They have sold you yet another string of tales. This time, that the vaccine science is settled, that they are perfectly safe and effective for everyone.1
—Kelly Brogan, MD
It’s not just that we don’t know some very basic things about the safety of the sacred program, we also cannot know and should not seek to know.
This stance should offend even the most skeptical scientists.
Still, the farce continues.2
—Mark Blaxill
How does the Unholy Trinity—the vaccine industry, medical establishment, and government—get away with calling vaccines “safe and effective” when the US Supreme Court has ruled that vaccines are “unavoidably unsafe?” The short answer is: it lies. The longer answer is the same, it just takes longer to decode the lies.
Before decoding, it’s important to point out that for governmental employees, the “vaccines are safe and effective” statement is more than a marketing slogan, more than a policy, and more than dogma: it’s an edict. Exactly when, where, and how the phrase became an edict is uncertain, but there’s evidence that is has existed for over half a century. Several scientists have had their careers destroyed when they defied the edict.
Dr. Bernice Eddy was a pioneer in that unfortunate group. Eddy worked as a polio control officer in the 1950s. Her story came to the attention of Congress and the public in 1972. According to the congressional record, Eddy had “found live virus in supposedly killed polio vaccine; in 1955 she was relieved of her duties as polio control officer.”3
Vaccine researcher Marco Cáceres, wrote that had her supervisors listened to, rather than reprimand, Dr. Eddy, “40,000 children would not have been infected with polio, 200 would not have been severely paralyzed and 10 of them would not have died.”4
The live virus Eddy found was from the infamous Cutter factory, the company mainly responsible for including live poliovirus in its inactivated polio vaccine. Another scientist, Julius Younger, accepted an invitation to visit the Cutter manufacturing operation. “I was appalled,” he said.
Tanks containing live-virus pools and other tanks containing virus lots in various stages of formalin inactivation were kept in the same rooms. Conditions were not neat or esthetically appealing. There was a worrisome lack of attention to the most basic rules. . . . They never let me look at their data, but it was obvious to me that they were having serious trouble with their inactivation procedures.5
Younger reported his experience to his boss, who “agreed that it was a serious situation with terrible potential consequences.” His boss said he would write a letter to the appropriate authorities. After American children were paralyzed from the Cutter vaccine, Younger “realized that [his boss] probably had done nothing.”6
Congressman Percy Priest ordered and chaired a full investigation of the Cutter incident, but the public was not to be informed of the investigation. Priest stated that
. . . in the previous year (1955) many responsible persons had felt that the public should be spared the ordeal of “knowledge about controversy.” If word ever got out that the Public Health Service had actually done something damaging to the health of the American people, the consequences would be terrible. . . . We felt that no lasting good could come to science or the public if the Public Health Services were discredited.7
Although Dr. Eddy had been demoted following her discovery of live poliovirus in polio vaccines, that didn’t stop her from getting into trouble again a few years later when she discovered that polio vaccines also contained a cancer causing simian virus derived from the monkey kidneys in which the vaccines were cultured. The congressional record reads: “After her discoveries concerning the SV40 virus, her staff and animal space were reduced and she was demoted from head of a section to head of a unit.”8 According to the Encyclopedia of World Scientists, Eddy
[d]escribed her experiments with the mystery virus at a meeting of the New York Cancer Society in the fall of 1960. [Her boss, Joseph Smadel] heard about her speech and telephoned her in a fury. “I never saw anybody so mad,” Eddy said later. Smadel ordered her not to speak in public again without clearing the content of her speeches with him. . . .
During her remaining years at NIH Bernice Eddy was pushed into smaller and smaller laboratories and denied permission to attend professional meetings and publish papers.9
The congressional record documents that
. . . even when the contaminating virus was found to be oncogenic [cancer causing] in hamsters, the DBS [Division of Biologics Standards] and its expert advisory committee decided to leave existing stocks on the market rather than risk eroding public confidence by a recall.
. . . There has been a tendency on the part of certain higher government circles to play down any open discussion of problems associated with vaccines . . . .10
Downplaying the “problems associated with vaccines” is not a “tendency,” it’s policy. Doing otherwise would violate the edict that vaccines are safe and effective. The FDA officially stated that policy in 1984 when it submitted changes in the manufacturing standards for the live oral poliovirus vaccine. The Federal Register reads:
. . . although the continued availability of the vaccine may not be in immediate jeopardy, any possible doubts, whether or not well founded, about the safety of the vaccine cannot be allowed to exist in view of the need to assure that the vaccine will continue to be used to the maximum extent consistent with the nation’s public health objectives. Accordingly, because of the importance of the vaccine and of maintaining public confidence in the immunization program that depends on it, good cause exists to issue these amendments as a final rule effective immediately.11
When doubts about vaccine safety “cannot be allowed to exist,” neither can research that leads to doubts about vaccine safety be allowed to exist. If John Martin, professor of pathology at the University of Southern California, had been aware of the prohibition against doubt in the vaccine program, he probably wouldn’t have wasted time petitioning the federal government for funding and for vaccine samples to investigate the potential risk that monkey viruses other than SV40 found in polio vaccines might pose to human health. According to a 1996 Money Magazine article,
. . . government officials rebuffed Martin’s attempt to research those risks back in 1978 and again in 1995 when he was denied federal funding and vaccine samples he needed to investigate the effects of simian cytomegalovirus (SCMV), an organism that his studies indicate causes neurological disorders in the human brain.12
Commenting on his experience, Martin said, “The resistance of those in authority to face the issue of prior vaccine contamination is particularly unfortunate, because research establishing a viral cause for neurological disorders or cancers can lead to effective antiviral treatments.” The government also gave Cecil H. Fox the brush-off on his proposal to examine polio vaccines for simian immunodeficiency virus (SIV).13
The FDA fired one of its own scientists, J. Anthony Morris, for insubordination because he revealed his intent to tell the public the truth about the 1976 Swine Flu scam (more in Chapter 8).
In 2009, Judy Mikovits, PhD, a 20-year veteran of the National Institutes of Health, informed 24 leading NIH scientists of her discovery of a xenotropic murine leukemia virus-related virus (XMRV) “linked to chronic fatigue syndrome (CFS), prostate cancer, lymphoma, and eventually neurodevelopmental disorders in children,” including autism.14 According to the CDC, “XMRV is closely related to a group of retroviruses called murine leukema [sic] viruses (MLVs), which are known to cause cancer in certain mice.”15 Mice brains are used as a vaccine culture media. Mikovits estimated that at least 30% of vaccines on the market were contaminated with the gammaretroviruses.16 Authorities eventually responded by throwing the biochemist in jail and imposing a four-year gag order. After the order was lifted, Mikovits joined forces with Kent Heckenlively, former attorney and founding editor of Age of Autism, to chronicle the saga in the book Plague: One Scientist’s Intrepid Search for the Truth about Human Retroviruses and Chronic Fatigue Syndrome (ME/CFS), Autism, and Other Diseases.17
Dubbed “the best scientist-in-jail story since Galileo,” Hillary Johnson, author of Osler’s Web: Inside the Labyrinth of the Chronic Fatigue Syndrome Epidemic, wrote a lengthy foreword for Plague. The following passage from the foreword reveals both the profound implications of the researcher’s discovery and her disdain for the CDC:
[Dr. Mikovits] would call XMRV “. . . the biggest epidemic in United States history,” one destined “to turn the US into the equivalent of HIV-riddled sub-Sahara Africa” if it continued unabated. She labeled the Centers for Disease Control “criminal” for what she saw as the agency’s failure to control the spread of XMRV. Inside her lab, the Atlanta agency’s acronym stood for “Can’t, Don’t Care.” She and her staff derided the agency’s method of selecting patients—by random telephone surveys—calling the government’s cohort “Publisher’s Clearinghouse” patients.
Scientists of integrity are not the only professionals to incur the wrath of the vaccine politburo. As will be explored later, vaccine-informed medical professionals are also at risk. In addition, the drug industry has little tolerance for sales representatives who blow the whistle on industry crimes, something Brandy Vaughan, a woman sometimes referred to as “the Merck whistleblower,” learned the hard way. Now Vaughan regularly speaks out against the industry she used to represent saying she’s
. . . tired of all the lies. The chemical additives in vaccines have absolutely no place in the human body and are causing irreparable damage. And we are being lied to for profit— vaccines are NOT safe. There are too many, too soon and this entire generation of children is suffering because of it. People have the RIGHT to know the risks before they do something that may change their lives forever — or the life of their innocent, healthy child [emphasis in original].18
Vaughan created and heads up the nonprofit organization called LearnTheRisk.org. She takes her message to strategically placed billboards in which she shares key messages about vaccine risks. By doing so, she has placed herself at risk and has paid a high price: “They broke into my house (now selling it because of the PTSD), threatened my life, CPS threats, hacked into all my bank accounts, I have to live my life very differently than before I spoke out.”19
When research emerges demonstrating the risks associated with vaccines and vaccine ingredients, the government often responds by conducting fraudulent studies to shore up the faith of vaccine believers. Dr. Gordon Douglas, director of strategic planning for vaccine research at the National Institutes of Health, explained as much in a 2001 presentation at Princeton University when he said,
Four current studies are taking place to rule out the proposed link between autism and thimerosal. In order to undo the harmful effects of research claiming to link the [measles] vaccine to an elevated risk of autism, we need to conduct and publicize additional studies to assure parents of safety.20
Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. pointed out that when Douglas spoke at Princeton, he was also employed by Aventis, a company that manufactures thimerosal-containing vaccines. In addition, Douglas had formerly served as president of Merck’s vaccination program.21 While serving in that capacity in 1991—the beginning of the thimerosal generation and the autism epidemic—Kennedy asserts that:
Dr. Maurice Hilleman, one of the fathers of Merck’s vaccination programs, warned Dr. Gordon Douglas . . . that six-month-old children administered the shots on schedule would suffer mercury exposures 87 times the existing safety standards. He recommended that thimerosal use be discontinued, “especially where use in infants and young children is anticipated.”22
No doubt, Douglas’s associates appreciated the government spending taxpayer dollars on crooked research to absolve thimerosal—a potent neurotoxin—of the role it plays, and perhaps more important, the role the industry, medical establishment, and government play, in the brain damage and developmental disorders in children.
According to Dr. William Thompson, the man who would become known as the CDC whistleblower, he and his colleagues employed the garbage can method to maintain the faith of believers. Thompson stated that he, Frank DeStefano, Tanya Karapurkar Bhasin, Marshalyn Yeargin-Allsopp, and Coleen Boyle, used this method to destroy documents linking the MMR vaccine to autism. In 2004, the same names were listed as coauthors on the fraudulent study that dismissed the role of the MMR vaccine in autism. In July 2015, Representative Bill Posey quoted Thompson on the house floor as he described the CDC’s garbage can party:
. . . [W]e decided to exclude reporting any race effects. The coauthors scheduled a meeting to destroy documents related to the study. The remaining four coauthors all met and brought a big garbage can into the meeting room, and reviewed and went through all the hardcopy documents that we had thought we should discard, and put them into a huge garbage can. However, because I assumed it was illegal and would violate both FOIA and DOJ requests, I kept hardcopies of all documents in my office, and I retain all associated computer files.23
In 2004, Thompson’s conscience got the best of him. He wrote a letter to CDC Director Julie Gerberding to tell her about the sham research he and his colleagues had presented to the world as truth. Thompson heard nothing from Gerberding, but apparently Robert Chen, then head of CDC’s Immunization Safety Office and Thompson’s direct boss, didn’t think highly of Thompson’s conscience or his letter. Chen met Thompson in an agency parking lot and threatened, “I would fire you if I could.”24
In 2014, Thompson turned over thousands of documents to Representative Bill Posey exposing CDC fraud and cover-up. Thompson told scientist and father of an autistic child Dr. Brian Hooker how he and his colleagues had manipulated and destroyed the evidence linking vaccines to autism. Thompson told Hooker,
I shoulder that the CDC has put the [autism/vaccine] research ten years behind. Because the CDC has not been transparent, we’ve missed ten years of research because the CDC is so paralyzed right now by anything related to autism. They’re not doing what they should be doing because they’re afraid to look for things that might be associated.25
If the CDC’s going to uphold the Vaccines Are Safe And Effective edict, it’s got to do a better job of screening out employees of conscience.
In 2013, Representatives Bill Posey and Carolyn Maloney introduced a bill known as the “Vaccine Safety Study Act.” The act is intended
[t]o direct the Secretary of Health and Human Services to conduct or support a comprehensive study comparing total health outcomes, including risk of autism, in vaccinated populations in the United States with such outcomes in unvaccinated populations in the United States, and for other purposes.”26
Representative Maloney introduced a similar bill in 2007 and 2009. It failed to pass both times.27
One would expect that if Posey and Maloney’s bill were passed and if “a comprehensive study comparing total health outcomes” of vaccinated versus unvaccinated populations were conducted and if the outcomes demonstrated the superior health of unvaccinated populations over vaccinated populations, the government might be free to amend current vaccine-related legislation or at least comment on potential changes in the US vaccine program. Such a conclusion, however, would be incorrect. The bill includes a “rule of construction” that reads: “Nothing in this Act shall be construed to authorize the conduct or support of any study in which an individual or population is encouraged or incentivized to remain unvaccinated.”28
There it is, the edict stated clearly in print, proposed in the same bill that has the potential to finally demonstrate once and for all the superior health status of vaccine-free individuals. The rule would muzzle and bury the outcome just as surely as government officials have muzzled scientists and buried outcomes for over half a century. Thou shalt not say or do anything that would encourage or incentivize citizens to remain unvaccinated. Notice the unspoken yet deafening implication. Being unvaccinated is verboten, bad, evil, not an option, not happening, not a chance. True to the language of the vaccine paradigm, no mention is made of specific vaccines, specific combinations of vaccines, specific vaccine ingredients, genetic variables, or other differences in vaccine recipients. All vaccines, all schedules, all people, all the time. In such a repressive governmental culture, it’s no wonder that fewer than 30% of members of Congress are willing to state whether they vaccinate their own children.29
Kudos to Representatives Posey and Maloney for proposing a vaccinated versus unvaccinated study, but charging the US government with the facilitation of such a study is as farcical as asking a cackle of hyenas to perform a grass versus meat taste test—a taste test that is quite unnecessary. Several vaxxed verses vax-free studies have already been conducted in various countries. The results demonstrate why the government refuses to conduct its own studies. German researchers have compiled statistics from various studies and have found that unvaccinated children suffer from far fewer disorders than their vaccinated peers:
A study out of Salzburger, Germany, reported similar results:
In addition, a 1992 study out of New Zealand documented:
The British Medical Journal published a paper in 2000 titled “Routine vaccinations and child survival: follow up study in Guinea-Bissau, West Africa,” where “[t]he children of 15,000 mothers were observed from 1990 to 1996 for 5 years.” Among other things, the researchers found that “the death rate in vaccinated children against diphtheria, tetanus and whooping cough is twice as high as the unvaccinated children (10.5% versus 4.7%).”33
Dan Olmsted wrote an article for UPI in 2007 describing a privately funded telephone survey of US parents. “In one striking finding,” wrote Olmsted, “vaccinated boys 11-17 were more than twice as likely to have autism as their never-vaccinated counterparts.”34
In 2015, a panel of 120 Italian doctors “submitted an open letter to the Higher Institute of Health; the Italian equivalent of the CDC” stating that “[u]nvaccinated children are healthier.” A rough translation of their conclusion follows:
Unvaccinated children will undoubtedly appear and healthier overall, less prone to infectious diseases, especially airway, less prone to intestinal disorders and chronic diseases, less prone to neurological and behavioral disorders. . . .35
A 2017 study of vaxxed vs. vaccine-free homeschoolers confirmed the indisputable fact that poison-free kids are healthier than kids poisoned with vaccines. Findings include the following:
• Vaccinated children were over fourfold more likely to be diagnosed on the Autism Spectrum (OR 4.3)
• Vaccinated children were 30 times more likely to be diagnosed with allergic rhinitis (hay fever) than nonvaccinated children
• Vaccinated children were 22 times more likely to require an allergy medication than unvaccinated children
• Vaccinated children were over fivefold more likely to be diagnosed with a learning disability than unvaccinated children (OR 5.2)
• Vaccinated children were 340 percent more likely to be diagnosed with Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder than unvaccinated children (OR 4.3)
• Vaccinated children were 5.9 times more likely to have been diagnosed with pneumonia than unvaccinated children
• Vaccinated children were 3.8 times more likely to be diagnosed with middle ear infection (otitis media) than unvaccinated children (OR 3.8)
• Vaccinated children were 700 percent more likely to have had surgery to insert ear drainage tubes than unvaccinated children (OR 8.1)
• Vaccinated children were 2.4 times more likely to have been diagnosed with any chronic illness than unvaccinated children.36
Also in 2017, a study of vaxxed vs. unvaxxed premature infants concluded that:
No association was found between preterm birth and NDD [neurodevelopmental disorders] in the absence of vaccination, but vaccination was significantly associated with NDD in children born at term (OR 2.7, 95% CI: 1.2, 6.0). However, vaccination coupled with preterm birth was associated with increasing odds of NDD, ranging from 5.4 (95% CI: 2.5, 11.9) compared to vaccinated but nonpreterm children, to 14.5 (95% CI: 5.4, 38.7) compared to children who were neither preterm nor vaccinated.37
A team of researchers from Yale School of Medicine and Pennsylvania State School of Medicine published a 2017 paper titled “Temporal Association of Certain Neuropsychiatric Disorders Following Vaccination of Children and Adolescents: A Pilot Case–Control Study.” The researchers found that compared to vaccine-free subjects, subjects vaccinated in the previous three months were more like to be newly diagnosed with anorexia nervosa.
Influenza vaccinations during the prior 3, 6, and 12 months were also associated with incident diagnoses of AN [anorexia nervosa], OCD [obsessive compulsive disorder], and an anxiety disorder. Several other associations were also significant with HRs greater than 1.40 (hepatitis A with OCD and AN; hepatitis B with AN; and meningitis with AN and chronic tic disorder).
The researchers concluded, “This pilot epidemiologic analysis implies that the onset of some neuropsychiatric disorders may be temporally related to prior vaccinations in a subset of individuals.”38
So, knowing that vaccines are “unavoidably unsafe,” and knowing that numerous studies have demonstrated that vax-free kids are healthier than their jabbed counterparts, and knowing that government officials cannot reveal anything that would encourage or incentivize individuals to remain unvaccinated, it becomes clear that any reading of vaccine-related governmental resources must be read and scrutinized as marketing propaganda.
Norman Baylor, director of the FDA’s Office of Vaccines Research and Review Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research, provides a classic example of such propaganda in his slide show presentation titled “FDA’s Role in Protecting Your Child’s Health Through Safe and Effective Vaccines.”39
It’s important to realize that the government would prefer not to define the words “safe” and “effective” because in the absence of a government definition, people are left to the standard definitions of those terms. An online dictionary defines “safe” as “free from hurt, injury, danger, or risk.” “Effective” is defined as “adequate to accomplish a purpose; producing the intended or expected result.”
Such definitions are on the minds of parents when their physicians proclaim that the vaccines they are about to inject into a three-pound premature infant are safe and effective. And that child will get the same dosage that a 300-pound adult would receive. All are assured, of course, that these concoctions will safely prevent disease. Period.
If the government is forced to define the words, it chooses various definitions based on the target audience. Parents and patients get one set of definitions, medical professionals get another, while industry gets yet another. Baylor’s presentation is designed for parents, so the intent is to reassure and persuade them to vaccinate their children with any and all vaccines licensed by the FDA and recommended by the CDC. Slide number three reads: “FDA Serves as the Gatekeeper for Assuring the Safety and Effectiveness of Vaccines.” This sentence effectively reinforces the illusion that the FDA exists to protect American citizens. Once that is accomplished, Baylor provides definitions for the words “safe,” “pure,” and “potent”:
Safe: “Relative freedom from harmful effect . . . when prudently administered, taking into account the character of the product in relation to the condition of the recipient at the time.”
Pure: “Relative freedom from extraneous matter in the finished product, . . .”
Potent: “Specific ability of the product . . . to effect a given result [emphasis in original].”40
The phrases “relative freedom from harm” and “relative freedom from extraneous matter” and “effect a given result” are reassuring to uncritical minds, but to those who are even remotely aware of the FDA’s repeated failures to live up even to these nebulous criteria, they are anything but reassuring.
Slides five through eight provide a detailed description of the process of clinical testing before new vaccines are licensed and brought to market. Careful reading of the text reveals that manufacturers—not the FDA—conduct the clinical tests and submit the results to the FDA for review, then the “FDA determines whether the vaccine is safe, pure, potent (i.e., vaccine immunogenic or efficacious).” All in all, the typical parent would conclude that the approval process is thorough and conducted according to sound scientific procedures.
Louise Kuo Habakus, editor of Vaccine Epidemic: How Corporate Greed, Biased Science, and Coercive Government Threaten Our Human Rights, Our Health, and Our Children, is not the typical parent. Her assessment of vaccine safety research differs from Baylor’s description. According to Habakus, “There is so little vaccine safety research, it boggles the mind. Equally distressing is the fact that we rely upon vaccine makers to do the research for product approval and licensure.”41
Habakus points out that “the government-hired think tank, The Institute of Medicine,” shares her perspective—not the FDA’s—on vaccine testing procedures. The IOM notes
[M]any gaps and limitations in knowledge . . . inadequate understanding of the biological mechanisms . . . insufficient or inconsistent information . . . inadequate size of length of follow-up . . . limited capacity of existing surveillance systems . . . [and] few experimental studies. . . .
Clearly, if research capacity and accomplishment in these areas are not improved, future reviews of vaccine safety will be similarly handicapped.42
While vaccine safety testing is inadequate for single vaccines, it’s virtually nonexistent for vaccines administered in combination or for the entire vaccine schedule. Dr. Brian Hooker, university professor, researcher, and father of a vaccine-injured son, takes a dim view of people who lie about vaccine safety, including Richard Pan, the pediatrician whose lies contributed to the passage of California’s mandatory vaccination bill in 2015. Hooker told a Chicago audience,
The vaccine schedule has not been studied. . . . When folks like Richard Pan out in California talk about the vaccine schedule being safe, it’s the ultimate lie. These people are lying through their teeth because the entire vaccination schedule has never been studied for neurological effects on children.43
Baylor introduces slide number nine with the question “What Does ‘Safe’ Mean?” Then, rather than answer the question, he provides four statements meant to further convince parents that the FDA is on top of its game and that vaccines are safe and necessary.
FDA takes vaccine safety very seriously throughout the vaccine life cycle
• A vaccine is a medication. Like any medicine, vaccines have benefits and risks, and although highly effective, no vaccine is 100 percent effective in preventing disease or 100 percent safe in all individuals.
• Millions of vaccine doses are given per year in the US and the vast majority have few, if any, side effects.
• The benefits of vaccines clearly outweigh their potential risks.
Slide number 10 defines “Effective.”44
• Vaccine effectiveness is the assessment of whether a vaccine prevents disease in the general population.
• Vaccine development proceeds from a study of immunogenicity to a randomized controlled trial that determines vaccine efficacy under ideal conditions.
• vaccine efficacy is defined as the reduction in the incidence of a disease among individuals who have received a vaccine compared to the incidence in unvaccinated people.
• efficacy of a new vaccine is measured in phase 2 or phase 3 clinical trials by giving one group a vaccine and comparing the incidence of disease in that group to another group who do not receive the vaccine.
• vaccine effectiveness depends upon vaccine efficacy45 [emphasis in original].
The FDA’s claim that “vaccine efficacy is defined as the reduction in the incidence of a disease among individuals who have received a vaccine compared to the incidence in unvaccinated people” is false. Vaccinated-versus-vaccine-free studies are rarely conducted, and, when they are, their measure of efficacy is a change in serum or blood antibody levels, not a reduction in the incidence of disease. There are numerous problems associated with vaccine efficacy in general, the efficacy of combined vaccines, and the efficacy of specific vaccines (more in Chapter 9).
Slide number 13 is titled “Vaccine Ingredients,” a subject of utmost importance, because vaccines are chemical concoctions produced by pharmaceutical companies, and the simple truth is that nature did not arrange for the ingredients in vaccines to be injected into the blood streams of humans or any other creature. So what exactly does the FDA have to say about vaccine ingredients?
A vaccine is made up of various ingredients and each ingredient present in a vaccine is there for a specific reason. Different ingredients have different roles in a vaccine, and vaccines licensed for use in the United States are demonstrated to be safe and effective before they are used by the public.46
But enough said. The FDA has decreed that vaccines include “various ingredients” and each ingredient is there “for a specific reason” accomplishing “different roles.” And, since the FDA pronounces vaccines “to be safe and effective,” any sane parent or patient would be a fool not to conclude that all of those unnamed ingredients are also “safe and effective.”
Let’s test that theory using FDA’s logic. Formaldehyde, ethylmercury, aluminum, 2-phenoxyethanol, MRC-5 cells, peanut oil, polysorbate 80, and potassium chloride are a few of the dozens of ingredients found in vaccines. Formaldehyde—embalming fluid—is defined as a carcinogen, but when placed in vaccines, it miraculously becomes safe and effective. Ethylmercury and aluminum are neurotoxins and are synergistically neurotoxic when ingested, but when injected they change into something that’s “safe and effective.” 2-phenoxyethanol is an insecticide. Humans are not insects, but somehow injecting humans with this insecticide is “safe and effective.” Potassium chloride is used in lethal injections to shut down the heart and stop breathing, but when injected into babies it’s “safe and effective.” Of course, the dosage in vaccines is a small fraction of a lethal dosage, but less of a poison does not equal safe, it equals less toxic. MRC-5 cells are cells from aborted human fetuses. Foreign proteins—human or otherwise—can result in a host of medical problems including autoimmune disorders when ingested, but when injected, they’re “safe and effective.” According to Heather Fraser, author of The Peanut Allergy Epidemic, the explosion of peanut and many other allergies in recent years is linked to the use of peanut oil in vaccines.47
Speaking of peanuts, Robyn Charron, an advocate for allergy awareness, wrote a review of Fraser’s book commenting that “It is now known that the structure and weight of the Hib bacteria proteins are very similar to the structure and weight of the peanut protein, which leads to cross reactivity to peanuts and tree nuts.” Charron concludes, “We are, essentially, creating anaphylactic babies in the same manner researchers create anaphylactic mice: administering a peanut-like protein fused to adjuvant bacterial toxin.”48
Lest readers conclude that Fraser and Charron are nut cases, Janet Levatin, MD, Board Certified Pediatrician and Clinical Instructor in Pediatrics at Harvard Medical School, wrote the foreword for Fraser’s book. Levatin’s endorsement could not be stronger:
The Peanut Allergy Epidemic is a vital, groundbreaking book, covering material that resides at intersection of medicine, history, and public policy. I believe it should be required reading for everyone who administers injections, everyone who receives injections, and everyone who authorizes injections for children.49
Hmmm. Baylor’s pronouncement that vaccine ingredients “. . . are demonstrated to be safe and effective before they are used by the public” doesn’t sound so safe anymore, does it? Surely, there are published studies that support the FDA scientist’s position, right? Indeed there are, but there are also hundreds of studies that suggest otherwise. Vaccine researcher Neil Z. Miller compiled 400 such studies in his 2016 book Miller’s Review of Critical Vaccine Studies.50 Following are but a few samples of the papers highlighted in Miller’s book:
• the CDC’s “analysis suggests that high exposure to ethylmercury from thimerosal-containing vaccines in the first month of life increases the risk of subsequent development of neurologic development impairment.”51
• “boys in the United States who were vaccinated with the triple series hepatitis B vaccine, during the time period in which vaccines were manufactured with thimerosal, were more susceptible to developmental disability than were unvaccinated boys.”52
• “. . . the effects of thimerosal in humans indicates that it is a poison at minute levels with a plethora of deleterious consequences, even at the levels currently administered in vaccines.”53
• “Hyperstimulation of the immune system by various [vaccine] adjuvants, including aluminum, carries an inherent risk for serious autoimmune disorders affecting the central nervous system.”54
• researchers “conclude that the [macrophagic myofasciitis] lesion is secondary to intramuscular injection of aluminium-containing vaccines, shows both long-term persistence of aluminium hydroxide and an ongoing local immune reaction, and is detected in patients with systemic symptoms which appeared subsequently to vaccination.”55
• “Vaccines designed to reduce pathogen growth rate and/or toxicity may result in the evolution of pathogens with higher levels of virulence. We propose that waning immunity and pathogen adaptation have contributed to the resurgence of pertussis.”56
• “There is evidence from both prospective epidemiological surveillance and recent experiments in model organisms that immunization with the acellular vaccine may actually increase the host’s susceptibility to infection by B. parapertussis.”57
• “Haemophilus influenzae type b immunization contributed to an increase risk for Haemophilus influenza type a meningitis.”58
• “Current worldwide HPV immunization practices with either of the two HPV vaccines appear to be neither justified by long-term health benefits nor economically viable, nor is there any evidence that HPV vaccination (even if proven effective against cervical cancer) would reduce the rate of cervical cancer beyond what Pap screening has already achieved.”59
• “Under universal varicella vaccination, there has been a vaccine-induced decline in exogenous boosting. We estimate universal varicella vaccination has the impact of an additional 14.6 million herpes-zoster cases among adults aged under 50 years during a 50-year time span at a substantial cost burden of 4.1 billion US dollars or 80 million US dollars annually.”60
• “Compared to the unexposed, patients with zoster vaccination had 2.2 and 2.7 times the odds of developing arthritis and alopecia, respectively.”61
• “. . . the hypothesis that immunization with the recombinant hepatitis B vaccine is associated with an increased risk of multiple sclerosis.”62
Papers such as these lead to the disturbing conclusion that vaccines are not safe and that granting licensure to such products is in direct violation of the government’s own safety regulations. If that is true, then vaccines are really no more legal than illicit street drugs and the FDA and associates are really no different from any other drug dealers.
Drug dealers routinely kill for profit. Vaccine sociopaths have knowingly put at risk virtually every person on the planet to protect and increase their profits. The drug company Wyeth provided a disturbing example of sociopathy in 1979 following a spate of “SIDS” deaths in Tennessee after the administration of the DTP vaccine. Rather than issue an immediate recall of the lot or batch that was associated with the deaths, “senior management staff” agreed that future lots should be distributed more widely to hide the dangerous effects of “hot lots.”63
If industry sociopaths are willing to kill babies for profit, it is not hard to believe that they would do the same to people of influence who get in their way. In fact, since William Thompson issued his public statement in August 2014, dozens of holistic medical professionals have died under suspicious circumstances. Prior to their deaths, many had condemned the practice of sacrificing children on the altar of Vaccinology.64 Whether the industry is responsible for their deaths is yet unknown, but it is well known that CBS News reported in 2009 that
Merck made a “hit list” of doctors who criticized Vioxx, according to testimony in a Vioxx class action case in Australia. The list, emailed between Merck employees, contained doctors’ names with the labels “neutralise,” “neutralised” or “discredit” next to them. . . . One email said: “We may need to seek them out and destroy them where they live . . . .”65
But never mind that. The industry, the medical establishment, the CDC, FDA, HHS, NIH, DOD, and LMNOP are the good guys—the crusaders on a mission to protect against evil germs. So take a big breath, count to ten, and become one with FDA marketing propaganda. In one of the final slides in Baylor’s presentation to parents on the “FDA’s role in protecting your child’s health through safe and effective vaccines,” this reassuring call to the faithful is issued:
FDA employees are parents, aunts, uncles, and grandparents and we have complete confidence in FDA-approved vaccines for our own families. The public can be assured that FDA is diligent in ensuring that the vaccines licensed for use in the United States are shown to be safe and effective.”66
The government has fed its citizens such propaganda for nearly as long as vaccines have been in existence. And, by and large, the public has heeded the altar call.
Much of humanity’s faith in the Vaccine religion lies in the apocryphal accounts of vaccine history—the legendary role of scientists and doctors who wielded vaccines to vanquish smallpox and polio. In order to pull back the curtain on the modern vaccine paradigm, it’s necessary to first pull back the curtain on the false narrative the public has been fed for over a century starting with a discussion of smallpox and then moving on to polio.
