt in law.
The state had previously tried to shift the onus of the burden of proof onto the family. Winning a decision in 2012 as a result. However the Tarsell family persisted and cited the Althen Standard which required them to demonstrate three points to the courts satisfaction.
1. There was sound medical theory and evidence linking the death to the vaccination.
2. There was a logical sequence of cause and effect showing vaccination as the cause of Christina’s arrhythmia (her cause of death.)
3. Demonstrate a temporal connection between the vaccination and the onset of the arrhythmia.
The Tarsell family did precisely that and the onus was then on the state to prove that the Althen Standard had not been met. They could not and the family was awarded ‘compensation.’ The potential for the Gardisil vaccine to damage the heart has been demonstrated by scientists from the Department of Molecular and Computational Biology at the University of Southern California who found that the ammino acid sequence, common to the the Gardisil virus proteins, are identical to the sequence of some heart muscle cells.
Similarly, children with acquired brain injuries, such as in the cases of Polar, Banks and Mojabi have been awarded payments by the Federal courts. In each and every instance the proponents of vaccination insist these cases prove nothing. However the fact remains they were awarded compensation as a result of a vaccine acquired injury.
For example, in the case of Baily Banks the court stated:
“……. that Bailey’s ADEM (Encephalomyelitis) was both caused-in-fact and proximately caused by his vaccination (MMR).”
[bracketed content added]
These court findings, signifying the potential for some vaccines to cause health harm, are consistent with the scientific research. Flarend showed that Al adjuvants are retained in the body far beyond the time claimed by the vaccine manufacturers. These results were confirmed in a study by the Michigan State University among others.
Another claim of the vaccine supporters is that while some people with genetic anomalies, allergies or immune deficiencies, may be at greater risk from adverse reactions, this tiny risks is virtually non-existent for the otherwise healthy. Again science disputes this notion. A study by a team from the Barcelona Infant Hospital found the process of MF corruption by AAN’s was clearly identified in blood samples taken from healthy individuals.
The Immunity Research Group from the University of Calgary observed that inflammation anywhere in the body prompted the toxic MF’s to travel to the brain. This was corroborated by collaborative study by the Cedars-Sanai Medical Center and the French Institute of Health and Medical Research who showed how the MF’s could carry AAN’s across the Blood Brain Barrier directly into the brain.
The studies here are just a few of those which indicate a possible link between vaccines, brain injury and potential ASD. There are many more which highlight evidence which suggests vaccines may also incresae the risk of a range of neorological, physycal and mental health problems.
None of this means the benefits of vaccines don’t outweigh the risks nor that widespread vaccination definitely presents a long term danger to public health. But the science is clear and further research is most definitely warranted. What is also evident is that the manufacturers and the regulatory authorities are, for some reason, extremely reluctant to invest in this further research.
In reality, completely contrary to most peoples understanding of vaccines, there is virtually no scientific evidence at all that long term exposure to AAN’s is safe. The assumption in vaccine ‘safety studies,’ which assert no risk, are all based upon a provable falsehood. Namely that naturally Al absorption is equally true for vaccine related AAN absorption. The vaccine acolytes who call anyone who questions vaccine safety ‘anti-vaxxers’ are either unaware of or choose to ignore this fact.
Therefore it is extremely concerning that the state have announced they intend to legislate to remove ‘anti-vaxxer disinformation.’ They have yet to define what they consider to be ‘disinformation.’ However, I expect this post will be among those to fall foul of the new state Internet censorship regulations. The MSM have already convinced the masses that everyone who questions vaccine safety is a lunatic, regardless of the scientific evidence, and the state is using this narrative to roll out censorship legislation.
However, because we still have some semblance of free speech, people who don’t necessarily believe everything companies like Merck or GlaxoSmithKline, or the state, tell them, without examining the evidence, persist with their crazy allegations that there is a lot of science which questions vaccines. Which there is.
At the same time the state, almost universally supported by the public, who know about as much about vaccine science as I do, are moving towards compulsory vaccination. Anyone who challenges this is then castigated as an ‘anti-vaxxer’ child abuser. Rather than debate the science there is a global initiative to shut down all discourse, remove freedom of speech and force people to undergo invasive medical procedures against their will.
This smacks of fascism and book burning. Even if you think everyone who highlights scientific scepticism about vaccines is insane, if you can’t recognise the danger in allowing such laws to exist, you may soon find you won’t be able to express your views either. Because once the ‘Ministry of Truth’ cat is out the bag it won’t stop at the critics of vaccines. The UK state is already planning legislation to censor criticism of its foreign policy.
I am one, among many, who does not accept that the case for mandatory vaccination has been made. The risks are largely unknown and there is a distinct lack of evidence to demonstrate that the long term use of some vaccines is even safe, let alone effective.
You can call people like me ‘anti-vaxxers’ if you like, but applying that label doesn’t mean anything, especially if you haven’t even bothered to take the time to research these issues yourself. Claiming that there is no scientific or substantive evidence to question vaccines is absurd.