Why I Don't Trust My Doctor When it Comes to Vaccination

“How can you go against what your doctor recommends, don’t you trust your doctor!?”
It seems a give-in that medical professionals know more than we ‘non-medical people’ about vaccines, right? Surprisingly it’s not always the case. Vaccinology, immunology, or epidemiology are specialties not included in general medical degrees – these specialties require additional training.

The stark reality is that med students are taught very little about vaccines. This is reiterated in the article, “Vaccines: What Your Doctors Know and Don’t Know”, which is in essence a compilation of quotes from doctors revealing what they have learnt about vaccines in med school. An excerpt: [1]
“Doctors learn a lot about diseases in medical school, but we learn very little about vaccines. … We don’t review the research ourselves. We never learn what goes into making vaccines or how their safety is studied. So, when patients want a little more information about shots, all we can really say as doctors is that the diseases are bad and the shots are good. – Dr Bob Sears”
In a recent discussion I was in a family doctor expressed concern over a recent article she read that touted, “doctors spend their lives researching vaccines”. The problem she had was that this simply isn’t true at all. The doctor explained that not only are doctors taught extremely little about vaccines in med school, they don’t routinely do ongoing research either – they would love to but simply don’t have the time.

She went on to say that the bulk of the recommendations doctors make are dictated to them by major health organizations. Doctors are told what to recommend to their patients, they don’t develop these recommendations after years of independent research. If you want to know what type of education most doctors receive about vaccines, read the latest handout from the CDC. Given the minimal education doctors are given regarding vaccines it wouldn’t take long to get to the point you know more than your own doctor on the subject.

But there’s more to it than just a lack of training, a lot of people have lost trust in conventional medicine because of poor treatment. A common scenario:
  1. Parents are told, “there is absolutely nothing to worry about”, when they express concern over vaccinating their child.
  2. They agree to vaccinate their child, but their child goes on to suffer a severe vaccine reaction.
  3. Their doctor refuses to acknowledge the vaccine injury.
  4. Their doctor kicks the family out for refusing to subject their child to more vaccines.
Experiences like this destroy trust in the medical establishment. That distrust isn’t based on irrational belief, it’s based on real life experiences. If you haven’t had an unfortunate experience with conventional medicine, then great, good for you, I’m glad it has been plain sailing for you so far. But for many it’s been rough, to say the least. They’ve learnt their lesson the hard way – doctors are human, they aren’t endless sources of information, they are fallible, and sometimes they get it very, very wrong.

It’s unlikely that people who don’t blindly trust their doctors opinion on vaccination are inadvertently saying they think they know better than their doctor – though given the vast medical literature available to us today via PubMed or Cochrane that could very well be a possibility. It’s more likely that these people can’t blindly trust that the vaccine their doctor is pushing as “totally safe and absolutely necessary” really is, because experience has taught them to be skeptical. Their child’s vaccine-induced brain damage is a constant reminder that they can end up paying a very high price if they choose to have blind faith in a doctor.

Research has confirmed that skeptical patients really do have a valid reason to be wary. Larry Dossey et al wrote a scathing report on the safety and efficacy of conventional medicine in which they found:
"...when you take your sick child to the hospital or clinic, there is only a 36% chance that he will receive a treatment that has been scientifically demonstrated to be either beneficial or likely to be beneficial."
Just 13% of treatments were scientifically proven to be beneficial.[2] Taking into account those numbers, it isn’t surprising that many patients have had disappointing experiences with conventional medicine.

It’s also worth noting that not every doctor or scientist thinks that vaccines are safe and effective. There is a wide range of opinions.[3-5] Some medical professionals have taken the time to research medical literature and question the recommendations they are expected to follow. Numerous doctors have spoken out with concern over the current and past vaccine schedule. However, whether a doctor agrees with vaccination or not, they are often bound by their workplaces policy to promote vaccination. If they dare speak out against vaccination they risk losing their job. Or worse, no one wants to be “Wakefielded”.
“What makes you think your “google research” is on par with a medical professionals?”
It’s important to remember when we talk about vaccines, we are talking about a range of products. The question is how well these products perform when put to the test – that knowledge is available to everyone, medical professional or not, via medical journals such as the Cochrane Library or sites that collate scientific literature such as PubMed. The public have access to the exact same studies that medical professionals are using to form their opinions (well at least the medical professionals who actually have time to research vaccines). This information isn’t reserved for the ‘medical elite’, it’s available to everyone – so let’s make use of it.

How effective or safe particular vaccines are relies on continued efficacy and safety trials, studies, and post-licence analysis. Not only are new vaccines rolled out each year, but the microbial environment in which vaccines are hoped to have an effect on is also continually changing. Hence why we are seeing rising rates of once rare strains of infection due to vaccination – strains that the current vaccines don’t currently protect from [6]. So while someone may have intricate knowledge about the immune system or diseases, there is no guarantee they have read every study published about every vaccine on the market.

If you’re new to researching medical literature and finding it difficult to interpret study findings, here’s somewhere to start:
Interpretation of Epidemiological Studies
Introduction to Statistics Part 1
Introduction to Statistics Part 2
“What makes you think you know more than the doctors, scientists, and health organisations that recommend vaccines.”
When you do decide to dig in and start reading medical literature, you’ll find not all researchers are in agreement that all vaccines are safe and effective.[3-5] Since the dawn of vaccines there has always been diverse opinions and conflicting studies published by the medical community. Medical literature as a whole paints a much darker and more complex reality than the simplistic, black/white messages about vaccines we have traditionally grown up believing.

One of the more sinister elements is the rampant conflicts of interest which pollute medical research. Researchers are often influenced by conflicts of interest that can have profound effects on how they choose to conduct their studies and what they choose to publish. Medical journals, health organisations, and governmental policy makers too commonly suffer from conflicts of interest that deeply affect their decisions.[7-12]

In fact, the vast majority of doctors involved in establishing national guidelines on disease treatment have financial ties to the pharmaceutical industry that could potentially sway their recommendations and inappropriately influence thousands of other physicians.[7-12]

It’s not a matter of, “is this study author (or health organisation, policy maker etc) more knowledgeable than me?” But rather, “can I trust that this author (or health organisation, policy maker etc) is not influenced by conflict of interest?”

What it boils down to

When parents choose not take the path their doctor recommends regarding vaccination it’s not out of arrogance or ignorance. Without doubt, it is always out of genuine concern for their child’s safety. I’ve found it often comes down to these factors:
  • Parents know their doctor has learnt very little about vaccines and isn’t in a position to be making absolute recommendations regarding vaccine safety. Parents know they can read the scientific literature for themselves to make an informed decision.
  • Parents know that the vaccine recommendations they are given by their doctors are heavily biased to favour vaccine manufacturers, which puts their validity in doubt.
  • Parents know the risks outweigh the benefits regarding vaccinating their own children because their own children have suffered adverse reactions that outweigh the calculated risks associated with vaccine preventable diseases.
  • Parents no longer trust that their children will be safe if they follow traditional medical guidelines, because trusting those guidelines has let them down in the past - they have genuine reason to doubt medical opinion.
If the medical industry wants parents to vaccinate they need to take the above concerns very seriously. We want to see doctors educated more thoroughly, with knowledge of the risks involved in vaccinating, so that when parents quiz them (as they should) doctors can actually answer them properly. We want to see the vaccine manufacturers influence over vaccine recommendations removed, along with influence over safety and efficacy testing. We want to see vaccine injury taken seriously - when a vaccine causes harm, demand that manufacturers improve the formula.

Perhaps the most important of all these concerns is to re-establish trust with the patients harmed and treated so poorly by the medical industry. Without patient trust, doctors will get nowhere. Central to re-establishing trust is having the courage to take responsibility when a vaccine causes harm instead of pretending it doesn’t exist.


1. Vaccines: What Your Doctors Know and Don’t Know
Jennifer Hutchinson, July 31 2012

2. The Mythology Of Science-Based Medicine
Larry Dossey et al. Huffington Post. 03/18/2010

3. The Case Against Immunizatons
By Richard Moskowitz, M. D

4. Doctors Speak
Vaccination Risk Awareness Network

5.Doctors against vaccines
Vaccine Truth

6. Pneumococcal Strains Not Covered by Vaccine on the Rise
Mar 23,2013. By Serena Gordon, HealthDay Reporter

7. Conflict of Interest Studies

8. Relationships Between Authors of Clinical Practice Guidelines and the Pharmaceutical Industry. Choudhry, N.K., Stelfox, H.T., Detsky, A.S., 2002JAMA, 287: 612-617.

9. Just how tainted has medicine become? Editorial The Lancet, 359, 9313. 2002

10. Pharmaceutical industry sponsorship and research outcome and quality: systematic review. Lexchin, J., Bero, L., Djulbegovic, B. and Clark, O., 2003 British Medical Journal, 326:1167-1170

11. Influence of drug company authorship and sponsorship on drug trial outcomes. Tungaraza, T, and Poole, R., The British Journal of Psychiatry (2007) 191: 82-83.

12. Spin in reports of randomized controlled trials with nonstatistically significant primary outcomes. Boutron I, et al, 2009 International Congress on Peer Review and Biomedical Publication.


Measles: Putting the Hysteria into Perspective

Growing up I thought the prevention of measles was simple - you vaccinate. Everyone did it, I did it, I had no reason to question it. It wasn't until I was plunged into parenthood with little ones depending on me that I took the time to seriously read up on the topic. There was a different opinion floating around every corner so I decided to get some definitive answers by looking at the medical research. The problem I found was the further I dug into the research, the more problematic and unsettling the topic became.

Vaccines... they don't work quite how you think
One of the more startling revelations the research revealed was that most vaccines, including the measles vaccine, don’t protect against contracting infection but will often reduce or prevent symptoms of infection [1-7].
"Many vaccines are primarily intended to prevent disease and do not necessarily protect against infection." - Andre et al. World Health Organization, 2008 [7]
Andre et al go on to state that just two vaccines, the HPV and Hep A vaccine, may have the ability to prevent infection.

This fact is NOT widely known, not only because it's virtually never mentioned publicly, but also because medical terminology can be a little deceiving. When we read that "vaccines prevent disease" we equate the word "disease" with "infection", but that's not the case in medical literature. "Disease" is defined as a state causing symptoms of ill health, however you can easily have an infection without symptoms of ill health. Disease and infection are two very different terms.

So, we can say that vaccines prevent disease, because they can (though not always) prevent the symptoms of ill health, yet they commonly don't stop infection or its transmission. We can also say that vaccines can prevent the spread of the disease, because without symptoms such as coughing the infection is less likely to spread, though it is still present in saliva and nasal secretions.

Disease prevent is NOT just about vaccines
The big issue I have with the current strong push for measles vaccination (and all vaccination), is that it's just one of the methods that reduces the symptoms (and therefore spread, of infection). There are many, many more methods of disease prevention besides vaccination that are proven in medical literature.

Breastfeeding is one such highly underrated disease prevention method that stands out. It is shown in studies to dramatically reduce the rate of symptomatic infection in babies [8]. The protection is known to continue against certain types of infections for up to 10 years [9].

But it doesn't stop there. Breastfed children are...

5 times less likely to have more than 1 illness.
*compared to infants exclusively formula fed for 5 months.

16 times less likely to have 3 or more illnesses.
*compared to infants exclusively formula fed for 5 months.

5 times less likely to need hospitalization.
*compared to formula fed babies for the first 6 months of life.

6 times less likely to be hospitalized due to infection.
*compared to formula fed babies for the first 6 months of life.

5 times less likely to have gastrointestinal illness.
*when compared to infants exclusively formula fed for the first 13 weeks of life.
*any infection of the digestive tract caused by bacteria, viruses, or parasites.

4 times less likely to have necrotising enterocolitis.
*compared to formula fed preterm infants.
*necrotising enterocolitis is a condition where portions of the bowel undergo tissue death, it has a death rate of 20-30%.

4 times less likely to have diarrhoeal disease.
*compared to infants breastfed for 6 months or more.

4 times less likely to be hospitalized for lower respiratory tract diseases.
* compared to infants formula fed for 4 or more months
* lower respiratory tract diseases include bronchiolitis, asthma, bronchitis, pneumonia, empyema, and infections due to specific agents (eg, respiratory syncytial virus).

4 times less likely to have pneumococcal disease.
*compared to formula fed infants.
*pneumococcal disease is a bacterial infection that can present as pneumonia, bacteremia, meningitis, middle ear infection, and sinusitis.

3 times less likely to have ear infections.
* compared to infants exclusively formula fed for six months.

2 times less likely to have conjunctivitis.
* compared to infants exclusively formula fed for six months.

7 times less likely to have thrush.
* compared to infants exclusively formula fed for six months.

(See this post for stats related to not breastfeeding and a list of references.)

Those are some serious stats showing breastfeeding has the ability to prevent not just one, but a multitude of illnesses, and without the risk of side effects.

Why the hysteria over MMR?
With that in mind, let’s look at the recent MMR vaccine publicity. The measles rates are within a normal range compared to recent years [10], there have been no measles associated deaths, and measles is well known to be a benign illness in most individuals [11]. Yet the current measles hysteria seems even worse than the recent Ebola scare.We have articles calling for non-vaccinating parents to be sued if their child infects another child, to be put in jail, their children taken away and forcibly vaccinated, and addresses of non-vaccinators to be made public. Then there's the vitriol spewed through social media with commenters labelling non-vaccinators child abusers, vile monsters, and ignorant science-deniers, along with threats of violence and death.

Are we enforcing a double standard on parents?
Let's pretend that treating non-vaccinating parents this way is acceptable for a moment (it's not). If this is the way we've decided as a society to treat parents who choose not to adopt specific disease prevention methods for their children, tell me where are the witch hunts calling for parents who refuse to breastfeed to be sued if their child infects another child, for non-breastfeeders to be put in jail, their children taken away and forcibly breastfed, or addresses of non-breastfeeders to be made public?

We know that breastfeeding reduces a myriad of infections, including pneumococcal disease which can progress to dreaded meningitis [12]. We're not talking about a little possible benefit, we're talking about real, tangible prevention of disease and death through breastfeeding. Studies show breastfed babies are 5 times less likely to be hospitalized for infection - we are talking about the prevention of hospitalization for thousands of babies [13].

Parents have been prosecuted for not vaccinating their child who consequently died from a "vaccine preventable disease" [14]. Should the same be done to parents who refuse to breastfeed, whose child consequently dies from a "breastmilk preventable disease"?

Adopting pro-vax rhetoric we could conclude non-breastfed kids are a threat to our children, and the rest of the community. They are more likely to carry disease, they could infect vulnerable newborns, elderly folks, or chronically ill patients. They should not be allowed to go to daycare or preschool, or at least must be sent home when there is an outbreak. Doctors who don’t enforce mandatory breastfeeding for their patients should lose their licence. In fact, anyone who advocates that breastfeeding shouldn’t be mandatory should be publicly shamed. Parents who don’t breastfeed are irresponsible, neglectful, stupid, and anti-science. They literally want to their child to die. (Yes, these are word-for-word comparisons of pro-vax rhetoric.)

Sounds hideous when you attack mothers about not breastfeeding doesn’t it? Something like propaganda spread by a dictatorship.
Dictatorship, form of government in which one person or a small group possesses absolute power without effective constitutional limitations… Dictators usually resort to force or fraud to gain despotic political power, which they maintain through the use of intimidation, terror, and the suppression of basic civil liberties. They may also employ techniques of mass propaganda in order to sustain their public support.”
- Encyclopaedia Britannica 
Propaganda, dissemination of information—facts, arguments, rumours, half-truths, or lies—to influence public opinion.”
- Encyclopaedia Britannica
While we’re at it…
Bullying, intentional harm-doing or harassment that is directed toward vulnerable targets and typically repeated. Bullying encompasses a wide range of malicious aggressive behaviours, including physical violence, verbal mockery, threats, ostracism, and rumours spread either orally or by other means of communication, such as the Internet.”
- Encyclopaedia Britannica

How do you think someone who couldn’t breastfeed would feel hearing the above statements? Imagine breastfeeding (like vaccines) did have major risks, and a parent had a child who severely reacted to breastmilk resulting in permanent brain damage. The family doctor refused to admit that the breastmilk caused the reaction and insisted the child continue to be breastfed. How scared do you think the parent would feel when faced with the possibility of mandatory breastfeeding? How heartbroken and disillusioned do you think she would feel hearing someone call her “neglectful” or “stupid”?

These tactics - whether used against those who don't breastfeed or don't vaccinate - are cruel, unfair, and unethical.

Disease prevention is a lifestyle
There’s plenty of analogies that can be used for vaccination besides breastfeeding...
  • avoiding people when sick
  • washing hands
  • not sharing drinks or food
  • eating a healthy diet
  • getting enough exercise
  • not smoking
  • not drinking alcohol
All of these life style choices are shown in studies to have a profound impact on the immune system. Best of all these don’t carry the risks that vaccination does.

Why are these factors not gaining more attention in the fight against not just communicable disease but all disease? Why is the public not rabidly demanding that others be forced to adopt these lifestyle changes like they are for vaccination? After all if people don’t avoid others when sick, don’t wash hands, share food and drink with others, eat an unhealthy diet, get no exercise, chain smoke, and binge drink, they could well become a cesspool of disease - in theory they are a risk to the public. 

So why the double standard when it comes to vaccination?

Protecting individual choice
At the end of the day we do have a responsibility to try to prevent disease in our community. But it must be recognized that there is more than one way to prevent disease - vaccination is not our only hope. The combination of prevention methods that is right for one person may be wrong for someone else. Insisting that we know what is right for others is naïve, arrogant, and dismissive of individual variability. Medicine has never been a "one size fits all" regime.

As "safe" as vaccines have been touted, we can never guarantee the benefit outweighs the risk for someone else. It won't be us (or the doctor or the pharmaceutical company) paying the price if the vaccine backfires, it will be the individual. Given the seriousness of possible consequences and lack of vaccine safety testing/monitoring, the choice to vaccinate MUST remain with the individual.


1. Acellular pertussis vaccines protect against disease but fail to prevent infection and transmission in a nonhuman primate model. Jason M. Warfel et al. doi: 10.1073/pnas.1314688110

2. Estimated susceptibility to asymptomatic secondary immune response against measles in late convalescent and vaccinated persons. Damien B, et al. J Med Virol. 1998 Sep;56(1):85-90. PMID: 9700638

3. Investigation of a measles outbreak in a fully vaccinated school population including serum studies before and after revaccination. Matson DO et al. Pediatr Infect Dis J. 1993 Apr;12(4):292-9. PMID: 8483623

4. Nonclassic measles infections in an immune population exposed to measles during a college bus trip. Helfand RF et al. J Med Virol. 1998 Dec;56(4):337-41. PMID: 9829639

5. Vaccination against measles: a neverending story.
Koert J Stittelaar et al. Expert Rev. Vaccines 1(2), 151–159 (2002).

6. Endpoints in vaccine trials.
Michael G Hudgens, et al. Statistical Methods in Medical Research 2004; 13: 1^26

7. Vaccination greatly reduces disease, disability, death and inequity worldwide.
FE Andre et al. Bulletin of the World Health Organization, Feb 2008, Vol 86, Number 2, 81-160

8. Outcomes of Breastfeeding
Ginna Wall, MN, IBCLC, February 2013

9. Protective effect of breastfeeding: an ecologic study of Haemophilus influenzae meningitis and breastfeeding in a Swedish population. Silfverdal SA et al. Int J Epidemiol. 1999 Feb;28(1):152-6. PMID: 10195681

10. Notifiable Diseases and Mortality Tables
MMWR / February 13, 2015 / Vol. 64 / No. 5

11. Measles, CDC Pinkbook

12. Risk of Formula Feeding
Natural Mama NZ

13. Infectious disease hospitalizations among infants in the United States.
Yorita KL et al. Pediatrics. 2008 Feb;121(2):244-52.

14. The anti-vaccine couple facing prison over the death of their toddler from meningitis
Michael E. Miller Friday 18 March 2016 16:29 GMT

Herd Immunity

Dismantling Vaccine Propaganda

Once in a while something shared on the internet comes my way that I feel moved to write about. The below is one such internet gem, a meme shared on Facebook that is frankly, an angry, misinformed rant.

On the surface the meme can seem convincing, but if you spend a little time trying to find studies to back up these statements, you'll soon find it falls flat.

So piece by piece I’m going to break it down so that by the end of it, we’ll all have learned some valuable scientific information about vaccines, and understand why the above meme constitutes bogus, manipulative, propaganda.

“The diseases haven’t gone away. They are just held in check because sensible people vax their kids.” Despite extremely high and stable vaccination rates, death from infection has actually increased dramatically since the 1970’s – an era when we received over 4 times less vaccines [1-5].

“Some people aren’t sensible; they don’t vax their kids. Yes, I’m looking at you, sunshine – you with the Ph.D from Google U and the post-doc from” Vaccines have the ability to cause severe, permanent injury, and death [6-8]. While some screening is recommended, infants commonly receive vaccines without any testing and minimal to no screening to verify whether they will react badly. The CDC recommends administering ALL the vaccines a child is eligible for at the same doctors visit – up to 9 vaccines at once [9,10]. This practice has never been studied for safety [11]. This is NOT sensible, it is reckless.

“Because your little cherubs are un-vaxed they are far more likely to catch the diseases. 23 times more likely for whooping cough, 35 times more measles for example.” The correct phrasing would be: vaccinated individuals are 23 times less likely to show symptoms of whooping, and 35 times less likely to show symptoms of measles – but they will likely still become infected and pass on the infection to those around them [12].

“Your kidlets are much more likely to be exposed to the diseases, because anti-vaxers like yourself hang around with other anti-vaxers.” Again, vaccinated individuals are still likely to contract diseases, likely from other vaccinated individuals, because when exposed they usually still become infected and pass on the infection – albeit with minimal or no symptoms [12].

“Your little darlings then spread their vile viruses and bacteria to innocent children who are too young to be vaxed.” Those who suffer from “vile viruses and bacteria” are more likely to be vaccinated. Many outbreaks of disease occur almost or entirely exclusively in vaccinated populations [12]. Vaccinated kids are a danger to vulnerable individuals, just as unvaccinated kids are.

“Those innocent children get sick with killer diseases spread by people silly enough not to vax – like yourself.” Vaccinated kids are still likely to contract and pass on infections to vulnerable individuals such as the elderly and newborns because they still contract and spread infection when exposed [12]. Additionally, they can spread disease when shedding vaccine viruses after being vaccinated with live vaccines [12].

“No vaccine is 100% effective; some vaxed kids will also catch your revolting diseases. We need high vax rates for herd immunity.” Most vaccines have not been proven to stop infection at all, only reduce symptoms. So most vaccinated kids will still harbour and spread their “revolting diseases” like unvaccinated kids [12]. We have had extremely high and stable vaccination rates for over a decade, it has not stopped epidemics [1,2]. Conversely, as mentioned earlier, death from infectious disease has increased dramatically since the 1970’s – an era when we received over 4 times less vaccines.

“Infect enough children and some of them will die, more of them will suffer permanent disability, and all of them will have experienced an unnecessary and unpleasant disease.” Of course these are situations we should strive to avoid, but so is death, permanent disability and unnecessary and unpleasant experiences caused by vaccine injury. Because the necessary studies comparing the overall health of non-vaccinated vs vaccinated populations have never been done, whether the risk of vaccines outweighs the benefit is still unknown.

All of that suffering will be YOUR fault for not vaxing your rugrats.” Vaccinated individuals are still likely to harbour and pass on disease, but likely with reduced or absent symptoms, which in a way makes vaccinated kids more dangerous than unvaccinated kids – they become silent disease carriers [12].

1. National Immunization Survey (NIS) - Children (19-35 months)
CDC, September 2, 2014

2. Nationwide vaccination coverage among children age 19-35 months, 2002-2012
CDC, Morb. Mortal. Wkly.

3. Deaths Due to Infectious & Parasitic Diseases

4. The Development of the Immunization Schedule
The History of Vaccines

5. CDC Mandatory Vaccine Schedule: 1983 vs 2014
Monday, January 17, 2011

6. Virus in the system
Natasha Bita,THE AUSTRALIAN, MAY 28, 2011

7. Little girl died in cot after flu jab
Jamie Walker, THE AUSTRALIAN, APRIL 26, 2010

8. Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System

9. General Recommendations on Immunization
Epidemiology and Prevention of Vaccine-Preventable Diseases
The Pink Book: Course Textbook - 12th Edition Second Printing (May 2012)

11. The Childhood Immunization Schedule and Safety: Stakeholder Concerns, Scientific Evidence and Future Studies. Institute of Medicine Committee on the Assessment of Studies of Health Outcomes Related to the Recommended Childhood Immunization Schedule. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press 2013. pg 11
“Although each new vaccine is evaluated in the context of the overall immunization schedule that existed at the time of review of that vaccine, elements of the schedule are not evaluated once it is adjusted to accommodate a new vaccine. Thus, key elements of the entire schedule—the number, frequency, timing, order, and age at administration of vaccines—have not been systematically examined in research studies.”

12. The Implausibility of Vaccine-Based Herd Immunity
Natural Mama NZ
A collection of over 100 studies about the inability of most vaccines to prevent infection.

The Vaccine Debate: Insults, Lies, & Hypocrisy

It’s been 10 years since I first delved into the topic of vaccination. With hopes of finding definitive answers, I combed through thousands of studies and articles written by a wide spectrum of authors – some heavily pro, some deeply against, and many in between.

Ten years on I’ve learnt a lot, knowing there is always so much more to learn, but I find myself disillusioned with what should be a straight forward, logical topic. I know many others feel the same. I’ve found I can’t enter into the topic of vaccination without being inundated with insults, lies, and hypocrisy (hence the title of this post).

While I’ve seen people on all sides of this debate guilty of it to varying degrees, the majority of it seems to stem from the staunchly pro-vax camp. I’m not talking about the average parent who feels vaccinating is best for their family, more power to you.

I’m talking about the rabid pro-vaccine advocate who believes they have the right to FORCE each and every one of us  to vaccinate. They believe vaccination is a black and white topic, they believe those who disagree with their opinions are the enemy, and they believe you shouldn’t get to choose what is injected into your own or your children’s bodies.

One thing’s for sure, I’m sick of hearing and seeing it; it needs to end. Here's a taste of what I'm talking about:

People use pictures and stories of sick or dead children to expose the reality of the diseases we vaccinate for, but they downplay or dismiss pictures and stories of children who become sick or die due to vaccine injury, calling them ‘scare tactics’.

It's mind boggling that it has to be said: no death or injury, whatever the cause, should ever be callously disregarded. When parents are told by their family GP, “vaccines are perfectly safe, your child will be fine”, only to have their child injured or die as a result of vaccination, the trauma is particularly painful. The trust they invested in the medical profession is destroyed.

The anguish is made worse when medical professionals refuse to even acknowledge the vaccine they administered was the cause. Instead of being comforted in their time of need, these families feel shunned. Imagine being in that position, hearing people disregard your child's injury or death?

Hear this well: our children’s lives aren’t anyone else's to expend as collateral damage for ‘the greater good’. Those who think they are should be utterly ashamed. No one gets to force anything into us or our children, ever.

People herald parents who speak out about their child’s sickness or death due to the diseases we vaccinate for as brave heroes, but they disbelieve and insult parents who speak out about their child’s sickness or death due to vaccine injury, labelling them ‘liars’, ‘scum’, ‘anti-science’, etc. 

The cruelty in this debate is both heartbreaking and enraging. There is much, much worse said to these parents I won’t mention here [1-3]. Grieving parents of sick or dead children no matter the cause, who speak out in the hopes of saving others the misery they had to endure, deserve a listening ear and a shoulder to cry on;  not insults and ostracism. Any human being should inherently understand this, but somehow this debate turns usually decent people into vicious assholes at the flick of a switch.

Hear this well: no one else gets to tell parents what did or did not happen to their child; we didn't witness it, we don’t know their children. Have some respect.

The above two examples are the two that irk me the most, more so because my own son suffered a severe vaccine reaction. But there’s plenty more…

People call parents who choose not to vaccinate due to fear of adverse reaction ‘uneducated’ and ‘irresponsible’, but these same people choose to vaccinate their own children due to fear of adverse reactions to diseases we vaccinate for.

Fear of injury or death is the common denominator driving the decision to vaccinate or not vaccinate, so if one side is deemed ‘irresponsible’ for letting fear for their children’s lives determine their decision, then so must the other. It boils down to: what poses a greater risk to my child, vaccinating or not vaccinating?

There is a wealth of evidence in support for both. For our family, the experience of brain injury our son suffered after vaccination made it abundantly clear vaccines posed a greater risk than the extremely small risk of disease complications he faced [4-22]. I cannot guarantee another family will not suffer the same fate our family did, or worse, because there is so little recognition of vaccine injury [23-26] or research regarding which children are most susceptible to vaccine injury [27].

In contrast, there has been abundant research regarding who is most susceptible to the diseases we currently vaccinate for. We know what makes people more likely to suffer complications of infectious diseases (eg. poor diet, nutritional deficiencies, immune deficiencies, chronic diseases, multiple simultaneous illnesses, excessive stress, not breastfeeding, smoking, alcohol consumption, exposure to toxins and pollutants, obesity, lack of physical activity, unsanitary or overcrowded living conditions, age very young or very old, etc [28-50]).

People proclaim vaccine injury is extremely rare and not reason enough to avoid vaccination, but they promote extremely rare complications from the diseases we vaccinate for as a reason to vaccinate. 

The fact that vaccine injury is grossly under-reported is ignored [51], along with the fact that doctors often refuse to acknowledge vaccine injury, never mind report it [23-26]. Vaccine injury is often missed or passed off as coincidental by parents and GP’s. When concerned parents ring their doctors office to report their child has a high-pitched, prolonged cry indicating encephalitis – a brain injury that can result in chronic seizures, mental retardation, and death [52-54] - they are told this reaction is normal!

It might be such a common vaccine reaction that today’s medical staff now consider an encephalitic cry ‘normal’, but the reality is encephalitis is a serious, life threatening reaction, often resulting in permanent neurological impairments. I shudder to think how many children whose parents were told their child’s reaction was, “normal and nothing to worry about”, went on to suffer neurological and developmental disorders.

If only these children had been medically tested and treated for encephalitis, just maybe the severity of permanent injury could have been reduced. If only more research was done to determine which children are more susceptible to vaccine injury, maybe the vaccine injury could have been completely avoided altogether.

People claim that there is ‘abundant’ evidence to show that  ‘vaccines are safe’, but they ignore the fact that the vaccine schedule in its entirety, or vaccines in their various combinations, have NEVER been tested for safety [55], nor has there ever been a safety study comparing unvaccinated children with vaccinated children.

The only survey of unvaccinated children with vaccinated children was done by Generation Rescue in 2007 which found that, “vaccinated boys had a 155% greater chance of having a neurological disorder like ADHD or autism than unvaccinated boys”. [56]

People claim to have done ‘extensive scientific research’ on vaccination, but they go on to state the only study linking vaccines to autism was, “that one fraudulent Wakefield study”, and they only share information from biased websites. 

There have been numerous studies since Wakefield associating vaccines with autism, but you won’t find them mentioned on websites whose sole purpose is to promote vaccination [57-77]. We can’t claim to know everything on  a topic by only reading material from one sided sources, in fact we can never claim to know everything on any topic. If there’s one thing I’ve learnt about the vaccination debate it’s that there’s always more to learn and nothing is written in stone. Always be ready to change your mind and be proven wrong.

People promote heavily flawed research funded by pharmaceutical companies, and organisations that have been exposed by their own employees for manipulating data [79-89], but they call any research showing the harms of vaccination ‘junk science’ authored by ‘quacks’. 

Neuroscientist Russell Blaylock is one example of a study author who has found evidence of harm due to vaccines [59]. Because his research was critical of vaccination he is disregarded by many vaccine advocates without any evidence to justify it at all. Unlike many CDC or pharmaceutical industry study authors you won’t find evidence of fraud or twisting of data in Blaylocks research, but for the sake of keeping their beliefs about vaccination intact people pretend researchers like Blaylock aren’t worth listening to.

People present only research that backs their personal opinion, then ignore all other research presented to them that contradicts their own narrow research, dismissing it as nothing more than ‘cherry picked studies’. 

They think their own ‘cherry picked studies’, however, are all they need to form a scientifically sound opinion. Tossing out contradictory evidence to keep their own beliefs intact.

People dismiss research showing a link between vaccines and injury, claiming, “correlation does not equal causation”, but they go on to claim the correlation between vaccination and disease decline is evidence of causation. 

They ignore the fact that historical records show disease rates were already declining when vaccines were introduced, many by more than 90%, due to improved sanitation, nutrition, housing etc [90]. Instead of acknowledging these time-tested methods of disease reduction, they attribute the decline of disease entirely to vaccination! How can a vaccine that wasn't invented yet be responsible for a 90% decline in disease and mortality?

As for vaccine injury, many vaccine injuries are documented by VAERS, with 83% of those reports coming from doctors and pharmaceutical company employees, not the actual victims [90a]. However, VAERS states these reports are greatly under-reported [90a]. We truly don’t know the real number of serious, debilitating, sometimes fatal vaccine reactions that have occurred. Additionally, because pharmaceutical companies refuse to test their vaccines with a proper control population (a group of individuals who only receive a saline injection and has never been vaccinated, compared with a group who receives a vaccine) it becomes more difficult to conclusively pin down vaccines as a cause of injury.

Many people are happy to refute reports of vaccine injury as 'coincidence', but any other report of a drug that someone reacts to is taken much more seriously. Pharmaceutical companies have marketed vaccines so successfully that they seem to be considered by many as untouchable, beyond criticism.

Nobody dares criticize or even hint that vaccines have the ability to cause injury, or they'll be deemed an 'antivaxxer' and an 'enemy of the people' in a very Stalin-esque manner (for the record I am not 'antivax' - the original idea Jenner had for deliberately getting infected with a mild illness to protect yourself from a more severe illness I think is a brilliant one in many respects - I am 'pro-safe-vax').

For those unwilling to change their minds, no amount of evidence will ever be enough to prove causation; for them all evidence that contradicts their beliefs will forever be considered ‘correlation’. 

People promote the use of vaccination to try to prevent disease despite the risk of adverse reaction, but completely ignore other scientifically proven disease prevention methods that don’t carry any risk of adverse reaction.

These include healthier diets, monitoring and correction of nutritional deficiencies, reducing exposure to toxins and pollutants, reducing stress, reducing poverty, unsanitary living conditions, and overcrowding in homes, higher breastfeeding rates, not smoking, reducing alcohol intake, losing weight if obese, more education about prevention, monitoring, and treatment of illness, and stricter disease testing and quarantining in airports [28-50][91-93].

People claim that an unvaccinated child is a risk to their child, but they ignore the fact that their child is statistically more likely to be infected by themselves or a member of their own immediate family [94]. 

They ignore the fact that many vaccines don’t stop infection, they only reduce symptoms, making vaccine recipients silent disease carriers [95]. They ignore the fact that their vaccinated child poses a threat to those around them when their child receives live vaccines that can shed and replicate to full strength, causing disease epidemics instead of preventing them [95].

People claim disease epidemics have returned because of low vaccination rates, but they ignore the fact that vaccination rates are at an all time high and have remained stable over the last decade [96-97]. 

The logic is lost on them, or wilfully ignored. Any increased rates of disease obviously have little to do with the tiny percentage of people who don’t vaccinate, and everything to do with vaccine failure.

People tell us they were vaccinated as children and they’re ‘fine’ as if it’s proof vaccines are safe, but they scoff when someone else says they had a disease we vaccinate for as a child and they’re ‘fine’ too. 

Often people ignore the fact they were likely injected with half the amount of vaccines that children are injected with today; their childhood experience with vaccines is not an appropriate comparison to the vaccine schedule today [98-99]. They also ignore the fact that a lot of us aren’t ‘fine’. In the US 1 in 6 people now suffer from autoimmune disease [100], 1 in 5 children have a developmental and/or behavioral disability [101], and 1 in 42 boys have autism [102] – all of which are documented as adverse reactions to vaccination . That’s NOT a great definition of ‘fine’.

People claim that children are  no longer exposed to mercury from vaccines, but they ignore the fact that pregnant mothers are now recommended flu shots containing mercury [103], inadvertently exposing fetuses who are the most susceptible to mercury toxicity of any population. 

Additionally, childhood vaccines that are supposed to contain no mercury have tested positive for mercury contamination [104]. They ignore the fact that multiple vaccines containing the neurotoxin aluminium have been added to the childhood schedule, with levels grossly exceeding EPA guidelines [105-106]. Meaning the risk of neurological injury that was once posed by mercury laden vaccines, has now been replaced by aluminium laden vaccines.

I could keep going, it doesn’t end there. Jessica over at the Gianelloni Family blog has written an excellent piece called ‘Dear parents, you are being lied to’ that I also recommend reading:

Bottom line: don’t take anything at face value. If someone makes a statement about vaccines verify it by researching the studies to prove it, or disprove it – whatever the evidence ends up being. I wish I could say that after years of research I knew all the answers and that I felt at least something in this debate was proven 100%. But sadly the research that desperately needs to be done just hasn’t been done.

Unless we fiercely demand that the required research be done (ie. independent non-vax vs vax studies), it's likely no government agency will ever do it of their own accord. It’s up to us to bring it to the forefront of the media, the public, and our politicians.


1.Blog Bullies & Hate Messages

2.The Dirty, Filthy Unvaccinated

3.Bombshell TV Show About HPV Vaccines Reveals Cruel Nature of Vaccine Pushers

4.Disease Risk: Measles

5.Disease Risk: Mumps

6.Disease Risk: Rubella

7.Disease Risk: Pertussis

8.Disease Risk: Rotovirus

9.Disease Risk: Hib meningitis

10.Disease Risk: Pneumococcal disease

11.Disease Risk: Influenza

12.Disease Risk: Varicella

13.Disease Risk: Tetanus

14.Disease Risk: Polio

15.Disease Risk: Hepatitis A

16.Disease Risk: Hepatitis B

17.Disease Risk: Diphtheria

18.Risk-Benefit Analysis: Measles, Mumps and Rubella

19.Risk-Benefit Analysis: Pneumoccocal, HPV, Meningococcal

20.Risk-Benefit Analysis: Diphtheria, Pertussis, and Tetanus

21.Risk-Benefit Analysis: Chicken Pox, Hib, Flu

22.Risk-Benefit Analysis: Hep A, Hep B, Rotavirus

23.Lioness Arising Mother Series

24.Parents Voice:  Children’s Adverse Outcomes Following Vaccination (huge list)

25.Stories of vaccine-injured children (huge list)
Raising a Sensitive Child

26.My child's vaccine reaction

27.The Childhood Immunization Schedule and Safety: Stakeholder Concerns, Scientific Evidence and Future Studies. Institute of Medicine Committee on the Assessment of Studies of Health Outcomes Related to the Recommended Childhood Immunization Schedule. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press 2013. pg 11
“The committee found that evidence assessing outcomes in subpopulations of children, who may be potentially susceptible to adverse reactions to vaccines (such as children with a family history of autoimmune disease or allergies or children born prematurely), was limited and is characterized by uncertainty about the definition of populations of interest and definitions of exposures or outcomes.”

28.How to boost your immune system

29.Vit C studies. Vitamin C function and status in chronic disease.
Nutrition in clinical care : an official publication of Tufts University.

30.Vitamin C and human health--a review of recent data relevant to human requirements.
International journal for vitamin and nutrition research.

31.Toward a new recommended dietary allowance for vitamin C based on antioxidant and health effects in humans. The American Journal of Clinical Nutrition

32.Randomized trial of vitamin D supplementation to prevent seasonal influenza A in schoolchildren
American Journal of Clinical Nutrition

33.Ample evidence exists from human studies that vitamin D reduces the risk of selected bacterial and viral infections. Experimental Biology and Medicine

34.Vitamin D-Mediated Induction of Innate Immunity in Gingival Epithelial Cells▿
Journal of Infection and Immunity

35.1,25-Dihydroxyvitamin D3 Treatment Shrinks Uterine Leiomyoma Tumors in the Eker Rat Model. Journal of Biology of Reproduction

36.Prevalence of eczema and food allergy is associated with latitude in Australia.
Journal of Allergy and Clinical Immunology

37.The Global Burden of Disease study and applications in water, sanitation and hygiene
World Health Organisation

38.Estimating the burden of disease from water, sanitation, and hygiene at a global level.
World Health Organisation

39.Sickness behavior induced by endotoxin can be mitigated by the dietary soluble fiber, pectin, through up-regulation of IL-4 and Th2 polarization. Journal of Brain, Behavior, and Immunity

40.Does tomato consumption effectively increase the resistance of lymphocyte DNA to oxidative damage? The American Journal of Clinical Nutrition

41.DNA damage and repair activity after broccoli intake in young healthy smokers
UK Environmental Mutagen Society

42.Watercress supplementation in diet reduces lymphocyte DNA damage and alters blood antioxidant status in healthy adults. American Journal of Clinical Nutrition

43.A randomized trial of isonitrogenous enteral diets after severe trauma. An immune-enhancing diet reduces septic complications. Annals of Surgery

44.Upper respiratory tract infection is reduced in physically fit and active adults
British Journal of Sports Medicine

45.Risks of Formula Feeding
Natural Mama NZ

46.People at High Risk of Developing Flu–Related Complications
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention , September 9, 2014
"Children younger than 5, but especially children younger than 2 years old, Adults 65 years of age and older, Pregnant women, American Indians and Alaskan Natives, People who have medical conditions including: Asthma, Neurological and neurodevelopmental conditions [including disorders of the brain, spinal cord, peripheral nerve, and muscle such as cerebral palsy, epilepsy (seizure disorders), stroke, intellectual disability (mental retardation), moderate to severe developmental delay, muscular dystrophy, or spinal cord injury, Chronic lung disease (such as chronic obstructive pulmonary disease [COPD] and cystic fibrosis), Heart disease (such as congenital heart disease, congestive heart failure and coronary artery disease), Blood disorders (such as sickle cell disease), Endocrine disorders (such as diabetes mellitus), Kidney disorders, Liver disorders, Metabolic disorders (such as inherited metabolic disorders and mitochondrial disorders), Weakened immune system due to disease or medication (such as people with HIV or AIDS, or cancer, or those on chronic steroids), People younger than 19 years of age who are receiving long-term aspirin therapy, People who are morbidly obese (Body Mass Index, or BMI, of 40 or greater)."

47.Risk factors for community-acquired pneumonia diagnosed by general practitioners in the community. Farr BM1, et al. Respir Med. 2000 May;94(5):422-7. PMID: 10868703
“…these data suggest that cigarette smoking is the main avoidable risk factor for community-acquired pneumonia in adults.”

48.Alcohol consumption as a risk factor for pneumonia: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
Samokhvalov AV1, Irving HM, Rehm J. Epidemiol Infect. 2010 Dec;138(12):1789-95. PMID: 20380771.
“…alcohol was found to be a risk factor for pneumonia with a clear statistical association, and a monotonic dose-response relationship.”

49.Who Is at Risk for Pneumonia? National Heart, Blood, and Lung Institute.
“Your risk (of Pneumonia) also goes up if… you're exposed to certain chemicals, pollutants, or toxic fumes.”

50.Psychosocial factors and susceptibility to or outcome of acute respiratory tract infections.
Falagas ME et al. Int J Tuberc Lung Dis. 2010 Feb;14(2):141-8. PMID: 20074403
“Most of the relevant studies show a significant relationship between psychosocial factors and the onset or progression of acute respiratory tract illness.”

51.The reporting sensitivities of two passive surveillance systems for vaccine adverse events.
Rosenthal & Chen. Am J Public Health 1995; 85: pp. 1706-9.
VAERS reports are estimated to be anywhere from less than 1% to 72% of the actual number of adverse events that occur; less than 1% for thrombocytopenia and rash after MMR, 4% for hypotonic-hyporesponsive episodes and 42% for seizures after DTP, 23% for seizures after MMR + MR, and 72% for vaccine-associated polio after OPV. Only 6 vaccine reactions were analysed, there was no analysis for autism or developmental delays.

JAMES F. BALE JR, MD. Current Management in Child Neurology, Third Edition 2005
“Young infants with encephalitis often have nonspecific signs, such as inactivity, poor feeding, irritability, “fussy” behavior, and “high-pitched” cries.”

53.Encephalitis. National Institutes of Health
“Symptoms in newborns and younger infants may not be as easy to recognize:… Irritability and crying more often (these symptoms may get worse when the baby is picked up)… If brain function is severely affected, interventions like physical therapy and speech therapy may be needed after the illness is controlled… The outcome varies. Some cases are mild and short, and the person fully recovers. Other cases are severe, and permanent impairment or death is possible. Permanent brain damage may occur in severe cases of encephalitis. It can affect:  Hearing, Memory, Muscle control, Sensation, Speech, and Vision.”

54.Effects Of Encephalitis. The Encephalitis Society

55.The Childhood Immunization Schedule and Safety: Stakeholder Concerns, Scientific Evidence and Future Studies. Institute of Medicine Committee on the Assessment of Studies of Health Outcomes Related to the Recommended Childhood Immunization Schedule. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press 2013. pg 11
“Although each new vaccine is evaluated in the context of the overall immunization schedule that existed at the time of review of that vaccine, elements of the schedule are not evaluated once it is adjusted to accommodate a new vaccine. Thus, key elements of the entire schedule—the number, frequency, timing, order, and age at administration of vaccines—have not been systematically examined in research studies.”

56.Cal-Oregon Unvaccinated Survey. Generation Rescue, June 26, 2007

57.A Case Series of Children with Apparent Mercury Toxic Encephalopathies Manifesting with Clinical Symptoms of Regressive Autistic Disorders. D A Geier et al. J Toxicol Environ Health A. 2007 May 15;70(10):837-51.

58.A comprehensive review of mercury provoked autism. D.A. Geier et al. Indian J Med Res 128, October 2008, pp 383-411

59.A possible Central Mechanism in Autism Spectrum disorders, Part 1,2 & 3. Russell L Blaylock. Altern Ther Health Med. 2008 Nov-Dec;14(6):46-53. 

60.Abnormal measles-mumps-rubella antibodies and CNS autoimmunity in children with autism.
Singh VK et al. J Biomed Sci. 2002 Jul-Aug;9(4):359-64. PMID: 12145534

61.Acetaminophen (paracetamol) use, measles-mumps-rubella vaccination, and autistic disorder: the results of a parent survey.
 Schultz ST, et al. Autism. 2008 May;12(3):293-307.

62.Administration of aluminium to neonatal mice in vaccine-relevant amounts is associated with adverse long term neurological outcomes. Shaw CA, et al. J Inorg Biochem. 2013 Jul 19. pii: S0162-0134(13)00177-3.

63.Aluminum in the central nervous system (CNS): toxicity in humans and animals, vaccine adjuvants, and autoimmunity. Shaw CA, et al. Immunol Res. 2013 Jul;56(2-3):304-16.

64.Autism: a novel form of mercury poisoning.
Sallie Bernard et al. Medical Hypotheses (2001) 56(4), 462–471

65.Case Control Study of Mercury Burden in Children with Autism Spectrum Disorder. James Adams, PhD [Arizona State University]. Journal of American Physicians and Surgeon, 2003.

66.Cultured lymphocytes from autistic children and non-autistic siblings up-regulate heat shock protein RNA in response to thimerosal challenge. Neurotoxicology. 2006 Sep;27(5):685-92. Walker SJ, Segal J, Aschner M.

67.Detection and Sequencing of Measles Virus from Peripheral Mononuclear Cells from Patients with Inflammatory Bowel Disease and Autism. HISASHI KAWASHIMA et al. Digestive Diseases and Sciences, Vol. 45, No. 4 (April 2000), pp. 723–729

68.Detection of Measles Virus Genomic RNA in Cerebrospinal Fluid of Three Children with Regressive Autism: a Report of Three Cases. J.J. Bradstreet et al. J Am Physicians & Surgeons Vol 9 no.2 2004.

69.Do aluminum vaccine adjuvants contribute to the rising prevalence of autism?
Lucija Tomljenovic et al. J Inorganic Biochemistry Vol 105, Issue 11, 2011, Pg 1489–1499

70.Elevated levels of measles antibodies in children with autism. Singh VK, Jensen RL. Pediatr Neurol. 2003 Apr;28(4):292-4.

71.Empirical Data Confirm Autism Symptoms Related to Aluminum and Acetaminophen Exposure. Stephanie Seneff, et al. Entropy, November 7, 2012

72.Hypothesis: conjugate vaccines may predispose children to autism spectrum disorders.

73.Influence of pediatric vaccines on amygdala growth and opioid ligand binding in rhesus macaque infants: A pilot study. Hewitson L t al. Acta Neurobiol Exp (Wars). 2010;70(2):147-64.Author information

74.Phenotypic expression of autoimmune autistic disorder (AAD): a major subset of autism. Singh VK. Ann Clin Psychiatry. 2009 Jul-Sep;21(3):148-61. Brain State International Research Center.

75.Risk of neurological and renal impairment associated with thimerosal containing vaccines
Center for Disease Control (CDC)

76.Increased risk of developmental neurologic impairment after high exposure to thimerosal-containing vaccine in first month of life. Thomas M. Verstraeten, R. Davies, D. Gu, F DeStefano. Division of Epidemiology and Surveillance, Vaccine Safety and Development Branch, National Immunization Program, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. 1999.

77.Hepatitis B Vaccination of Male Neonates and Autism. CM Gallagher, MS Goodman. Annals of Epidemiology , Vol. 19, No. 9 ABSTRACTS (ACE), September 2009: 651-680,  p. 659

78.Measles-mumps-rubella vaccination timing and autism among young african american boys: a reanalysis of CDC data. Hooker BS. Transl Neurodegener. 2014 Aug 8;3:16.

79.CDC Whistle-Blower Reveals Cover-up Of Vaccine & Autism Link Data
August 27, 2014 by Lisa Bloomquist.

80.Is Big Pharma Addicted To Fraud? Erika Kelton, 7/29/2013, Forbes.
“Glaxo is accused of using a Shanghai travel agency to funnel at least $489 million in bribes.”

81.Home Pharma Recent 6 ‘Big Pharma’ frauds China 6 August 2013 Analysis
By Sheetal Sukhija, China 6 August 2013
“Each year big pharma giants end up spending billions of dollars in paying for fraud, misrepresentation of data and other such corruption allegations leveled out against them. In the last three years, global pharma giants have paid fines to the tune of $11 billion for criminal wrongdoing, including withholding safety data and promoting drugs for use, beyond any licensed condition. While GlaxoSmithKline (GSK) paid $3 billion, the biggest fine ever after pleading guilty on three criminal counts in US, Novartis ended up paying $420 million and Pfizer paid $2.3 billion in related scandals. “

82.Scientists Sue Merck: allege fraud, mislabeling, and false certification of MMR vaccine.
Suzanne Humphries, MD,  JUNE 25, 2012
“This is the story of the MMR vaccine and two Merck scientists who filed a lawsuit in 2010 over Merck’s efforts to allegedly “defraud the United States through Merck’s ongoing scheme to sell the government a mumps vaccine that is mislabeled, misbranded, adulterated and falsely certified as having an efficacy rate that is significantly higher than it actually is.” Merck allegedly did this from 2000 onwards in order to maintain its exclusive license to sell the MMR vaccine and keep its monopoly of the US market.

83.Pharmaceutical Industry Criminal and Civil Penalties: An Update
Sammy Almashat, Sidney Wolfe, September 27, 2012
“A total of 74 additional settlements, totaling $10.2 billion in financial penalties, were reached between the federal and state governments and pharmaceutical manufacturers between November 2, 2010 and July 18, 2012, with the first half of 2012 alone already representing a record year for both federal ($5.0 billion) and state ($1.6 billion) financial recoveries. Since 1991, a total of 239 settlements, for $30.2 billion, have now been reached (through July 18, 2012) between federal and state governments and pharmaceutical companies.”

84.How Corporations Corrupt Science at the Public's Expense (2012)
Union of Concerned Scientists. February 2012

85.Harvard Scientists warn about Epidemic of Side Effects due to Corruption

86.Public misinformed about seal of approval from FDA

87.‘All Trials’: because no test should go unheralded

88.SafeMinds Authored Commentary, Critiques & Presentations


90.Vaccines Did Not Save Us – 2 Centuries Of Official Statistics


91.Development of an infection screening system for entry inspection at airport quarantine stations using ear temperature, heart and respiration rates. Sun G, et al. Conf Proc IEEE Eng Med Biol Soc. 2013;2013:6716-9. PMID: 24111284.
“We tested the system on 13 influenza patients and 33 normal subjects. The sensitivity of the infection screening system in detecting influenza were 92.3%, which was higher than the sensitivity reported in our previous paper (88.0%) with average facial skin temperature.”

92.Development of a non-contact screening system for rapid medical inspection at a quarantine depot using a laser Doppler blood-flow meter, microwave radar and infrared thermography. Matsui T, et al. J Med Eng Technol. 2009;33(5):403-9. PMID: 19440915
“In order to conduct fast screening of passengers with infections such as severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS) or pandemic influenza at a quarantine depot, we developed a non-contact screening system with a self-produced program to conduct a human screening within five seconds, via a linear discriminant function from non-contact derived variables, i.e. palmer pulse derived from a laser Doppler blood-flow meter, respiration rate determined by a 10-GHz microwave radar, and facial temperature measured by a thermography … The proposed system appears promising for future application in fast screening of infection at a quarantine depot.”

93.Epidemiological trends and the effect of airport fever screening on prevention of domestic dengue fever outbreaks in Taiwan, 1998-2007. Kuan MM et al. Int J Infect Dis. 2010 Aug;14(8):e693-7.
“Our results show that airport fever screening had a positive effect on partially blocking the local transmission of imported dengue cases.”

94.Infant Pertussis: Who Was the Source? Bisgard, Kristine M. et al. Ped Infectious Disease J: Nov 2004 - Vol 23, Iss 11, pp 985-989

95.The implausibility of vaccine-based herd immunity
Natural Mama N Z

96.National Immunization Survey (NIS) - Children (19-35 months)
CDC, September 2, 2014

97.Nationwide vaccination coverage among children age 19-35 months, 2002-2012
CDC, Morb. Mortal. Wkly.

98.CDC Mandatory Vaccine Schedule: 1983 vs 2014
Peaceful Parenting, Monday, January 17, 2011

99.The Development of the Immunization Schedule

100.Autoimmune Statistics
The American Autoimmune Related Diseases Association
“We at AARDA say that 50 million Americans suffer from autoimmune disease.” US population in 2014 is 317 million people, meaning that 1 in 6 people suffer from autoimmune disease, or about 15%.

101.Identification of Developmental-Behavioral Problems in Primary Care: A Systematic Review
R. Christopher Sheldrick et al. PEDIATRICS Vol. 128 No. 2 August 1, 2011 pp. 356 -363
“Estimates indicate that at least 1 in 5 children has a developmental and/or behavioral disability.”

102.Prevalence of Autism Spectrum Disorder Among Children Aged 8 Years — Autism and Developmental Disabilities Monitoring Network, 11 Sites, United States, 2010
Jon Baio. Surveillance Summaries March 28, 2014 / 63(SS02);1-21
“Approximately one in 42 boys and one in 189 girls living in the ADDM Network communities were identified as having ASD.”

103.Influenza Vaccines — United States, 2014–15 Influenza Season
Table displaying  amount of mercury in each flu vaccine. Flu vaccines that mercury include Afluria, FluLaval, Fluvirin, and Fluzone.

104. Mercury in vaccines from the Australian childhood immunization program schedule.
Austin DW, et al. Toxicol Environ Health A. 2010;73(10):637-40. PMID: 20391108
"Eight vaccines administered to children under the age of 5 yr were assessed for Hg content via a DMA-80 direct mercury analyzer. Seven of the 8 vaccines contained no detectable levels of Hg (less than 1 ppb); however, 1 vaccine (Infanrix hexa) tested positive for mercury at 10 ppb. The result was confirmed and validated by retesting the original sample. Follow-up testing was conducted on three additional samples of Infanrix hexa (one from the same production lot and two from a different lot). All three tested positive for mercury (average of 9.7 ppb).... the results of this study reveal that inaccuracies exist in public health messages, professional communications, and official documentation regarding Hg content in at least one childhood vaccine."

105.Childhood Vaccination: Aluminum. Natural Mama NZ.

106A.S.P.E.N. Statement on Aluminum in Parenteral Nutrition Solutions
P. Charney, The American Society for Parenteral and Enteral Nutrition (ASPEN) Aluminum Task Force, Nutrition in Clinical Practice 19 (August 2004): 416-417

107.Dear parents, you are being lied to. Gianelloni Family. POSTED ON APRIL 7, 2014