More and more parents around the globe are choosing to opt out of vaccinating themselves and their children. As a result of this trend that’s been gaining more and more momentum, a harsh response has come from the “pro-vaccine” community -criticizing parents for their decision to not vaccinate. At the end of the day it’s not really about “pro-vaccination” or “anti-vaccination,” it’s not one “against” the other or about pointing fingers and judgement, it’s simply about looking at all of the information from a neutral standpoint. It’s about asking questions and communicating so people can make the best possible decisions for themselves and their children. Parents love their kids and the vaccine “controversy” has made it difficult for many parents to know what to do.
A new study published in the journal EbioMedicineoutlines this point, stating in the introduction:
Over the past two decades several vaccine controversies have emerged in various countries, including France, inducing worries about severe adverse effects and eroding confidence in health authorities, experts, and science (Larson et al., 2011). These two dimensions are at the core of the vaccine hesitancy (VH) observed in the general population. VH is defined as delay in acceptance of vaccination, or refusal, or even acceptance with doubts about its safety and benefits, with all these behaviors and attitudes varying according to context, vaccine, and personal profile, despite the availability of vaccine services (Group, 2014,Larson et al., 2014, Dubé et al., 2013). VH presents a challenge to physicians who must address their patients’ concerns about vaccines and ensure satisfactory vaccination coverage.
The study concludes with the observation that “after repeated vaccine controversies in France, some vaccine hesitancy exists among French GPs, whose recommendation behaviours depend on their trust in authorities, their perception of the utility and risks of vaccines, and their comfort in explaining them.”
As a result, the study outlines how “up to 43 % of GPs sometimes. or never, recommend at least one specific vaccine to their patients.”
The percentages differ because the study was broken down as to which vaccines, and whether they are recommended never, sometimes, often or always. You can refer to the study for more details.
The authors’ overall findings “suggest that VH [vaccine hesitancy] is prevalent among French GPs. It may make them ill at ease in addressing their patients’ concerns about vaccination, which in turn might reinforce patients’ VH.”
Again, this isn’t a secret, another study (out of many, cited in the France publication) outlines how “more research is needed to understand why some health professionals, trained in medical sciences, still have doubts regarding the safety and effectiveness of vaccination.” (source)
Parents who are choosing not to vaccinate their children are not just doing it based on belief, they are doing it based on science and information, some of which will be presented in this article. This science and information is nowhere near emphasized to the point where the science and information on the other side of the coin is (“pro vaccine”). Parents who choose not to vaccinate themselves or their children are clearly intelligent, and they should not be made to look like fools. On the other hand, parents who are choosing to vaccinate their children are also intelligent. Those who choose to vaccinate should not be made out to be the ones who have made the “right” decision when there is evidence on both sides of the coin that clearly shows parents who are not vaccinating their children could also be making the “right” decision.
I’d also like to state that there are multiple vaccines, some may be safe, some may not be. There are also criticisms of all the studies mentioned, as well as bias. That being said, all of the studies in this article, with the exception of one or two, have been published in credible peer-reviewed scientific journals. That should not take away from the important work of many independent scientists from all over the world.
This article will present a few of the many reasons as to why parents are choosing to not vaccine their children. I am choosing to do this article and not one on why parents are choosing to vaccinate their children because it’s already very well known as to why they choose to vaccinate their children. I am also doing it to show you why parents who do not vaccinate are not crazy at all, and in fact quite intelligent and up to date on important information.
# 1 The Vaccine/Autism Controversy
Bringing up the idea that vaccines, in some way, are linked at all to autism can be greeted with a harsh reaction. Some people won’t even entertain the idea, or look at information that suggests there could be a link. Truth is, there are plenty of studies that stress the idea that there could be a link, and that there is a link. At the same time, there are plenty of studies that stress there is no link, and that vaccines are not in any way linked to autism. I am referring to peer reviewed publications all the way to important independent research that’s not sponsored by the vaccine manufacturers themselves.
STUDIES SHOWING VACCINES ARE NOT LINKED TO AUTISM
Starting off with some of the most recent data available, a study published in the Journal Vaccine determined that:
There was no relationship between vaccination and autism
There was no relationship between vaccination and ASD (autism spectrum disorder)
There was no relationship between the MMR vaccination and autism/ASD
There was no relationship between autism/ASD and thimerosal
There was no relationship between austism/ASD and mercury (Hg)
The study concluded that vaccinations are not associated with the development of autism or autism spectrum disorder. It was a meta-analysis done by researchers at the University of Sydney, in Australia. It examined ten studies involving more than one million children affirming that vaccines don’t cause autism. (1)
In March of 2013, the Journal of Paediatrics published a study titled “Increasing exposure to Antibody-Stimulating Proteins and Polysaccharides (antigens) in Vaccines is Not Associated with Risk of Autism.” The study found that vaccines, during the first couple of years of life are not related to the risk of developing an ASD diagnosis. They analyzed data from a case-control study conducted in 3 managed care organizations (MCOs) of 256 children with autism spectrum disorder (ASD) and 752 control children matched on birth year, sex and MCO. (2)
Another study published in the Journal of Paediatrics titled “Thimerosal exposure in infants and developmental disorders: a retrospective cohort study in the United Kingdom does not support a causal association” concluded that, with the possible exception of tics, there was no evidence that thimerosal exposure via the DTP/DT vaccines causes any neurodevelopment disorders. (3)
A report published in the Canadian Journal of Neurological Sciences emphasized how there is an “overwhelming” majority showing no causal association between the Measles-Mumps-Rubella (MMR) and autism. It also determined that there was no convincing evidence that thimerosal has any role in autism.(4)
A study published straight from the CDC and National Immunization program determined that “the evidence is now convincing that the measles-mumps-rubella vaccines do not cause autism or any type of autism spectrum disorder.” (5)
The list literally goes on and on here, study after study in peer-reviewed scientific journals claim no link between vaccines/vaccine ingredients and autism.
This is why many people reject the notion that vaccines could (in any way) be linked to autism. But that rejection is usually out of ignorance, and those guilty are parents, people like me and you, medical professionals and more. It’s our tendency to believe what we are told (usually through mass marketing alone) without ever doing the research for ourselves.
STUDIES SHOWING VACCINES COULD BE LINKED TO AUTISM
As I did in the previous section, I will try to start of with a couple of more recent studies. If vaccines aren’t linked to autism, why are scientists/researchers emphasizing that they could be, and showing that there is a possible link? (Keep in mind the Bradford -Hill Criteria, which is explained in some of the studies) These studies are contradictory to the ones above, yet conducted by people of the same qualifications and published in peer-reviewed scientific journals. Let’s take a look.
A study published in the Journal of Toxicology by scientists from the University of British Colombia, Louisiana, and MIT outlines how Aluminum up until the 1820s -when the industrial extraction of AI made it possible to bring it into our food, manufacturing, medicines, and more -it was almost completely absent from the biosphere. The paper outlines how aluminum is harmful to the Central Nervous System (CNS), “acting in a number of deleterious ways and across multiple levels to induce biosemiotic entropy.” (6)
Biosemiotic entropy is basically the corruption of biological messages from genetics, epigenetics, proteins, cells, tissues and organs. The paper points out how CNS problems are correlated with diseases like autism spectrum disorder, and makes a strong argument that Aluminum adjuvants in the form of pediatric vaccines could be contributing to increased rates of autism spectrum disorders. (page 8).
One of the author’s of this paper, Dr. Chris Shaw, a neurologist at the University of British Columbia explains the danger of aluminum in vaccines. When aluminum comes from a vaccine, it stays in the body, and studies have shown that the adjuvants do not stay localized but rather travel to the brain where they can be detected up to a year after the injection.
A study published in the Journal Current Medical Chemistry in 2011 stated that:
“Aluminum is an experimentally demonstrated neurotoxin and the most commonly used vaccine adjuvant. Despite almost 90 years of widespread use of aluminum adjuvants, medical science’s understanding about their mechanisms of action is still remarkably poor. There is also a concerning scarcity of data on toxicology and pharmacokinetics of these compounds. In spite of this, the notion that aluminum in vaccines is safe appears to be widely accepted. Experimental research, however, clearly shows that aluminum adjuvants have a potential to induce serious immunological disorders in humans. In particular, aluminum in adjuvant form carries a risk for autoimmunity, long-term brain inflammation and associated neurological complications and may thus have profound and widespread adverse health consequences.” (7)
The paper points out how aluminum could be a culprit in the development of a wide body of neurodegenerative disease, one of them being autism.
Here is a statement I took from the paper, for the specific citations you can look at the actual paper. “The issue of vaccine safety thus becomes even more pertinent given that, to the best of our knowledge, no adequate clinical studies have been conducted to establish the safety of concomitant administration of two experimentally-established neurotoxins, aluminum and mercury, the latter in the form of ethyl mercury (thimerosal) in infants and children. Since these molecules negatively affect many of the same biochemical processes and enzymes implicated in the etiology of autism, the potential for a synergistic toxic action is plausible [31, 47]. Additionally, for the purpose of evaluating safety and efficacy, vaccine clinical trials often use an aluminium-containing placebo, either containing the same or greater amount of aluminum as the test vaccine [48-51]. Without exception, these trials report a comparable rate of adverse reactions between the placebo and the vaccine group (for example, 63.7% vs 65.3% of systemic events and 1.7% vs 1.8% of serious adverse events respectively ).”
The paper also points to the fact that brain inflammatory responses have long been recognized as a factor in etiology of many neurodegenerative diseases like autism and provides a host of citations for that as well.
They (Dr, Shaw and Dr. Tomljenovic) also published a paper in 2011 that was approved for publication in the Journal of Inorganic Biochemistry that stated:
“We show that Al-adjuvanted vaccines may be a significant etiological factor in the rising prevalence of ASD. According to the FDA, vaccines represent a special category of drugs as they are generally given to healthy individuals. Further according to the FDA, “this places significant emphasis on their vaccine safety.” While the FDA does set an upper limit for Aluminum in vaccines at no more that 850/mcg/dose, it is important to note that this amount was selected empirically from data showing that Aluminum in such amounts enhanced the antigenicity of the vaccine, rather than from existing safety. Given that the scientific evidence appears to indicate that vaccine safety is not as firmly established as often believed, it would seem ill advised to exclude paediatric vaccinations as a possible cause of adverse long-term neurodevelopment outcomes, including those associated with autism.” (8)
Shaw and Seneff also recently published a paper in the Journal Immunome Research outlining a lot of evidence pointing to the dangers regarding aluminum in vaccines. (9)
A paper published in the peer reviewed International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health titled “Thimerosal Exposure and the Role of Sulfation Chemistry and Thiol Availability in Autism” concluded:
“With the rate of children diagnosed with an ASD in the US now exceeding 1 in 50 children and the rate of children with neurodevelopment/behavioural disorders in the US now exceeding 1 in 6 children, and the preceding evidence showing that there is vulnerability to ™ that would not be known without extensive testing, the preponderance of the evidence indicates that ™ should be removed from all vaccines” (10)
A paper published in the Journal Entropy Identifies “several signs and symptoms that are significantly more prevalent in vaccine reports after 2000, including cellulitis, seizure, depression, fatigue, pain and death, which are also significantly associated with aluminum-containing vaccines. We propose that children with the autism diagnosis are especially vulnerable to toxic metals such as aluminum and mercury due to insufficient serum sulfate and glutathione. A strong correlation between autism and the MMR (Measles, Mumps, Rubella) vaccine is also observed, which may be partially explained via an increased sensitivity to acetaminophen administered to control fever.” (source)
A paper published in the Journal of Toxicology titled B-Lymphocytes from a population of Children with Autism Spectrum Disorder and Their Unaffected Siblings Exhibit Hypersensitivity to Thimerosal clearly demonstrates that certain individuals with a mild mitochondrial defect may be highly susceptible to mitochondrial specific toxins like thimerosal. What does this mean? It means that people with a slight DNA difference are at risk for developing neurodegenerative diseases via vaccination. They determined that ASD patients have a heightened sensitivity to thimerosal which would restrict cell proliferation that is typically found after vaccination. (11)
A study published in the American Journal of Clinical Nutrition determined that an increased vulnerability to oxidative stress and decreased capacity for methylation may contribute to the development and clinical manifestation of autism. It’s well known that viral infections cause increased oxidative stress. (12) Research suggests that metals, including those found in many vaccines are directly involved in increasing oxidative stress.
Oxidative stress, brain inflammation and microgliosis have been heavily documented in association with toxic exposures including various heavy metals. (14)
A study published in the Journal of Biomedical Sciencesdetermined that the autoimmunity to the central nervous system may play a causal role in autism. Researchers discovered that because many autistic children harbour elevated levels of measles antibodies, they should conduct a serological study of measles-mumps-rubella (MMR) and myelin basic protein (MBP) autoantibodies. They used serum samples of 125 autistic children and 92 controlled children. Their analysis showed a significant increase in the level of MMR antibodies in autistic children. The study concludes that the autistic children had an inappropriate or abnormal antibody response to MMR. The study determined that autism could be a result from an atypical measles infection that produces neurological symptoms in some children. The source of this virus could be a variant of MV, or “it could be the MMR vaccine.” (13)
A study published in the International Journal of Toxicology outlines the biological plausibility of mercury’s role in neurodevelopmental disorders. It suggests that early mercury exposure could indeed increase the risk of autism. (14)
“To sum up, there has been a great deal of information from different studies that seems to indicate that repetitive mercury exposure during pregnancy, through thimerosal, dental amalgam, and fish consumption, and after birth, through thimerosal-containing vaccinations and pollution, in genetically susceptible individuals is one potential factor in autism.” (source)
A study conducted by the Department of Paediatrics at the University of Arkansas determined that thimerosal-induced cytotoxicity was associated with the depletion of intracellular glutathione (GSH) in both cell lines. The study outlines how many vaccines have been neurotoxic, especially to the developing brain. Depletion of GSH is commonly associated with autism. Although thimerosal has been removed from most children’s vaccines, it is still present in flu vaccines given to pregnant women, the elderly and to children in developing countries. (15)
“The assertion that vaccine-autism concerns rest merely on spurious claims made by uneducated parents is in stark contrast with a large body of scientific literature. As mentioned previously, extensive research data has underscored the tight connection between development of the immune system and that of the CNS, and thus the plausibility that disruption of critical events in immune development may play a role in neurobehavioral disorders including those of the autism spectrum. Indeed, early-life immune challenges in critical windows of developmental vulnerability have been shown to produce long-lasting, highly abnormal cognitive and behavioral responses, including increased fear and anxiety, impaired social interactions, deficits in object recognition memory and sensorimotor gating deficits. These symptoms are highly characteristic of autism. It is thus indeed naive to assume that a manipulation of the immune system through an increasing number of vaccinations during sensitive periods of early development will not result in adverse neurological outcomes. Consistent with this, Shoenfeld and Cohen (world’s leading experts in autoimmune diseases) noted that, ‘‘vaccines have a predilection to affect the nervous system’’ [emphasis added]. Also, please refer to a number of publications we and others have authored on this subject (link between immune challenges and adverse neurological outcomes. For specific publications on the links between vaccinations and autism, refer to the following citations .” – Lucija Tomljenovic, who has a PhD in biochemistry and is a senior postdoctoral fellow in UBC’s Faculty of Medicine. (source)
For more studies you can refer to these to start off your research.
Gallagher, C.M. and Goodman, M.S. (2010) Hepatitis B vaccination of male neonates and autism diagnosis, NHIS 1997-2002. J Toxicol Environ Health A 73, 1665-77.
Gallagher, C.M. and Goodman, M.S. (2008) Hepatitis B triple series vaccine and developmental disability in US children aged 1-9 years. Tox Env Chem. 90, 997-1008.
The list literally goes on and on, study after study in peer-reviewed scientific journals claim a possible link between vaccines/vaccine ingredients and autism.
So, for the “pro-vaccine” community to say there is no link, and can’t be a link, and that vaccines could not be one out of several possible causes contributing to the development of autism seems a little bit ridiculous, don’t you think?
Concluding Statement About The Vaccine/Autism Controversy
As you can see above, there are many peer-reviewed studies published in scientific journals by experts at various institutions claiming no link. On the other hand, we have the same type of research, also in abundance that claims there could be a link, and that it is probable – and through science they’ve shown how.
What are parents who do their research supposed to think when they come across this information? Why is the “pro vac side” so adamant on saying that there are no scientific peer-reviewed published studies that posit a potential link to autism – when there are many.
So, this is one reason why parents are choosing not to vaccinate their children. To say there is absolutely no way a vaccine can be a contributing factor in causing autism is completely false and dangerous.
#2 Scientific/Industry Fraud
“The medical profession is being bought by the pharmaceutical industry, not only in terms of the practice of medicine, but also in terms of teaching and research. The academic institutions of this country are allowing themselves to be the paid agents of the pharmaceutical industry. I think it’s disgraceful.” – (source)(source)Arnold Seymour Relman (1923-2014), Harvard Professor of Medicine and Former Editor-in-Chief of the New England Medical Journal
When a parent points to the idea that scientific and industry fraud contributed to their decision to not vaccine their child, they can instantly be deemed “conspiracy theorists” or greeted with some sort of rude response that makes them out to be “fools.” This couldn’t be further from the truth, and those types of responses often come from those who have failed to do any investigation for themselves.
“Condemnation without investigation is the height of ignorance.”
Here is why parents are actually pointing to scientific/industry fraud when it comes to making their decision, and to be honest, with this type of information out in the public domain, who can really blame them?
It’s hard to know where to start when there are so many examples:
In the past few years more professionals have come forward to share a truth that, for many people, proves difficult to swallow. One such authority is Dr. Richard Horton, the current editor-in-chief of the Lancet – considered to be one of the most well respected peer-reviewed medical journals in the world.
Dr. Horton recently published a statement declaring that a lot of published research is in fact unreliable at best, if not completely false.
“The case against science is straightforward: much of the scientific literature, perhaps half, may simply be untrue. Afflicted by studies with small sample sizes, tiny effects, invalid exploratory analyses, and flagrant conflicts of interest, together with an obsession for pursuing fashionable trends of dubious importance, science has taken a turn towards darkness.” (source)
– Lucija Tomljenovic, who has a PhD in biochemistry and is a senior postdoctoral fellow in UBC’s Faculty of Medicine, is also a medical investigator. A few years ago she uncovered documents that reveal vaccine manufacturers, pharmaceutical companies and health authorities have known about multiple dangers associated with vaccines but chose to withhold them from the public. This is scientific fraud, and suggests that this practice continues to this day. The documents were obtained from the UK Department of Health (DH) and the Joint Committee on Vaccination and Immunization (JCVI), who advise the Secretaries of State for Health in the UK about diseases preventable through immunizations. The JCVI made “continuous efforts to withhold critical data on severe adverse reactions and contraindications to vaccinations to both parents and health practitioners in order to reach overall vaccination rates.
“The transcripts of the JCBI meetings also show that some of the Committee members had extensive ties to pharmaceutical companies and that the JCVI frequently co-operated with vaccine manufactures on the strategies aimed at boosting vaccine uptake. Some of the meetings at which such controversial items were discussed were not intended to be publicly available, as the transcripts were only released later, through the Freedom of Information Act (FOI). These particular meetings are denoted in the transcripts as “commercial in confidence,” and reveal a clear and disturbing lack of transparency, as some of the information was removed from the text (i.e., the names of the participants) prior to transcript release under the FOI section at the JCVI website.” (16)
— A congressional record from May 1, 2003 shows that there could be, and that many scientists themselves believe that there is a high risk of autism as a result of Thimerosal-containing vaccines. Again, this is a congressional report and parents who choose not to ignore it should not be bashed by others, don’t you think? The report even shows information from the CDC’s own Vaccine Safety Datalink (VSD) that postulates the vaccine-autism connection. (17)
– Insider “whistle-blowers” with verified credentials have also played a role with parents who are concerned about vaccinating their children. This type of thing has been going on for quite a while. Take Robert F. Kennedy Jr for example. He repeatedly stated that there is a “cover up” of data that clearly shows a definitive link between vaccines and autism. He also alluded to the fact that he has met with some of these people, that they know what they are doing, and that they are terrified of the public ever finding out. Think about that for a second, we have the former presidents nephew, who has been in elitist circles and obviously in and around people who’ve held powerful positions making these comments. Of course these are concerning comments, and to not completely dismiss them as false isn’t a “bad” thing. One of the biggest concerns for parents was the fact that he, in June 2005, authored an article in Rolling Stone and Salon.com alleging a government conspiracy to cover up connections between vaccines and autism. Both of the articles were retracted. (18)(19) There are many speeches he made, and compelling statements that are available in the form of articles and YouTube videos if you are interested in seeing more.
Although a “whistle-blower” is not science, it does add to the science that is already there by giving it an “extra leg” so to speak. stuff like this seems to be cropping up every year giving parents more reasons not to vaccinate their children, just as it is cropping up every year giving parents more reasons to vaccinate their children.
We also have statements (hundreds) from scientists and doctors like this one (quote below) which also seem to be contributing to a lack of trust for vaccine manufacturers and the studies they sponsor. Much of the published scientific studies that say there is no need to worry about vaccines, and that there is no autism link are actually sponsored by the vaccine manufactures themselves:
“It is simply no longer possible to believe much of the clinical research that is published, or to rely on the judgement of trusted physicians or authoritative medical guidelines. I take no pleasure in this conclusion, which I reached slowly and reluctantly over my two decades as an editor of the New England Journal of Medicine” (considered to be one of the most prestigious peer-reviewed medical journals in the world). – Dr Marcia Angell, Physician, Author, Former Editor in Chief of the NEJM (20)
— A more recent example (and perhaps one of the biggest) would be long time CDC scientist, Dr. William Thompson. In fact, he has authored and co-authored dozens of studies, many of which are commonly pointed out by the “pro-vaccine” movement. A couple of them are actually cited above that show there is no link between vaccines and autism. Just a few months ago this is what he had to say:
“The CDC has put the research 10 years behind, because the CDC has not been transparent. We’ve missed 10 years of research because the CDC is so paralyzed right now by anything related to autism. Really what we need is for congress to come in and say, give us the data.” (22)
He pointed to a specific study that he co-authored, a 2004 CDC study commonly cited and used by the scientific community, among others, that determined:
“The evidence is now convincing that the measles-mumps-rubella vaccine does not cause autism or any particular subtypes of autism spectrum disorder.” (21)
He also alluded to another study published in the Journal of Pediatrics that concluded:
“The evidence is now convincing that the measles-mumps-rubella vaccine does not cause autism or any particular subtypes of autism spectrum disorder.” (23)
This is what he had to say about that study:
“It’s the lowest point in my career that I went along with that paper and uh, I went along with this, we didn’t report significant findings. I’m completely ashamed of what I did, I have great shame now that I was complicit and went along with this, I have been a part of the problem.” (22)
This story was becoming so big across alternative news networks, like CE, that mainstream media outlets like CNN picked up on it as quick as they could and tried to spin the story. At least they admitted that yes, Dr. Thompson did actually blow the whistle:
“I regret that my co-authors and I omitted statistically significant information in our 2004 article,” Thompson said in a statement sent to CNN by his lawyer. “I have had many discussions with Dr. Brian Hooker over the last 10 months regarding studies the CDC has carried out regarding vaccines and neurodevelopmental outcomes, including autism spectrum disorders. I share his belief that CDC decision-making and analyses should be transparent.” (24)(25)
That being said, he also said in an official statement from his lawyers on August 27th 2014.
“I want to be absolutely clear that I believe vaccines have saved and continue to save countless lives. I would never suggest that any parent avoid vaccinating children of any race. Vaccines prevent serious diseases, and the risks associated with their administration are vastly outweighed by their individual and societal benefits.” (25)
Concluding Comments About Scientific/Industry Fraud
As you can see, parents who cite scientific/industry fraud as one of the reasons for not vaccinating their child holds a great deal of validity. Most vaccine supporters are completely unaware of this information, which is understandable, it’s not really “out there” so to speak, it’s something you have to look for. These are just a few of many examples, as I am trying to make this article as short as possible (not easy).
#3 The National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act
During the mid-1970’s, there was an increased focus on personal health and more people became concerned about vaccine safety. Several lawsuits were filed against vaccine manufacturers and healthcare providers by people who believed they had been injured by vaccines, and the evidence presented in court was good enough to win.
As a result, this act was developed to protect any pharmaceutical company, doctor or medical association from any “fault.” It’s not about pointing fingers, many people really do believe that every vaccine is fine to inject into somebody. Instead of suing the vaccine manufacturer directly, they have to go through a long process where parents have to ask the government to admit that the vaccine was responsible for their child’s injury, and ask for compensation for the child’s care.
Pharmaceutical companies are exempt from participating in these proceedings, and tax payers are the ones who pay for all the vaccine related damages, which there have been many. Below is a great video explaining the process in detail.
This is clearly another contributing factor as to why parent’s are not vaccinating their children, Many grey areas and shady practices that are involved with the legal process when it comes to vaccine induced injury. The children who have been injured by vaccines alone is another cause for concern, which brings me to my next point.
#4 The Ineffectiveness Of Some Vaccines And Vaccine Injury
Again, there are dozens upon dozens of vaccines that are out there, some might be completely safe, harmless and necessary, and some might not be.
If we take a look at Gardasil, for example:
“It is a vaccine that’s been highly marketed, the benefits are over-hyped, and the dangers are underestimated.” – Dr. Chris Shaw, Professor at the University of British Columbia, in the department of Neuroscience, Ophthalmology, and Visual Sciences.
There have been several documented cases of injury as a result of the Gardasil vaccine. A recent article in the Toronto Star recently brought this issue up as well, you can view that here.
Another doctor making noise regarding the HPV vaccine is Dr. Diane Harper. Dr. Harper helped design and carry out the Phase II and Phase III safety and effectiveness studies to get Gardasil approved, and authored many of the published papers about it. She has been a paid speaker and consultant to Merck. It’s very unusual for a researcher to publicly criticize a medicine or vaccine she helped get approved.
“They created a huge amount of fear in mothers, and appealed to mothers’ sense of duty to get them to get their daughters vaccinated.” – Dr Diane Harper (source)
The authors of this study came to the same conclusion as Dr. Harper. They concluded that:
“The decision to vaccinate with HPV vaccine is a personal decision, not one that must be made for public health. HPV is not a lethal disease in 95% of the infections; and the other 5% are detectable and treatable in the precancerous stage.” (If you are interested you can access the paper here)
They also listed several conditions in which HPV vaccination is most likely the culprit, having been linked to a variety of autoimmune diseases which include: Multiple sclerosis, Guillain-Barre syndrome, primary ovarian failure, and more. Gardasil has also been linked to a number of deaths.
You can access more information regarding that vaccine, and what I am referring to in a recent article I wrote:
Are you going to tell a parent who cites this information as part of the reason they choose not to get this vaccine that they don’t know what they are talking about?
If we look at another example of the literature that’s out there regarding the flu vaccine, just to pick one, a report published in the British Medical Journal shows how “Marketing influenza vaccines thus involves marketing influenza as a threat of great proportions.”The paper outlines this theme throughout. It also outlines how recorded deaths from influenza declined sharply over the middle of the 20th century, and that this occurred before the great expansion of mass vaccination campaigns at the start of the 21st century. (28)
Are vaccine manufactures marketing vaccines in a completely wrong way?
Another marketing strategy used to push the flu vaccine is the claim by vaccine manufactures that “flu” and “influenza” are the same. The paper outlines how even the ideal influenza vaccine can only deal with a small part of the “flu” because most “flu’s” appear to have nothing to do with influenza.
“Every year, hundreds of thousands of respiratory specimens are tested across the US. Of those tested, on average 16% are found to be influenza positive. All influenza is “flu,” but only one in six “flu’s” might be influenza. It’s no wonder so many people feel that “flu shots” don’t work: for most flu’s, they can’t.” (28)
A study published in the Journal of Paediatrics, found that 85 percent of newborn infants experienced abnormal elevations of CRP when given multiple vaccines and up to 70 percent in those given a single vaccine. CRP is a protein found in the blood, a rise in this protein is a response to inflammation. Overall, 16 percent of infants were reported to experience vaccine-associated cardiorespiratory events within 48 hours of immunization. (29)
A great example is the fact that poorly tested vaccines have been administered to young children, which explains that there have been large numbers of major Adverse Reactions from seasonal influenza vaccines. As a result they were suspended for use in children under five years of age in Australia. (30)
In a series of Rapid Responses addressing this issue, published in British Medical Journal, titled “Adverse events following influenza vaccination in Australia-should we be surprised?” Collignon (Director of Infectious Diseases & Microbiology at Australian National University) concluded: “There is poor evidence on how well influenza vaccines prevent any influenza complications in children and other age groups. There is good evidence that influenza vaccines study reports cherry pick results and achieve spurious notoriety. Exposing human beings to uncertain effects is a risky business” .
The list goes on and on and I could cite hundreds of studies both “for” and “against.”
Instances like children in Europe developing Narcolepsy after the H1N1 pandemrix vaccine does not help either. There are so many examples, and no doubt these examples contribute largely in the decisions parents are making.
# 5 Vaccine Ingredients
This topic was touched upon in the studies presented in the first point. There are numerous studies suggesting that current vaccine ingredients are not a cause for concern. At the same time, there are many that point out they should be a cause for concern.
Common vaccine ingredients include:
Aluminum gels or salts of aluminum which are added as adjuvants to help the vaccine stimulate a better response. Adjuvants help promote an earlier, more potent response, and more persistent immune response to the vaccine.
Antibiotics which are added to some vaccines to prevent the growth of germs (bacteria) during production and storage of the vaccine. No vaccine produced in the United States contains penicillin.
Egg protein is found in influenza and yellow fever vaccines, which are prepared using chicken eggs. Ordinarily, persons who are able to eat eggs or egg products safely can receive these vaccines.
Formaldehyde is used to inactivate bacterial products for toxoid vaccines, (these are vaccines that use an inactive bacterial toxin to produce immunity.) It is also used to kill unwanted viruses and bacteria that might contaminate the vaccine during production. Most formaldehyde is removed from the vaccine before it is packaged.
Monosodium glutamate (MSG) and 2-phenoxy-ethanol which are used as stabilizers in a few vaccines to help the vaccine remain unchanged when the vaccine is exposed to heat, light, acidity, or humidity.
Thimerosal is a mercury-containing preservative that is added to vials of vaccine that contain more than one dose to prevent contamination and growth of potentially harmful bacteria
With regards to aluminum, studies (6)(7)(8)(9) are a good place to start if you want to examine the dangers of aluminum as an adjuvant in vaccines.
A fairly recent Meta-Analysis published in the Journal Bio Med Research International found that:
“The studies upon which the CDC relies and over which it exerted some level of control report that there is no increased risk of autism from exposure to organic Hg in vaccines, and some of these studies even reported that exposure to Thimerosal appeared to decrease the risk of autism. These six studies are in sharp contrast to research conducted by independent researchers over the past 75+ years that have consistently found Thimerosal to be harmful. As mentioned in the Introduction section, many studies conducted by independent investigators have found Thimerosal to be associated with neurodevelopmental disorders. Considering that there are many studies conducted by independent researchers which show a relationship between Thimerosal and neurodevelopmental disorders, the results of the six studies examined in this review, particularly those showing the protective effects of Thimerosal, should bring into question the validity of the methodology used in the studies.” (30)
Dr. Theresa Deisher, a PhD in Molecular and Cellular Physiology from Stanford University, the first person to discover adult cardiac derived stem cells, determined that residual human fetal DNA fragments in vaccines may be one of the causes of autism in children through vaccination. (31)
Again, significant association between exposure to thimerosal and neurodevelopmental disorders in children including autism, speech disorders, mental retardation, thinking abnormalities and personality disorders has been reported in a number of studies. Many have been cited in this article, here are a couple more:
Geier, D.A. and Geier, M.R. (2006) A meta-analysis epidemiological assessment of neurodevelopmental disorders following vaccines administered from 1994 through 2000 in the United States. Neuro Endocrinol Lett 27, 401-13. 
Young, H.A., Geier, D.A. and Geier, M.R. (2008) Thimerosal exposure in infants and neurodevelopmental disorders: an assessment of computerized medical records in the Vaccine Safety Datalink. J Neurol Sci 271, 110-8.
There is clearly enough information out there regarding the ingredients in vaccines, throughout this article, that makes a parent look pretty sane for choosing not to vaccinate their baby. At the same time there is a lot of medical research out there that shows the parents who choose to vaccinate their babies are pretty sane as well.(32)
No Safety Assessments Exist (Toxicity Studies) For Vaccine Ingredients, this is another very important point.
For example, aluminum has been added to vaccines for approximately 90 years, and one disturbing fact that many people still don’t know is that the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and vaccine manufacturers themselves have not conducted or included appropriate toxicity studies/testing proving the safety of aluminum, or any other ingredients, for that matter. These ingredients have been put into vaccines based on the assumption that they are safe. Yes, you read that correctly. It’s kind of disturbing, isn’t it?
So because vaccines have been viewed as non-toxic substances, the FDA and vaccine manufactures have not conducted appropriate toxicity studies to prove the safety of vaccine ingredients – more specifically, aluminum.(source)
I have a document from 2002 from the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA)…discussing the assessment of vaccine ingredients…and testing specifically in animal models…Back then, the FDA states that the routine toxicity studies in animals with vaccine ingredients have not been conducted because it was assumed that these ingredients are safe, when I read this I was kind of pulling my hairs out [thinking] ‘So, this is your indisputable evidence of safety?’ – Dr. Lucija Tomlijenovic, PhD., a post-doctoral fellow at the University of British Columbia where she works in neurosciences and the Department of Medicine. (source)
She also has documents which reveal that vaccine manufacturers, pharmaceutical companies, and health authorities have known about multiple dangers associated with vaccines but chose to withhold them from the public. They show that health authorities and vaccine manufacturers made “continuous efforts to withhold critical data on severe adverse reactions and contraindications to vaccinations to both parents and health practitioners in order to reach overall vaccination rates, which they deemed were necessary for ‘herd immunity.’ ” (source)
If we take a look at the FDA’s website/guidelines, it’s not like this is a secret. The statement above (from Lucija) comes from their 2002 guidelines, which is a fairly recent document, but more than 10 years later, despite all of the studies demonstrating clear cause for concern, not much has changed.
Until recently, few licensed vaccines have been tested for developmental toxicity in animals prior to their use in humans. (source)
Despite their long use as active agents of medicines and fungicides, the safety levels of these substances have never been determined, either for animals or for adult humans—much less for fetuses, newborns, infants, and children. – Jose G. Dores, Professor at the University of Brasillia’s department of nutritional sciences. (source)
A growing number of studies have linked the use of aluminum adjuvants to serious autoimmune outcomes in humans. (source)(source)(source)(source)
The use of this adjuvant has been connected to all kinds of diseases, from autism to brain disease to Alzheimer’s and much more.
Experimental research … clearly shows that aluminum adjuvants have a potential to induce serious immunological disorders in humans – Dr. Lucija Tomlijenovic (source)
There are numerous studies which have examined aluminum’s potential to induce toxic effects, and this is clearly established in medical literature, and has been for a long time. (source)
If significant aluminum load exceeds the body’s capacity to get rid of it, it is deposited into various tissues that include bone, brain, liver, heart, spleen, and muscle. Aluminum is found in cigarettes, cosmetics, food, medicines (aspirin), and much much more. It’s in our environment, and we are surrounded by it. This is concerning, because aluminum was not really around until the industrial revolution. Today, it shows up in so many products. And we know, from the work of Richard Flarend, that aluminum is commonly absorbed into the body, into areas it shouldn’t be, and has been found in various urine samples from multiple studies examining this topic… and that’s not just for aluminum in vaccines.
We increasingly have this compound that was not part of any biochemical process on Earth, that can now only go and do havoc, which is exactly what it does. It causes all kinds of unusual biochemical reactions. – Dr. Chris Shaw, a Neuroscientist and professor at the University of British Columbia
Here is a great video by Dr. Christopher Exley, Professor in Bioinorganic Chemistry at Keele University and Honorary Professor at UHI Millennium Institute. He is known as one of the world’s leading experts on aluminum toxicity.
# 6 Vaccine Safety Evidence Is Not Rock Solid. One Size Does Not Fit All.
Forcing a parent to vaccinate their child is not a sound scientific one. All drugs are associated with some risks and adverse reactions. The “greater good” argument is concerning because causes of permanent neurodevelopmental disabilities and even deaths following vaccination in children (with genetic and other susceptibilities) have been established (firmly) in scientific literature (7)(8).
One important point parents often point to is the fact that clinical trials that could address vaccine safety concerns have not been conducted. There are no studies that have been published in these peer reviewed medical journals examining the health outcomes of vaccinated populations versus unvaccinated populations. The lack of these controlled trials appears to be because vaccines have been assumed to be safe since their inception, which clearly contradicts a lot of scientific data.(32)
Even strong supporters of vaccinations within the scientific community have questioned the scientific legitimacy of “one size fits all” vaccination practices.
For example, Poland (Editor in Chief of the journal Vaccine and co-author of “The age-old struggle against the antivaccinationists” (33)) and fellow researchers ask whether “with the advances coming from the new biology of the 21st Century,” it is time to consider “how might new genetic and molecular biology information inform vaccinology practices of the future?” They concluded that “one-size fits all” approach for all vaccines and all persons should be abandoned.
This assumption is also as a result of vaccine trials commonly excluding vulnerable individuals who might be more susceptible to injury via vaccine. As a result, adverse reactions that occur as a result of vaccinations might be very underestimated.
I also wanted to point out that data also demonstrates that over-stimulating the host’s immune system by repeated immunization with immune antigens and/or adjuvants inevitably leads to autoimmunity even in genetically non-susceptible animals, which is important to consider. (34)(35)
Here is a related video explaining why vaccines should not be considered completely safe.
Again, can you really blame parents with all of this information out there?
The “pro-vaccination” side seems to be all that is offered in the media, at the doctor’s office, and in schools, and most government vaccine sponsored studies. The reason I wrote this article was to give a small amount of information to help shed light on why parent’s are choosing not to vaccinate their children, simply because this side is so rarely discussed. The number of documents and peer-reviewed scientific literature alluding to adverse events after vaccination and the dangers associated with vaccinations; how they are not nearly as emphasized as they should be. It appears that the risks associated with them are far greater than what they are telling us, and an unnecessary amount of pressure is placed on parents to vaccinate their children.
Too many people are uninformed, and might make a comment such as “what about the polio vaccine” and completely ignore all of the relevant information in this article. They might not know things like in 1977 Dr. Jonas Salk (inventor of the Salk polio vaccine) testified with other scientists that 87% of the polio cases which occurred in the US since 1970 were the by-product of the polio vaccine.The Sabin oral polio vaccine (OPV) is the only known cause of polio in the US today. I am not sourcing this little tidbit here to encourage others to go out and look for themselves. That is the whole point of this article.
After reading this, it’s hard to imagine how a parent could ever be made to look like a “fool” for choosing not to vaccinate their child. It’s also not even a fraction of the amount of information out there that goes into history, more science, fraud, and more. I cannot do your research for you, I hope I’ve inspired you to do some of your own.
Next time you come across a parent who has chosen not to vaccinate their baby, try not to judge, instead try and understand where they are coming from.
Multiple brands of prescription infant formula were found to contain high levels of aluminum.
Should we be questioning the quality of products that come from pharmaceutical production? Do we veer away from natural methods of raising children more than we should? At what cost?
You may not think aluminum is a big deal, but it is. For anybody who has looked into aluminum toxicology, it’s quite clear and apparent that it has no place inside of any living biological organism. Putting it simply, it wreaks havoc on our biology. High amounts of aluminum have been found in the brains of people with Alzheimer’s disease, with experts in the field believing that aluminum brain accumulation may be one of the main causes of Alzheimer’s disease.
It’s also been discovered within the brains of MS patients, and some of the highest aluminum content ever recorded in brain tissue has also been discovered in people with autism. Aluminum is associated with several diseases. But an adult body can do a great job of flushing out aluminum.
Despite the fact that aluminum has no place within earth’s biota, it’s still present in many of our medications, our food, and even in the water that we drink due to contamination since the industrial revolution. Aluminum inside the body is a new phenomenon and still understudied. Again, there is a threshold, and aluminum that is injected via vaccines doesn’t exit the body–there is strong evidence that it remains inside the body and ends up in distant organs and eventually inside of the brain. If you want to access more studies on that topic, you can read this article I published that provides them and goes into more detail. You can also watch this interview with Christopher Exley, where he also points to that fact.
A new study published in the International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health has shown that multiple popular infant prescriptions are contaminated with aluminum. You may be asking how much aluminum, but the authors make it a point to stress that there are no safe amounts of aluminum levels that can be inside of a human body, let alone a newborn baby. That being said, the amounts found are listed within the abstract of the study:
Historical and recent data demonstrate that off-the-shelf infant formulas are heavily contaminated with aluminium. The origin of this contamination remains to be elucidated though may be imported via ingredients, packaging and processing. Specialised infant formulas exist to address health issues, such as low birth weight, allergy or intolerance and medical conditions, such as renal insufficiency. The aluminium content of these prescription infant formulas is measured here for the first time. We obtained 24 prescription infant formulas through a paediatric clinic and measured their total aluminium content by transversely heated graphite furnace atomic absorption spectrometry following microwave assisted acid/peroxide digestion. The aluminium content of ready-to-drink formulas ranged from 49.9 (33.7) to 1956.3 (111.0) μg/L. The most heavily contaminated products were those designed as nutritional supplements for infants struggling to gain weight. The aluminium content of powdered formulas ranged from 0.27 (0.04) to 3.27 (0.19) μg/g. The most heavily contaminated products tended to be those addressing allergies and intolerance. Prescription infant formulas are contaminated with aluminium.
Another very important point made right off the bat by the authors:
Human exposure to aluminium is a serious health concern. Aluminium exposure in infants is understandably a burgeoning issue. While infant exposure to aluminium continues to be documented, its consequences, immediate and in the future, have received only scant attention and research is required to understand the biological availability of aluminium through formula feeding. For example, how much aluminium is absorbed across the neonate gut and its subsequent fate, including excretion.
There is already too much aluminium in infant formulas and herein we have measured its content in a large number of prescription formulas, products which are fed to vulnerable infants in their first months of life. Many of these products are heavily contaminated with aluminium.
As for the specific infant formulas, you can refer to the study. The researchers obtained 24 prescription infant formulas via the Paediatric Clinic of Russells Hall Hospital in Dudley, United Kingdom. The ready-to-drink and powdered products were new, ready-to-be used and unopened samples. These formulas are for babies with some sort of growth restriction, like for preterm infants or infants who have poor weight gain. There were also powdered formulas for allergies and intolerances and powdered formulas with additional amino acids.
The authors contacted each manufacturer and expressed that they denied knowing that there was any aluminum in their products, which means it’s still a mystery as to their source. The authors hypothesize on a number of ways that aluminum could be entering into the formulas.
In their conclusion, the authors emphasize that:
Where possible, breast milk feeding should be prioritised, as the aluminium content of breast milk is invariably an order of magnitude lower than in formula feeds. Where infant formulas are the only source of nutrition for many infants in their first weeks and months of life, aluminium ingested in formula feeds will be the major contributor to their body burden of aluminium. The last thing that vulnerable infants fed specialised formulas for their specific nutritional/medicinal need is additional aluminium in their diet.
There is a lot of information out there on how a person can detox from aluminum and other heavy metals. There are multiple studies, and based on what I’ve looked into, water with high amounts of Silica are effective in draining aluminum out of your body and brain. Herbs like cilantro and substances like chlorella and spirulina are also great for removing some metals. The information is out there, so be sure to do your research.
It’s concerning to think about what these corporations are doing. Again, aluminum should hold no place in our society, it should’ve remained well below our surface as part of the Earth’s crust for a reason. It wasn’t until humans began digging it out and using it for a number of things, irresponsibly I might add, that we started to see the health implications which still go largely ignored by the medical community.
In fact, heavy metal accumulation and detoxification of aluminum haven’t been addressed at all, which is odd given the fact that heavy metal accumulation is linked to a variety of diseases.
Khoo Teck Puat Hospital in Singapore is a case study in what can happen when nature-inspired design is applied to the medical setting to promote healing.
There are many studies that show the healing benefits of nature and the effects it has on our health & well-being. What if all hospitals integrated a more conscious approach to healing?
Lush garden views and natural landscapes aren’t usually the first thing you envision when you think of hospitals, but Khoo Teck Puat Hospital in Singapore is changing all of that.
When it comes to reenvisioning healthcare and the mental state of those who are admitted, Khoo Teck Puat Hospital is really advancing how we care for those who have fallen ill. Whether it is due to lack of prior proper care, one’s diet & lifestyle, or a stagnancy to one’s energy creating blockages — and in turn illness — it is important that we look at this field and industry (medical/healthcare) as one of the most crucial for shifting humanity.
The Green Treatment
As MindBodyGreen reports, “In 2005, CPG Corporate, a Singapore-based design firm, was tasked with creating a hospital that actually lowered visitors’ blood pressure. ‘How do we challenge the idea of a hospital to deinstitutionalize it and make it look, smell, and feel, unlike a hospital?’ Jerry Ong Chin-Po, an architect who worked on the project, told mbg of the initial challenge. ‘We felt the best way to do it was to integrate nature into the space.'”
The hospital, which opened its doors in 2010 and now serves 800,000 residents in northern Singapore, has masked the smell of medicine and chemicals with over 700 species of fragrant native plants. In the lobby, sounds of machines are drowned out by bird species in the central courtyard. And instead of walking through sterile white hallways, patients, caretakers, and the occasional butterfly navigate the space on outdoor bridges wrapped in greenery.
In Singapore, medical buildings have multiple tiers of patient rooms (it’s part of how the country maintains its famously cheap health care). Some are private and have air conditioning; others have up to five beds and rely on natural ventilation. In order to ensure that all patients feel comfortable—regardless of how much they’re paying to be there—Chin-Po’s team again leaned on nature. They installed new windows that could be opened wider to allow for more airflow and made sure that every patient could see greenery from their bed, even if it was just a planter box on the other side of their window.
At mealtimes, patients are given organic food grown in a massive rooftop garden, and everyone fills their plates with fruits and veggies on the weekly, hospital-wide Meatless Mondays. ‘We always bring this idea of creating a total healing environment,’ Chin-Po says. ‘Not just for the patients but for the caregivers and staff as well. It’s all part of the whole system.’
This is the healing power of nature and community.
Image by Khoo Teck Puat Hospital
And so the next question is, with all of the greenery, community and natural light, are patients healing more rapidly at this futuristic hospital? Well, it is reported that while there is still not sufficient evidence to back this claim, Chin-Po says that anecdotally, patients seem to appreciate the hospital’s unique design and are actually willing to pay more to go there than other hospitals in the area.
And, though it’s not extensive, there is a body of research showing that greenery and natural light do aid in recovery. One 2008 study found that patients who had plants in their rooms had lower blood pressure and reported less pain, anxiety, and fatigue than patients who didn’t. Another one back from 1984 concluded that hospital rooms that had windows overlooking nature helped patients recover from surgery quicker than ones that faced brick walls. Outside of a clinical setting, spending time around nature has been shown to reduce the risk of type 2 diabetes, cardiovascular disease, and stress.
As more of those around us seem to fall ill, it is important to look at alternative ways of healing. Whether it is holistic, alternative, or simply nature itself, it is steps like this hospital is taking that are really going to create the shift we need as a collective. We are lovers of the outdoors by nature, and though our current society and system seem to have us forgetting to step outside and ground, it is key to our longevity on this planet.
From the Sun itself being our best source of vitamin D to the very oxygen we breathe being gifted to us through trees, we owe a lot to nature.
Remember, sick or not, it is in our best interest to take time out in nature to nurture both our Soul & our bodies. This hospital is just the beginning of a great remembrance back to real self care.
As the Children’s Health Defense eBook, Conflicts of Interest Undermine Children’s Health, tries to make clear, the passage of the National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act (NCVIA) in 1986 was a watershed event that emboldened vaccine manufacturers and their public- and private-sector accomplices—notably the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC)—to systematically hide the serious damage caused by vaccines. In addition to making a mockery of pre-licensing safety testing and post-marketing surveillance, these entities have regularly manipulated (or destroyed) data to exaggerate both the benefits and effectiveness of vaccination. Manufacturers have also used their money and power to subordinate the mainstream media, medical journalsand front groups, making it possible to publish and broadcast deceptive studies that whitewash questions inconvenient to the financial bottom line.
From multiple standpoints—not least of which is children’s dismal state of health—the status quo is untenable. Three of the most urgent steps to be taken include repealing the NCVIA, eliminating vaccine mandates (making both childhood and adult vaccination voluntary) and addressing conflicts of interest by establishing a fully transparent and independent vaccine safety commission.
Repeal the NCVIA
The NCVIA has been an unmitigated disaster. As New York University law professor Mary Holland has written, the Act’s passage has allowed the government and vaccine manufacturers to ride roughshod over three important legal protections:
Free and informed consent to an invasive medical procedure
Accurate and complete information about vaccine ingredients and possible side effects
The right to sue manufacturers and medical practitioners directly in the event of injury.
According to Holland, the absence of these legal protections for vaccination is “striking” compared to “almost all other medical interventions.”
The legal protections are interrelated. For example, an individual cannot exercise truly informed consent unless he or she has access to full and unbiased information. Recognizing this, one provision of the NCVIA was a mandate for the CDC to develop (and health care providers to distribute) patient education materials about vaccine risks and benefits. However, not only has the CDC repeatedly dumbed down the materials in a variety of ways, but research suggests that many doctors do not comply with the legal requirement to hand out (much less discuss) them. Instead, providers and the media continue to blandly assure the public that vaccine injuries are a “one in a million” event, never mentioning that 99% of vaccine injuries go unreported. Under the circumstances, no meaningful assessment of vaccine risks is possible.
Research shows that by eliminating consumers’ ability to sue, the NCVIA has had a tangibly negative effect on vaccine safety. After an extensive analysis of nationwide and state-level U.S. data, a researcher reported in 2017 that vaccines licensed after NCVIA’s passage were associated with “a significantly higher incidence of adverse events” compared to vaccines licensed prior to the law’s passage. The researcher concluded that “product safety deteriorates when consumers are no longer able to sue manufacturers.” Repealing the NCVIA and reinstating product liability would not solve all of the ethical problems that permeate the pharmaceutical industry’s business culture, but it could curtail the “free-for-all” environment that has prevailed since 1986 and might incentivize manufacturers to treat vaccines in the same way as drugs and put safety on somewhat of a more even footing with profits.
NCVIA repeal would also draw greater attention to the exorbitant financial stress experienced by vaccine-injured individuals and families. The National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program (NVICP) not only has “failed to compensate generously” but, far more often than not, does not compensate at all. Holland and others have identified many factors contributing to the low levels of vaccine injury compensation, including:
Public and medical ignorance about vaccine injury
Ignorance about the NVICP
The NVICP’s three-year statute of limitations
An adversarial litigation context
Inconsistent judgments by the vaccine court
Delayed and below-market compensation for attorneys and medical experts
Medical expert fear of “anti-vaccine” stigma
Unavailability of medical documentation
An impossibly high burden of proof for most types of injuries
Despite the NCVIA legislation’s focus on childhood vaccines, 71% of compensated claims have been for vaccine injuries in adults, leaving many vaccine-injured children and their families out in the financial cold. In the only study ever to explore petitioners’ experiences with the NVICP, petitioners described the vaccine injury claims process as “confusing, time-consuming, too lengthy, and traumatic,” and about half rated the award amount as “inadequate to cover past and future medical care.” In short, whereas Congress marketed the NVICP as a speedy, non-adversarial, no-fault compensation mechanism that would free the injured of the need to prove vaccine-related causation, it has turned out to be slow and litigious, requiring proof of causation for more than 90% of claims filed. As one individual familiar with the system has stated, “even when cases are fairly simple, ‘the government will fight.’”
Vaccine proponents and medical ethicists have proven themselves willing to blur the lines of informed consent in multiple ways, arguing, for example, that “adolescent autonomy” and improved vaccine uptake justify eliminating parental consent requirements for HPV vaccination in preteens and adolescents. This argument prevailed in California in 2011 when then-Governor Jerry Brown signed a bill allowing minors as young as 12 to consent on their own to the HPV and hepatitis B vaccines.
Compulsory vaccination policies in the U.S. have not had positive results. Instead, they have given rise to a wide variety of unintended and undesirable consequences, including unnecessary vaccinations that have wreaked havoc with children’s normal immune system development; unsafe vaccines; inadequate warnings about vaccine risks; conflicts of interest in national vaccine policy; insufficient compensation for the vaccine-injured; and an alarming decline in children’s health and well-being.
Research shows that there is no relationship “between mandatory vaccination and rates of childhood immunization.” Rather than trying to corral the small percentage of individuals who are currently eligible for medical, religious or philosophical vaccine exemptions into a “vaccinate-at-all-costs” police-state dragnet, the U.S. should recommit to international principles of informed consent and make all vaccines voluntary. Unfortunately, there is an accelerating trend toward greater use of mandates and “other legal instruments” not only in the U.S. but also in Europe. There, some experts have cautioned that legal sanctions are being applied by “those who want to punish a country—or, in the case of vaccinations, a citizen—that deviates from the norm.” These experts warn that mandates often have a high cost in the court of public opinion.
Address Conflicts of Interest
Conflicts of interest—far from being occasional aberrations—are part and parcel of the U.S. vaccination program, and they have had a decisive and negative impact on children’s health. Over the years since the passage of the NCVIA, a handful of courageous legislators—troubled by the “cozy corporate alliances” that exist between industry and captured federal regulators—have put forth pleas for an objective and non-conflicted vaccine safety commission to investigate and resolve safety problems. Some researchers, likewise, have called for an independent National Vaccine Safety Board—separate from the CDC or any branch of government—to “ensure optimal vaccine safety.” A 2006 editorial in Nature concurred that in light of waning public confidence in vaccine safety, a strong case could be made for establishing a “well-resourced independent national agency that commands the trust of both the government and the public in matters of health protection.”
In early 2017, Children’s Health Defense Chairman Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. discussed the creation of a vaccine safety commission with then-president-elect Trump and also met with high-level National Institutes of Health (NIH) and Food and Drug Administration (FDA) officials. The Trump administration chose not to pursue the idea, despite the glaring need to introduce transparency to the U.S. vaccination program.
In March, 2018, Children’s Health Defense took to the halls of Congress and shared its multi-pronged Vaccine Safety Project with every member, arguing (among other actions) for the need to:
subject vaccines to a scientifically rigorous approval process,
require reporting of vaccine adverse events,
ensure that all parties involved with federal vaccine approvals and recommendations are free from conflicts of interest and
support fully informed consent and individual rights to refuse vaccination.
Hopefully, concerned parents, health care professionals, legislators and others will lend their voices to these reasonable requests so that conflicts of interest can be abolished once and for all, and sound science—rather than deep pockets—can form the basis of vaccine policy-making.
Sign up for free news and updates from Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. and the Children’s Health Defense. CHD is planning many strategies, including legal, in an effort to defend the health of our children and obtain justice for those already injured. Your support is essential to CHD’s successful mission.