Measles “Outbreak” In Maine Was Vaccine-Induced All Along
Informed Consent Action Network | September 24, 2024
ICAN’s attorneys obtained documents related to the widely reported May 2023 “outbreak” of measles in Maine. As it turns out, test results from the CDC confirmed that the measles case was “consistent with vaccine strain,” meaning there was no “outbreak” and, instead, it was the vaccine that caused the child’s rash.
On May 5, 2023, the Maine CDC reported that a child had “tested positive” for measles. News outlets immediately began fearmongering, hinting that the “outbreak” was due to low vaccination rates:
- “Measles can be serious for anyone…” (Maine CDC Facebook Page)
- “In severe cases, measles can cause pneumonia, brain swelling and death.” (Bangor Daily News )
- “The CDC says roughly one to three of every 1,000 children infected with measles die.” (USA Today ) Note: the death rate is actually more like 1 in 500,000.
- “Measles was declared eliminated from the US in 2000… But vaccination rates in the US have dropped in recent years, sparking new outbreaks.” (CNN)
- “Anyone who is not immunized or does not know their measles immunization status should get vaccinated.” (Maine CDC Press Release)
The Maine CDC reported that even though the child had received a dose of the measles, mumps, and rubella (MMR) vaccine, it was “considering the child to be infectious out of an abundance of caution.” In the meantime, the Maine CDC indicated it had sent a specimen to CDC headquarters to determine the specific strain of measles; however, it did not mention how the child would have been exposed to the wild strain of measles, such as international travel, nor did it share how recently the child may have received the vaccine.
According to a WHO report, about 2% of those who receive the measles vaccine develop a rash, called VARI (vaccine-associated rash illness). In fact, one study recommends assuming the rash is vaccine-caused and that “testing should only be considered if exposure to the wild-type (not vaccine-strain) virus is strongly suspected.”
So, it is unclear why the Maine CDC raised the alarm and then took so long to confirm the specific strain. The child was diagnosed on May 3, but it took the Maine CDC five days to ship the sample to the CDC. It then took the CDC seven days to report the results and for the Maine CDC to announce the child was not infectious.
ICAN, through its attorneys, requested relevant records and received them. Incredibly, they reveal that the positive measles test was “[c]onsistent with vaccine strain,” which is apparently an “acceptable” form of measles because, as the Maine CDC announced, the strain that the child tested positive for was not considered “an infectious strain of the virus,” despite causing traditional symptoms of the disease. Decidedly absent from Maine’s announcement was the fact that the child got measles as a result of the vaccine. Maine and the CDC simply hid this fact from the public.
Maine’s actions make sense, however, when considering that it may have just been following a CDC marketing presentation which states that the perfect “recipe” for creating demand for vaccines “requires creating concern, anxiety, and worry” by, for example, having medical experts and public health authorities “state concern and alarm (and predict dire outcomes)” and show “[v]isible/tangible examples of the seriousness of the illness (e.g., pictures of children, families of those affected coming forward) and people getting vaccinated (the first to motivate, the latter to reinforce)” — all things we saw implemented during this “outbreak.”
Lead Counsel, Aaron Siri, Esq. lays out the details here.
ICAN will continue to follow-up on reported outbreaks across the country. In the meantime, catch up on some of ICAN’s additional work on vaccine policy:
Proud to Be Suing Hospitals and Doctors That Inject Hep B Vaccines Into Newborns Without Parental Consent
Injecting Freedom by Aaron Siri | September 21, 2024
Informed Consent Action Network is supporting an initiative that is long overdue: suing doctors and hospitals that inject newborns with a hepatitis B vaccine without parental consent.
The hepatitis B vaccine is a case study in agency capture. The target for this product was sex workers and intravenous drug users, and the rare pregnant mother who was hepatitis B positive. The problem was that CDC could not get the sex workers and intravenous drug users to take this product. The story would have ended there if pharma didn’t stand to earn billions through a wider mandate of this product.
With those billions at stake, an argument was made that if all newborns were vaccinated (not just the tiny number whose mothers were hepatitis B positive) then we could catch these babies before they became prostitutes or heroin addicts. CDC’s advisory committee, stacked with individuals receiving funding from pharma, added it to the routine childhood schedule in 1995.
Parents who decide not to inject their babies with this product have varying reasons. Some simply conclude that their baby won’t be having sex or sharing dirty needles with drug addicts—usually a safe assumption. Others are horrified that the two hepatitis B vaccines available for babies were licensed based on clinical trials with only 5 days of safety monitoring.
Let me repeat: 5 days. If that sounds incredible and shocking, it is because it is incredible and shocking. But that is the simple, cold hard truth. See for yourself in Section 6.1 of the package insert for Engerix-B and Recombivax HB, the only hep B vaccines licensed in the U.S. for use in newborns. ICAN has even formally petitioned FDA to withdraw license of this vaccine until a proper clinical trial is conducted.
(In that petition you can read about all the related legal work our firm has done on behalf of ICAN, including confirming that this ridiculously inadequate safety review period is, in fact, true.)
There are also other reasons parents choose not to inject this product into their babies, including the anemic post-licensure safety studies, harms suffered by an older sibling from this product, or religious beliefs.
All that said, we are proud to be bringing lawsuits against doctors and hospitals across the country that vaccinate newborns with this product without parental consent. You can read more about this on ICAN’s page, our firm’s page, or stay tuned for a segment about this on The HighWire.
Their vaccine injury reports disappeared from VAERS — So they developed a tool for anyone to track their own reports
By Brenda Baletti, Ph.D. | The Defender | September 11, 2024
A team of researchers is developing a tool to track reports in the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS), so vaccine-injured people can follow what happens to the reports they submit.
As part of a broader effort to hold public health agencies accountable, the tool will also make it possible to audit the VAERS system by identifying what types of reports are deleted, insufficiently updated or contain errors.
The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) and the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA), which jointly oversee VAERS, have refused to do this work despite multiple appeals by advocates for the vaccine-injured, according to React19, the group leading the initiative.
React19, founded by a small group of medical professionals injured by COVID-19 vaccines, works with institutions and providers to increase understanding and awareness of patients experiencing lasting effects following COVID-19 and/or COVID-19 vaccines.
The group is teaming up with computer programmer Liz Wilner, founder of OpenVAERS — a website that provides tools for more easily accessing and searching VAERS data — and Children’s Health Defense (CHD) to develop the tool.
The idea for developing the automatic VAERS report tracking tool came out of a VAERS audit the group conducted in 2022 to assess how the FDA and CDC were following up on COVID-19 vaccine injury reports.
React19 worked with outside experts to review a sample of 126 VAERS reports filed by some of its members who wanted to know what happened to their reports.
After tracking down each person’s reports and following them through the VAERS system, they “were kind of shocked at how bad it is,” members of React19 told The Defender.
They found that only 61% of the reports filed were correctly logged and published in VAERS. Twenty-two percent of the reports were never issued a permanent ID and are therefore not publicly visible, 12% were deleted and in 5% of the cases, a report couldn’t be filed or their report number remains unknown due to system errors.
That means more than 1 in 3 reports searched couldn’t be found in a database that is meant to be publicly accessible and transparent. It also suggests that problems of “omission of data and underreporting may be even greater than estimated,” according to the audit report.
The group also found that the medical status of the deleted reports, “by and large, had a worse outcome than the ones that were still in the system,” they said. For example, they said, in the public-facing VAERS system, 23% of reports were for permanent disabilities — but in the deleted reports, 53% were for permanent disability.
“One of the more alarming things we found out was that not all death reports are investigated,” Brianne Dressen, React19 founder, told The Defender.
The group brought this to the attention of public health officials in their meetings, sharing examples of reports that had been updated by people’s families when they died, but didn’t show up on the public system.
They also found that many follow-up reports containing updates on worsening symptoms were gone from the system.
At the time, the group was meeting regularly with top officials, including Peter Marks, M.D., Ph.D., director of the FDA’s Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research, to discuss vaccine injuries and why the agencies were doing nothing to address them.
In those meetings, according to Dressen and React19 member Dr. Joel Wallskog, when they raised the issue that the agencies weren’t following up on VAERS reports, the FDA told them VAERS wasn’t a reliable indicator for vaccine injuries, because anyone could file an injury complaint, including “Mickey Mouse or Michael Jackson.”
“We told them we know thousands of people that have not had any follow-up on their VAERS reports that are not Mickey Mouse, and they’re suffering it every single day waiting for you guys to get back to them to investigate what happened to them,” Dressen said.
“And of course then they never did anything. So we were like, OK, fine. If they’re not going to generate the evidence, then we will ourselves.”
The group submitted their findings to Marks during a meeting with him and his team. Based on their findings they also requested an external audit of the entire VAERS system and posed a series of questions listed on their audit report webpage.
They never heard from the agencies again.
“We were like, really?” Dressen said. “We were having these regular meetings with them every one month or every two months, and then after that, they wouldn’t meet with us anymore.”
Dressen, who was injured in the AstraZeneca clinical trials and whose diagnosis of post-vaccine neuropathy and other vaccine-related disorders was confirmed by the National Institutes of Health, said her own VAERS report is not visible to the public. The agencies haven’t told her why.
More recently, still hoping for accountability from the public health agencies, React19 submitted its audit and complaint to the Office of Inspector General at the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services.
The only response they received was an autoresponse confirming receipt of the complaint.
Attempt to ‘bring power back to the people’
In its small pilot audit, React19 found the VAERS system is “obviously broken from top to bottom.” According to Dressen, “One thing we can easily conclude is that the FDA and CDC have no interest in addressing these issues.”
Now, the group is scaling up the project to do a larger audit with more data.
With help from OpenVAERS and CHD, the team built a backend, automated administrative tracking system that eliminates the need to manually search for each report and its journey through VAERS — something the analysts had to do for the first iteration of their audit.
Participants will register on the React19 website and will be invited — if they are interested — to share their stories as part of the organization’s project to collect and publish vaccine injury testimonials.
Users can share any information they have about their VAERS report — their ID number if they have one, or if not, details about their case. Then they will receive a monthly email with the status of their report.
For example, someone who has a user ID and a public-facing report will be informed if their report disappears. In the case of those people who filed a VAERS complaint but never got an ID number, the system will search each month for the record and try to find the ID.
“We’ll be able to track these reports through the system and figure out what happens to them,” Wilner said. “Do they disappear? Do they appear and the person doesn’t get notified? Do they appear incorrectly?”
“So people will be able to track their own reports with less effort and React19 will be able to audit a much larger user base than they initially did.”
Wilner said auditing VAERS in this way also reveals details about how the agencies are “either lying or deliberately obfuscating the process.” In the first audit, it was clear there was no systematic or automated way that, for example, reports were deleted.
The tracker and the audit will provide valuable data that no one else has. Rather than having only the stories, Wilner said, they will have the data backing up those stories. “Now we have a group of injured people that are all talking with one voice.”
“Without more pressure and more discovery,” Wallskog said, “I don’t think we’re ever going to get the truth out. Ultimately, we want to get this information to the masses of people that just don’t know what’s happening, particularly with this data, and that we’ve all been duped.”
Dressen said the project is an attempt to “bring the power back to the people.”
The COVID-19 vaccine produced a large swath of vaccine injuries all at the same time, she said. Auditing the COVID-19 entries in VAERS will provide an opportunity “to show through massive numbers where those problems are, not just with the systems that are supposed to be monitoring vaccine safety, but also the actual harms themselves and what those are, but the government’s not doing their job on that.”
The two faces of VAERS and the problem of accountability
Wilner said Dressen’s injury report, sitting in VAERS limbo, spoke to one of the major issues around claims of transparency in the database — that there are two versions of VAERS, a public-facing database and a private one.
The BMJ reported last year that it investigated the VAERS database and found that the public facing database contains only initial reports. And “a private, back end system containing all updates and corrections — such as a formal diagnosis, recovery, or death.”
The CDC told The BMJ that this was part of patient confidentiality, but the publication found that in the FDA’s Adverse Event Reporting System, they do update the database — “raising the question of why VAERS can’t do the same.”
And during the React19 audit, the group found that VAERS was sometimes deleting people’s legitimate reports or the more detailed updated reports that some people were submitting.
Another problem, Wilner noted, is that a lot of key information — such as race, pregnancy and report provider — is unnecessarily withheld from public VAERS reports. She also said the agencies sometimes leave reports on there that are clearly false or jokes, which then discredits the database in the public’s eyes.
On the CDC website, Wilner said, “you’re basically looking at a doctored set of books.”
Wallskog said the agencies “try to live on both sides of the fence” with VAERS, presenting it as a key tool for monitoring vaccine injuries. But when it shows a safety signal or an issue with vaccines, they discredit it as a problematic surveillance system with a lot of limitations that can’t be trusted.
“It’s incredibly frustrating for injured people,” he said.
The team working on the new VAERS tracking system and audit said they hope it will raise public awareness and force the public health agencies to take responsibility for the vaccine injuries.
“Rochelle Walensky said the CDC is charged with finding legitimate vaccine injuries and reporting them,” Wilner said. She added:
“If that’s the case, where is that? We don’t have access to the actual database to figure it out so we want to know where is the report from the CDC on the people that were actually injured by the COVID vaccine that the government accepts were legitimately injured? That report doesn’t exist.”
This article was originally published by The Defender — Children’s Health Defense’s News & Views Website under Creative Commons license CC BY-NC-ND 4.0. Please consider subscribing to The Defender or donating to Children’s Health Defense.
‘Follow the Science’: Have the Bad Guys Finally Gone Too Far?
By Sharyl Attkisson | The Defender | September 9, 2024
In this exclusive excerpt from her new bestseller, “Follow the Science: How Big Pharma Misleads, Obscures, and Prevails,” journalist Sharyl Attkisson details how public health agencies and some public universities are so captured by commercial interests that they function as little more than an advertising arm of Big Pharma.
In the case of vaccine makers, success comes with inventing shots that can be added to the list of what’s required for schoolchildren. Better yet, invent shots that the public can be convinced to get, repeatedly, for the rest of their lives. Instant billion-dollar blockbuster!
This has led to a questionable dynamic where the one-time standard that vaccines were required to meet — that they must be vital, safe, and effective — fell by the wayside. Instead the government aggressively serves as promoter of dubious versions that may not be necessary, may not work very well, and come with the risk of serious side effects.
In 1975, the cost of vaccinating a child from birth to age six was $10 (in 2001 terms, adjusted for inflation). As more vaccines were added to the list, the cost ballooned to $385 in 2001. Today it’s thousands of dollars. The costs are largely hidden to us since we get inoculated for free or with minimal out-of-pocket payments. But make no mistake, we’re paying the bills in the form of insurance premiums, and tax dollars to state and federal programs that provide vaccines at little to no direct cost to the patient. Vaccine companies are reaping enormous profits.
Sometimes getting and keeping a vaccine on the market requires sleight of hand. The Centers for Disease Control (CDC), our premier infectious disease federal health agency, is happy to give a little help to its vaccine industry partners or, as the CDC calls them, “stakeholders.” The agency’s best and brightest can even adjust the veritable meaning of the word “vaccine.”
The CDC used to define “vaccines” quite simply as agents that “prevent disease.” But in 2021, that had to be changed. It became undeniable that Covid vaccines didn’t prevent the disease (or transmission, or even illness). Logic might suggest that the Covid vaccines would have to be withdrawn from the market. After all, they didn’t even meet the definition of a vaccine. Instead the CDC quietly redefined the word “vaccine” to make the Covid shots seem successful after all.
On the CDC’s vaccine web page, sometime between September 1 and 2, 2021, somebody removed a key phrase from the definition. On September 1, the CDC defined a vaccine as “a product that stimulates a person’s immune system to produce immunity to a specific disease, protecting the person from that disease.” But on September 2, the phrase “protecting the person from that disease” was removed, like it never even happened. Now, the CDC says, vaccines merely “stimulate the body’s immune response.”
Think of it. The CDC unilaterally redefined two hundred years’ of the world’s understanding of what constitutes a vaccine, without so much as an explanation, public discussion, hearing, or vote. Once you understand that our top, trusted medical authorities are willing to sneakily move goalposts and change meanings of words to protect a market, you’re a long way to beginning to understand how deep the corruption goes.
It’s one thing to be barraged by marketing to convince you to buy a shiny new car. But it’s quite another to get sold a bill of goods by our trusted health experts when it comes to our most precious possession. Our increasingly elusive quest for good health has become a commodity to be bought and sold by today’s snake oil salesmen and their coconspirators, but on a far grander scale …
In their defense, pharmaceutical companies are doing exactly what they were built to do: make money. The thought that they’re somehow different from other multinational corporations, that they are motivated by altruism and can be trusted to be honest about the failings of their own products, is a fallacy. There’s no law that requires them to put patient health ahead of profits. There’s nothing that forces them to stop promoting a pill even if they secretly know it doesn’t work or has dire side effects. It could be argued they have a fiduciary duty to try to downplay or even cover up negative information about their products if it could hurt their bottom line.
Our sick and broken system is the fault of politicians, federal agencies, the medical establishment, and the media. They have a far different responsibility than private drug companies. But they’ve allowed themselves to be so captured by commercial interests that they function as little more than an advertising arm of the pharmaceutical industry …
It’s grown exceedingly common that when patients get sick during a study, instead of the drug company considering the illness to be a possible side effect — which is what should be the response — they seek to explain it away. They blame anything other than the experimental medicine.
Another blatant example of this twisting of science can be found in a May 2023 study to look at whether serious neurological, or brain and nerve, disorders were connected to Covid-19 vaccines. The study was entitled, “Observational Study of Patients Hospitalized With Neurologic Events After SARS-CoV-2 Vaccination.” It was published in Neurology Clinical Practice.
The first problem I see when reviewing the study is that, although some side effects don’t surface until months or years after a medicine is taken, the study scientists drew their conclusions based on a mere six-week period. They looked at only 138 people hospitalized after a Covid vaccination, and a limited number of neurological conditions, including stroke or blood clots, encephalopathy or brain damage, seizure, and intracranial bleeding.
But what really captures my attention is the study’s nonsensical conclusion. It states that since all 138 vaccinated, hospitalized patients had “risk factors” or “established causes” for their neurologic illnesses, such as high blood pressure for stroke victims, this proves the Covid vaccines are safe. “All cases in this study were determined to have at least 1 risk factor and/or known etiology accounting for their neurologic syndromes. Our comprehensive clinical review of these cases supports the safety of mRNA COVID-19 vaccines,” reads the study discussion.
You don’t have to be a scientist to detect a serious flaw in their reasoning. It’s like claiming that an old person who falls down the stairs and breaks a hip — was injured by being old, and it had nothing to do with the fall down the stairs. Having high blood pressure to begin with doesn’t mean if you have a stroke after Covid vaccine, you can automatically rule out the vaccine as having an impact. In fact, you should immediately ask whether the vaccine might prove riskier to people with preexisting vulnerabilities.
Surely even a novice scientist should know this. So why did this ridiculous study get published? It looks suspiciously as if someone is trying to dispel growing safety concerns about the vaccines. I decide to find out who.
I learn that the study was conducted at Columbia University Irving Medical Center and New York–Presbyterian Hospital in New York City. It was funded by taxpayer money through the CDC. I email the primary study author, Dr. Kiran Thakur: “The study seems to imply that because people who suffered certain neurological events shortly after Covid vaccination had risk factors, it exonerates the vaccines from blame. But did the authors consider that people with existing risk factors could be at greater risk for vaccine adverse events?”
Instead of answering the question, Dr. Thakur replies, “Can you clarify the purpose of your questions (to be published, personal inquiry or otherwise).” When I reply that her responses might be published, she goes dark on me. When I persist in asking her to respond, she finally answers: “Declining, thank you.” Why isn’t a legitimate scientist happy to answer a simple question about her work? What’s the big secret?
Reaching a dead end with Dr. Thakur, I query the medical journal’s editorial staff. They loop me back to Dr. Thakur, saying only she can answer my questions. Shouldn’t the journal be asking the same questions?
Next I turn to Columbia University. I ask to see the study materials and related communications. I want to learn Who was behind this study, and did the peer reviewers or anybody else flag the obvious flaws? It’s a reasonable request because we, the public, funded the research and own the information. Besides, a basic tenet of scientific research dictates that there should be transparency in data and all aspects of studies. In fact, a study isn’t considered legitimate unless the data is available so that it can be verified and replicated by others with the same results.
But Columbia University stalls in responding to my emails. So I file a formal Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request for the material. More time passes, and Columbia informs me that it’s a private institution and it doesn’t have to follow Freedom of Information Act law. I appeal on the basis of scientific transparency. Why does Columbia want to keep details of an important, publicly funded study secret? Isn’t that contrary to tenets of sound science? My appeal falls on deaf ears. University officials tell me they’ll only respond to validly issued and served subpoenas or court orders, and that “[s]ubpoenas to the University must be served on the Office of the General Counsel.”
Think of the audacity. A private university can take our tax money for a study, then refuse to answer questions about it because they’re a private university. To me it looks like the CDC can legally launder taxpayer dollars to third parties to produce what amounts to propaganda, then cover their tracks under a shroud of secrecy.
Next, I decide to file a FOIA request directly with the CDC, which is undeniably subject to the Freedom of Information Act. However, I know from experience that federal agencies spin the FOIA process into a tool to obfuscate. They rarely follow the provisions requiring them to turn over materials within twenty working days. And punishment for their violations is virtually nonexistent.
Sure enough, the CDC sits on my FOIA request for forty-two days before emailing to let me know they haven’t yet begun processing my request. They say I need to be much more specific, or they won’t consider responding. This raises one of the newer tricks federal agencies use to make it tougher for us to access information we own. They require FOIA requests to be impossibly precise. In the past, it was enough for a requester to provide a topic and date range. Agencies would search computer records using keywords. But now they claim they can’t do that.
The CDC FOIA officers now demand that I somehow discover and present them with names of each specific, archaic department and subdepartment that should be searched and the title of any documents I’m looking for. They further insist I provide names and titles of each person within those departments whose email accounts should be searched. And I must give them the number of the grant that awarded the taxpayer funds for the study. Problem is, I have no way to know any of that. The grant number was strangely omitted from the published study, and I have no clue how I would find names of the people who might have records, or what departments they work in. That’s a key part of what the FOIA response would reveal. Using these avoidance tactics, a federal agency can heighten their odds of keeping public documents secret …
There may be a silver lining. The bad guys finally went too far.
With Covid: the disinformation, intolerance for dissent, shutdowns, mandates, forced or withheld medical treatment, mass firings, and attacks upon tens of thousands of scientists sparked the formation of a diverse coalition. This coalition includes a mix of liberals, conservatives, and nonpartisans. It’s made up of freethinking parents, students, doctors, nurses, researchers, elected officials, and celebrities.
Many had never before questioned public health narratives or their doctors. Most had blindly supported them. But today, members of this new coalition find themselves probing widely pushed orthodoxy on Covid and beyond, rightly asking what else the media and top public health officials have misled us on.
Now, redemption from the grasp of those who seek to control our health and our lives may come through a collective awakening that’s already begun.
“Follow the Science: How Big Pharma Misleads, Obscures, and Prevails,” by Sharyl Attkisson, is now available at bookstores everywhere.
This article was originally published by The Defender — Children’s Health Defense’s News & Views Website under Creative Commons license CC BY-NC-ND 4.0. Please consider subscribing to The Defender or donating to Children’s Health Defense.
Court Finds Kennedy Has Standing in Our Consolidated Case
As I predicted, our new co-plaintiff Kennedy meets even the Supreme Court’s stringent standing requirements, the injunction against the government is back in play.
By Aaron Kheriaty, MD | Human Flourishing | August 26, 2024
As I explained in a previous post, Robert F. Kennedy Jr.’s companion lawsuit Kennedy v. Biden has been consolidated by the court into our Missouri v. Biden case. Based upon documents we obtained on discovery, the court recently found that Kennedy meets the Supreme Court’s stringent standing criteria. We only need one co-plaintiff with standing to bring the case and the petition for the injunction. So the injunction is back in play, and we will likely find ourselves at the Supreme Court again in a few months. Unless SCOTUS invents another technicality on which to temporize, they will be forced to rule on the merits of the evidence against the government, which we believe is overwhelming.
On the issue of Kennedy’s standing, U.S. District Court judge Terry Doughty last week ruled: “There is not much dispute that both Kennedy and CHD [Kennedy’s nonprofit Children’s Health Defense] were specifically targeted by the White House, the Office of Surgeon General, and CISA, and the content of Kennedy and CHD were suppressed. Therefore, Kennedy must now show a substantial risk that in the near future, at least one platform will restrict the speech of Kennedy in response to the actions of one Government Defendant.” Citing evidence we uncovered in Missouri v. Biden, Doughty explained: “The Court finds that Kennedy is likely to succeed on his claim that suppression of content posted was caused by actions of Government Defendants, and there is a substantial risk that he will suffer similar injury in the near future.”
As reported in The Kennedy Beacon Substack:
The latest ruling is not only significant for Kennedy but for the future of online speech. In June of this year, the Supreme Court ruled that the state attorneys general of Missouri and Louisiana did not have standing to bring their case on government directed mass censorship. Now that Kennedy and the CHD have been found to have standing in the matter, the Supreme Court will likely have an opportunity to judge the issue on its merits rather than on a technicality as it did when making its standing ruling on an injunction in June.
If Kennedy and his co-plaintiffs are able to demonstrate to judges that the Biden administration’s intrusion into the actions of major social media companies resulted in censorship, the country will be one step closer to a major legal ruling guaranteeing freedom to speak online without the censorious interference of the federal government.
In related news, Kennedy announced Friday that he is suspending his presidential campaign. While he has deep disagreements with Trump on several issues, he is endorsing Trump’s candidacy to advance the key issues on which they have substantial agreements—including stopping government censorship and propaganda. His 48-minute speech announcing this decision was an extraordinary moment in American politics and is worth watching. In addition to discussing the issue of government censorship, which seriously hamstrung his ability to campaign, Kennedy’s remarks focus also on the root causes of the current epidemic of chronic disease in the United States.
While there is online buzz that Trump may tap Kennedy as Attorney General, I anticipate if Trump is elected he will appoint Kennedy to his cabinet as Secretary of Health and Human Services, a department which includes the CDC, FDA, and NIH. This could prove a welcome opportunity for the reform of our public health agencies. I am currently working with a team of policy analysts and health freedom advocates on concrete policy proposals for just such reforms, and will keep you posted on our progress with that project.
What Does a Fraudulent Vaccine Safety Study Look Like?
By Dr. William H. Gaunt | The Defender | August 26, 2024
New vaccines should be proven safe before they are accepted onto the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) vaccine schedule.
Here is what is actually happening: Vaccine companies are doing studies that claim to demonstrate the safety of new vaccines but are carefully designed and conducted to intentionally hide the toxicity of these vaccines.
To see how this is done, read on.
What does an honest vaccine safety study look like?
An honest safety study must have a test group that gets the vaccine and a control group that gets a harmless placebo. Injuries and deaths are compared in the two groups.
If the test group has many more adverse events than the placebo control group, the vaccine is not safe.
Most people would be shocked to learn that none of the vaccines on the CDC vaccine schedule have been safety tested in this way.
What does a fraudulent vaccine safety study look like?
Rule No. 1 for conducting a fraudulent study: Do not have a placebo control group. Here is where the fraud is happening: The “control group” is deliberately given something that is as toxic as the vaccine being tested. It can be an older vaccine or the vaccine ingredients minus the antigen.
The results will show that the injuries and deaths are similar in both groups. That is because they are both receiving toxic ingredients. The new vaccine is then illogically declared safe.
If there is no placebo control group, the toxicity of the vaccine is hidden. This is both clever and diabolical. Can you see it?
The public is unaware of this subterfuge
“Turtles All The Way Down: Vaccine Science and Myth” is the most thorough and brutally honest book ever written about vaccines.
The authors tell us on page 81:
“As we have seen in this chapter, vaccine trials are designed and performed in such a way as to ensure that the true extent of adverse events is hidden from the public. There is not a single vaccine in the US routine childhood vaccination schedule whose true rate of adverse events is known.”
Two examples of how unsafe toxic vaccines got on the CDC vaccine schedule
Prevnar-13 (a pneumococcal vaccine) was given to the test group of children and the “control group” was given the older Prevnar vaccine.
Severe adverse events occurred in 8.2% (one out of every 12 children) in the test group. Severe adverse events also occurred in 7.2% (one out of every 14 children) of the control group.
What percent of a placebo control group would have had severe adverse events? Probably 0% because they would have received something harmless. We can’t know because the authors of this study chose not to have a placebo control group.
The Prevnar-13 vaccine was declared “safe” and was approved for use by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA). You don’t have to be a doctor or scientist to suspect that both the Prevnar and the Prevnar-13 vaccines are unsafe. “Turtles All The Way Down” covers this fraudulent vaccine safety study on pages 60 and 61.
Here is the second example, which the authors describe on pages 77 and 78:
“In one of the DTaP vaccine trials, 1 in every 22 subjects in the trial group was admitted to the hospital. A similar hospitalization rate was also reported in the ‘control group’ (which received the older-generation DTP vaccine).”
Again, there was no placebo control group. Both vaccines appear to be decidedly unsafe yet the newer DTaP vaccine made it onto the CDC vaccine schedule. DTP and DTaP vaccines contain antigens for diphtheria, tetanus and pertussis.
Why is this happening?
Ultimately, the answer is greed. It is enormously profitable to get a vaccine on the CDC schedule. Vaccine companies will do whatever it takes to accomplish this. If it takes a little scientific fraud, so be it.
The vaccine companies are cheating on vaccine safety studies by omitting placebo control groups, thereby lying about the safety of vaccines. The FDA and CDC are complicit because they are doing nothing to stop this fraud.
Corporate capture or regulatory capture
The FDA and CDC are regulatory agencies. The original function of these agencies was to protect the public from dangerous drugs and vaccines.
Unfortunately, these agencies have been captured by Big Pharma. They no longer focus on protecting the public. They focus on protecting and promoting the interests of pharma companies.
Can we compare the health outcomes of vaccinated versus unvaccinated children?
Theoretically, yes but not if we expect our health authorities or pharma companies to do these types of studies. Chapter 6 of the “Turtles” book is titled “The Studies That Will Never Be Done.”
On page 207 the authors tell us:
“No study that compares the health of vaccinated children to that of unvaccinated children has ever been done by the medical establishment.”
If such a study showed that vaccinated children are healthier than unvaccinated children, it would have been published and been headlined in every newspaper and been the lead story on the nightly news. That hasn’t happened. We suspect that such a study has been done internally at the CDC.
The unwanted conclusion that they won’t allow to see the light of day is that unvaccinated children are far healthier than vaccinated children. This study has likely been done and buried instead of published. Such a study is verboten because it would be a disaster for the vaccine companies.
Private studies show that unvaccinated children are healthier
Here are two privately funded studies:
- “Relative Incidence of Office Visits and Cumulative Rates of Billed Diagnoses Along the Axis of Vaccination” by Dr. Paul Thomas and James Lyons-Weiler, Ph.D.
- “Analysis of health outcomes in vaccinated and unvaccinated children: Developmental delays, asthma, ear infections and gastrointestinal disorders” by Brian S. Hooker, Ph.D., and Neil Z. Miller.
Another great resource is the book “Vax-Unvax: Let the Science Speak,” by Robert F. Kennedy Jr. and Hooker. They report on many studies where unvaccinated children have better health outcomes compared to vaccinated children.
Science is for sale
The book “Science for Sale: How the US Government Uses Powerful Corporations and Leading Universities to Support Government Policies, Silence Top Scientists, Jeopardize Our Health, and Protect Corporate Profits” by David L. Lewis, Ph.D., tells the story of how corporate profits can frequently trump true science.
This happens in many industries, not just in vaccines. It is not unusual for government agencies to take the side of the corporations. The author was fired from the EPA for revealing details of how this happens.
The health of the public is subverted by powerful corporations in these situations. Does that sound familiar? Lewis doesn’t cover vaccines in his book except in Chapter 7 where he describes how Dr. Andrew Wakefield was unjustly crushed for questioning the safety of the measles-mumps-rubella or MMR vaccine.
Are vaccines the main cause of autism?
If the answer is yes, that would be very bad for vaccine companies. The “Turtles” authors point out on page 209 how our health authorities are trying hard not to find the correct answer to this question:
“Over the past 15 years, dozens of epidemiological studies have been conducted examining the association between vaccines and autism, but not a single one compared the rate of autism in fully vaccinated and fully unvaccinated children.”
If they actually wanted to answer this question, they would do vax/unvax studies. Such studies are easy to do but our health authorities refuse to do them.
Why do health authorities favor epidemiological studies?
The “Turtles” authors provide the answer on page 198:
“Epidemiological studies are the tool of choice for health authorities and pharma companies to maintain a facade of vaccine safety science. They are cheap, relatively simple to conduct, and, above all, their results are easily manipulated.”
It is entirely possible to get an epidemiological study to conclude whatever its authors want it to conclude. These types of studies are not the gold standard.
What caused the drastic decline in infectious disease mortality?
We are supposed to believe that vaccines have been our saviors. Not true. The huge decline in infectious disease mortality was largely due to sanitation, hygiene and improved nutrition (the availability of fresh fruits and vegetables year-round).
The “Turtles” authors make this clear on page 293. They reference a report by the American Institute of Medicine, which states:
“The number of infections prevented by immunization is actually quite small compared with the total number of infections prevented by other hygienic interventions such as clean water, food, and living conditions.”
The claim that vaccines alone saved us is false and our health authorities know it is false.
Below is a simple graph that causes cognitive dissonance in those who believe that vaccines saved us from high rates of infectious disease mortality.
We can clearly see that deaths from measles were reduced to near zero by the interventions mentioned above BEFORE the measles vaccine was introduced.
Similar graphs for other infectious diseases are shown in the book “Dissolving Illusions: Disease, Vaccines, and the Forgotten History” by Dr. Suzanne Humphries and Roman Bystrianyk. The mortality rate for all infectious diseases was dropping rapidly before vaccines were introduced.
Do you smell a rat?
Yes. And it has been dead for quite a while. We have been bamboozled (deceived, cheated, swindled and defrauded).
Vaccines are now doing far more harm than good by causing a huge increase in chronic diseases like autism, asthma, attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder or ADHD, Type 1 diabetes, learning disabilities, seizures and much more.
It is way past time to use honest unbiased science to sort it out. Imagine what will happen when honest science is applied to vaccine safety studies.
Here is how the ‘Turtles’ authors sum it up
On page 518:
“Science belongs to the people. It belongs to humanity, not to corrupt government agencies and pharmaceutical giants who collude to rewrite the principles of science in order to continue the decades-long cover-up of their crimes against humanity.
“The magnitude of these crimes is enormous — these entities are in way too deep to ever be able to admit any wrongdoing. They will do whatever is necessary to protect the great vaccine hoax. For them, it is a matter of life and death — literally. And so it is for us.”
The lie that vaccines are safe and effective and that serious adverse events are exceedingly rare is still believed by many people — yet trust in pharma and our coopted regulatory agencies is now rapidly eroding. For example, only a tiny percentage of people are continuing to take the COVID-19 vaccine boosters.
Also, the percentage of parents who are choosing to obtain an exemption to vaccines for their children is increasing. This can be done in almost all states.
It is becoming obvious to a growing number of people that we are being intentionally misled regarding vaccines and vaccine safety.
CDC USES ‘COVID SURGE’ TO STOKE FEAR
The HighWire with Del Bigtree | August 22, 2024
The CDC is using new, questionable techniques to declare a ‘COVID surge’ and stoke fears. Coincidentally, a new booster hits the market as students head back to school. Jefferey Jaxen reports.
Dr. Peter McCullough: COVID Shots for Kids ‘the Last Straw’
By Brenda Baletti, Ph.D. | The Defender | August 19, 2024
“A child today faces well over a hundred shots,” cardiologist Dr. Peter McCullough told host Mat Staver on a recent episode of “Freedom Alive.” Many of those shots are for infectious diseases of the past or contemporary illnesses that don’t pose a risk to infants.
McCullough said the “inflection point” was the 1986 National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act, which freed vaccine manufacturers from liability for vaccine injuries. “We saw essentially a vaccine bonanza develop,” he said, and “excessive, unnecessary” vaccination could be leading to serious side effects.
Those vaccines start just after a baby is born, he said, when they are given the hepatitis B vaccine.
As a cardiologist, dealing with blood and body fluids, McCullough said the vaccine is appropriate for him, but babies are not at risk for it unless their mother has the illness or is an active IV drug user. For most babies, he said, it is a “completely unnecessary shot on the first day of life.”
The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) in October 2023 recommended newborns receive Beyfortus, the monoclonal antibody shot meant to protect babies from RSV-related illness.
“This has no safety track record,” he said. “We’ve never given a synthetic antibody to a baby ever in the history of medicine, and now it’s being given uniformly with no idea of what is going to happen to the baby’s immune system over the next several weeks or months.”
The clinical trials were inconclusive as to whether Beyfortus is safe, and evidence from France shows increased mortality among infants after the shot was introduced, he said.
McCullough said the broader safety concerns stem largely from the fact that so many are given in combination. “For some babies, it’s too much,” he said.
Excessive vaccination, he explained, sends the immune system into overdrive, which can lead a baby to develop a fever and a febrile seizure (convulsion).
Research shows febrile seizures have about a 40% chance of causing permanent neurologic injury, ranging from epilepsy to attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder to autism spectrum disorder.
Staver said many parents who saw their children develop autism post-vaccination are told either that it isn’t true or it’s just a coincidence because there is no evidence of such a link.
“The direct observation by a mother and father of their child is the strongest evidence,” McCullough said, citing Dr. Andy Wakefield’s controversial 1998 study.
McCullough also cited a recent study by the Children’s Health Defense science team, which showed that combining multiple vaccines is dangerous. Spacing them out and giving them individually — rather than combining three vaccines into one shot, like the measles-mumps-rubella, or MMR, vaccine — is safer, he said.
And, he said, all children do not need all vaccines. Which vaccines a child gets should be determined on a risk basis. For example, a child with cystic fibrosis might need the respiratory illness vaccines, but healthy kids probably don’t.
Yet these vaccines are given to all children in part, he said, because the people who advise the CDC on which vaccines should be recommended for children have serious conflicts of interest — most take money from Big Pharma. Then schools enact mandates based on those recommendations, leaving parents feeling as if they have no choice.
Vaccine makers lobby state legislators to continually increase the list of mandatory vaccines.
McCullough said:
“Can you imagine if you had a product that treats an illness? You would have to treat a small number of people in a population. But if you have a vaccine, that means the whole entire population has to receive the product.
“A product that must be purchased by the entire population with no liability is an absolute boon to any purveyor of that product.”
McCullough said the CDC has turned a blind eye to vaccine safety. For example, none of the childhood vaccines have been studied for safety when given in combination.
He added that Dr. Paul Thomas reported in The Defender that pediatricians receive substantial incentives from insurance companies to vaccinate certain high percentages of their patients.
For lower-income kids, there is also government financial support to ensure that the vast majority of the population is vaccinated against legacy diseases like diphtheria, tetanus, polio and other diseases that are either no longer commonly circulating or for which good treatments exist.
For many, McCullough said, the recommendation that children take the COVID-19 vaccine, given its alarming safety data, was “the last straw.”
“That act was irresponsible. It triggered the World Council for Health, which is an evidence-based, consensus-driven body to recommend waiting on all the childhood vaccines,” he said.
Vaccines are not safe or effective enough to mandate, McCullough said. “Every parent and child unit should be able to make their own decisions free of any pressure, coercion, or threat of reprisal.”
Watch the interview here.
This article was originally published by The Defender — Children’s Health Defense’s News & Views Website under Creative Commons license CC BY-NC-ND 4.0. Please consider subscribing to The Defender or donating to Children’s Health Defense.
Health Officials Push Whooping Cough Vaccine Amid Uptick in Cases, But Scientists Say Shots Don’t Prevent Transmission
By Suzanne Burdick, Ph.D.John-Michael Dumais | The Defender | August 14, 2024
Public health officials are urging families to get vaccinated against whooping cough, citing an uptick in cases, particularly among adolescents. However, critics say the vaccine doesn’t prevent transmission and contains dangerous toxins that may harm human health.
Connecticut Department of Public Health Commissioner Manisha Juthani said that there were 111 confirmed cases of pertussis in the state so far in 2024 — nearly a 10-fold increase compared to 2023, NBC Connecticut reported this week.
Juthani told The Hour that public health officials are concerned the spread will increase when school begins in just a few weeks.
“We are raising attention to this, both to providers and to families,” she said, “so that theoretically, people can get back up to date on their vaccines before children potentially are going back to day care, are going back to school.”
Other states, including New York and Pennsylvania, have also seen an uptick in whooping cough cases this year, Newsweek reported in early June. Outside the U.S., the United Kingdom and Australia have also reported increases.
Whooping cough, also known as pertussis, is a highly infectious respiratory tract infection, according to the Mayo Clinic. Deaths from it are rare and typically occur in infants.
It’s caused by a bacteria called Bordetella pertussis, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC).
The CDC recommends that “everyone” — from babies as young as 2 months old to adults, particularly pregnant women — vaccinate against the illness by getting either a DTaP or Tdap vaccine, which also ostensibly protect against tetanus and diphtheria.
According to the CDC, the vaccine is “the best way to prevent whooping cough.”
Pertussis can be treated with antibiotics
However, Karl Jablonowski, Ph.D., senior research scientist at Children’s Health Defense (CHD) told The Defender the pertussis vaccine may contribute to the spread of the infection — because it doesn’t prevent transmission.
“The pertussis vaccine is one of those that breaks the mold of what we think a vaccine is,” Jablonowski said. “Pertussis is probably the best case I can think of for a vaccine that does not prevent transmission.”
He added, “Every time there is a case of it, health officials will get on TV urging people to get vaccinated — wrongfully believing it will stop transmission.”
As The Defender recently reported, the CDC has been tracking changes in the prevalence of bacteria causing whooping cough for years.
Although the CDC’s whooping cough website still says the illness is caused by Bordetella pertussis, the most recent CDC data found that the Bordetella parapertussis type of whooping cough has significantly overtaken Bordetella pertussis in prevalence — and according to research published in Vaccines in March, the existing vaccines “scarcely provide protection” against this strain.
Brian Hooker, Ph.D., CHD chief scientific officer, told The Defender pertussis can be treated with antibiotics — “erythromycin and azithromycin are standard,” he said — and high doses of vitamin C.
The CDC’s website acknowledges whooping cough can be treated with antibiotics and fails to explain why the agency favors vaccination over antibiotics.
Pertussis vaccine may prevent herd immunity
Earlier this year, Jablonowski spoke on the poor efficacy and high-risk profile of the pertussis vaccine before Tennessee lawmakers as they weighed a bill to prohibit the state’s Department of Children Services from “requiring an immunization as a condition of adopting or overseeing a child in foster care if an individual or member of an individual’s household objects to immunization on the basis of religious or moral convictions.”
During March testimony before the Tennessee General Assembly Civil Justice Committee, Jablonowski cited scientific studies that debunk the notion that the vaccine is the best way to prevent whooping cough.
For instance, a 2016 review published in JAMA that reviewed more than 10,000 whooping cough cases found that more than half the cases in the five largest statewide outbreaks occurred in individuals who were partially or fully vaccinated against pertussis.
A 2019 review published in the Journal of the Pediatric Infectious Disease Society concluded that “all children who were primed by DTaP vaccines will be more susceptible to pertussis throughout their lifetimes, and there is no easy way to decrease this increased lifetime susceptibility.”
Another review, also published in 2019, concluded that pertussis vaccines “do not reduce the circulation of B. pertussis and do not exert any herd immunity effect.”
Jablonowski told lawmakers that not only does the pertussis vaccine not “exert” a herd immunity effect, but the vaccine “has a negative effective on herd immunity.”
He explained:
“A vaccinated person can asymptomatically carry and transmit the disease, and cannot then learn how to fight it naturally.
“If you accept that in order to achieve herd immunity 90% of the population needs to not retransmit the bacteria once exposed to it, then once you have vaccinated more than 10% of the population herd immunity becomes impossible, as the vaccinated citizens will be contracting and transmitting the disease.”
Jablonowski told The Defender the only two scenarios in which getting the vaccine might protect someone else is when it’s given during pregnancy or to a nursing mother.
According to the CDC, pregnant women should get the Tdap vaccine to provide their babies with the “best protection” from whooping cough, ideally between 27 and 36 weeks gestation. Protective antibodies pass from the pregnant woman’s body to the fetus, the agency said.
Researchers funded by the pharmaceutical company Sanofi — which sells pertussis vaccines — in 2022 published a statement saying that vaccination against pertussis during the second or early third trimester of pregnancy is “highly protective” against pertussis in young infants.
Both the CDC and Jablonowski said that vaccinating nursing mothers doesn’t appear to be effective in protecting babies from whooping cough.
A 2012 study conducted in a Houston area hospital found that giving postpartum moms the Tdap vaccine didn’t reduce the number of infections in babies when compared to prior years in which the hospital didn’t readily give the vaccine postpartum.
The hospital implemented a standing order that all new mothers get Tdap, Jablonowski said.
The researchers looked at health data from moms and babies 7.5 years before and almost 1.5 years after this standing order, he said. “Cases of infant pertussis practically doubled and the mortality rate practically tripled” after the standing order.
Vaccine contains aluminum and formaldehyde
Both of the two current formulations of the pertussis vaccine contain toxins known to harm human health, including aluminum and formaldehyde, Jablonowski told the lawmakers.
Aluminum is a known neurotoxin that can affect more than “200 important biological reactions” and cause “negative effects on [the] central nervous system,” according to a 2018 paper published in the Journal of Research in Medical Sciences.
Formaldehyde is a known carcinogen that is toxic to the respiratory system, central nervous system, optic nerve, kidney, liver, testicles and other body systems.
The pertussis vaccine, typically administered as part of combination vaccines like DTaP or Tdap, contains several other potentially harmful ingredients. These typically include inactivated B. pertussis toxin and several of its components, polysorbate 80, gluteraldehyde, 2-phenoxoyethanol and in some cases, trace amounts of mercury, according to the National Vaccine Information Center (NVIC).
Some researchers suggest the chemically inactivated pertussis toxin in DTaP may retain some bioactivity, potentially inducing brain inflammation in certain individuals.
CDC didn’t follow up on 2012 report on adverse events following DTaP/Tdap vaccines
For the past 70 years, researchers have used the pertussis toxin in animal studies to purposefully trigger various physiological responses. Responses include heightened sensitivity to histamine, serotonin and endotoxins. Researchers also used the pertussis toxin to induce experimental autoimmune encephalomyelitis.
The toxin’s ability to penetrate the blood-brain barrier under certain conditions has long been a concern. This property makes brain inflammation, or encephalitis, and its potential for lasting neurological damage a particularly severe complication associated with both whooping cough infection and pertussis vaccination.
According to the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS), from 1990 to 2024, there were 190,994 injury reports following pertussis-containing vaccines, including 3,377 deaths, according to NVIC. Over 85% of these deaths occurred in children under age 3.
While this data includes pre-1996 reports, when the whole-cell pertussis portion of the DTP vaccine formulation was changed due to its serious side effects, it’s important to note that a significant portion would be related to the DTaP vaccine given its widespread use since 1996.
Over 6,000 claims for injuries from pertussis-containing vaccines were submitted to the federal Vaccine Injury Compensation Program (VICP) as of Aug. 1, 2024. The cases include 872 deaths and over 5,000 serious injuries. Pertussis-containing vaccines comprise the highest number of VICP death claims and the second most compensated vaccine injury claims.
A 2012 study published in JAMA found an increased risk of febrile seizures in children 3-5 months old on the day of or day after receiving the first two doses of DTaP-containing vaccines.
The Institute of Medicine’s (IOM) 2012 report, “Adverse Effects of Vaccines: Evidence and Causality,” evaluated 26 reported adverse events following DTaP/Tdap vaccination. They included encephalopathy, encephalitis, chronic hives, autism, sudden infant death syndrome, arthritis, Guillain-Barré syndrome, diabetes mellitus, immune thrombocytopenic purpura, transverse myelitis and others.
For 24 of the 26 adverse events, the committee said there was not enough data either to support or reject vaccine-related causality, primarily due to a lack of adequate studies.
To date, the CDC has not conducted any additional studies in response to IOM’s recommendations, according to the authors of “Vax-Unvax: Let the Science Speak,” Hooker and Robert F. Kennedy Jr., CHD’s chairman on leave.
A 2017 study led by Dr. Anthony Mawson published in the Journal of Translational Science, compared the health outcomes of vaccinated and unvaccinated children ages 6-12. The study found that while vaccinated children had fewer cases of chicken pox and pertussis, they had significantly higher rates of other health issues.
According to the study, vaccinated children were more likely to be diagnosed with allergic rhinitis, eczema and neurodevelopmental disorders. The vaccinated group also showed higher rates of attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder, autism, learning disabilities and chronic health problems.
Additionally, the study reported that vaccinated children had a higher incidence of pneumonia and ear infections compared to unvaccinated children.
This article was originally published by The Defender — Children’s Health Defense’s News & Views Website under Creative Commons license CC BY-NC-ND 4.0. Please consider subscribing to The Defender or donating to Children’s Health Defense.
Too Little, Too Late, Wrong Science: A Critique of Salmon et al.
40 years of failed science is enough. I’m asking Siri, Kennedy and Bigtree to make the right science happen. They can do it.
By James Lyons-Weiler | Popular Rationalism | July 11, 2024
In their recent publication in the New England Journal of Medicine, Salmon et al. finally acknowledge what many of us have known for years: the so-called comprehensive vaccine safety studies have been woefully inadequate. However, their proposed solution—relying on post-market surveillance—misses the mark entirely in a stunning manner that cannot stem from a lack of self-awareness – and raises more questions than it answers. This critique will expose the fundamental flaws in their approach and underscore the urgent need for long-term, randomized clinical trials.
Historical Context: Decades of Malfeasance and Fraud
For over three decades, the medical establishment, spearheaded by figures like Dr. Stanley Plotkin, has assured the public that vaccines are the most rigorously tested medical products using retrospective studies. Yet, Salmon et al. now concede that prelicensure clinical trials often have “limited sample sizes and follow-up durations” and that there are “no resources earmarked for post-authorization safety studies.” This admission not only undermines the credibility of these long-standing claims but also highlights a systemic failure to prioritize safety.
They ignore, however, all of the work done over the years by critics like Brian Hooker, Mark Blaxill, myself, and many, many others that not only demonstrate the fatal flaws in reliance on retrospective studies, but their intentional and therefore criminal abuse in the hands of people working in and for the CDC bent on hiding vaccine risk.
The Mirage of Distorted Retrospective Studies
Retrospective observational studies, the cornerstone of Salmon et al.’s proposed solution, are a poor substitute for robust, prospective research. These studies are rife with potential biases, including selection bias, selective reporting, recall bias, and confounding variables. The findings of such studies are highly dependent on who conducts them, the study design, and adherence to the data analysis plan. Repeated analyses and adjustments for presumed confounders often lead to the convenient disappearance of associations with adverse events via p-hacking.
The Case of Aluminum and Asthma
Consider the association between aluminum exposure from vaccines and persistent asthma, as detected and reported by Daley et al. Despite identifying a positive association, the authors acknowledge the potential for residual confounding and the small effect sizes. This illustrates the inherent limitations of retrospective studies. Moreover, Frank DeStefano’s study on his way out of the CDC linked aluminum to asthma, raising serious questions about the integrity of the surveillance data. Denialists like Paul Offit tried to arm-wave away the result, preventing the next necessary steps, and 1) Finding safe ways to help patients remove aluminum, and 2) Removing aluminum from vaccines.
Ignored Historical Evidence
Before the Vaccine Injury Compensation Program (VICP) was established in 1986, adverse events like eczema were recognized following vaccinations. Post-1986, it seems there was a collective amnesia within the medical community regarding these associations. Similarly, Guillain-Barré syndrome (GBS) was first noticed after the swine flu vaccination campaign in 1976. It took 30 years for HHS to put GBS on the table of vaccine injuries. This pattern of intentional lost knowledge is unforgivable. These historical data points should not be ignored or downplayed, yet they have been consistently overlooked in favor of maintaining the vaccination status quo.
The Mechanistic Black Box
One of the most glaring deficiencies in vaccine safety research is the lack of understanding of the biological mechanisms underlying vaccine-related adverse events. Salmon et al. admit this gap, yet they continue to rely on epidemiological data without pushing for mechanistic studies. Yet, in my experience, in reading the literature, these claims result in appeals to ignorance. It is almost certain that knowledge exists that can link vaccines to these conditions; the same authors use argumentation and influence to cast doubt on such studies, or, again, in my experience, they ignore them altogether.
This approach is akin to trying to solve a puzzle with half the pieces missing. Without a thorough understanding of the mechanisms at play, we cannot develop safer vaccines or provide accurate risk assessments. By arguing from ignorance, they reveal their goal.
The Danger of Mandates
The insistence on full-population vaccination mandates, without adequately addressing safety concerns, puts public health and public trust at risk. The denial of potential vaccine risks and the imposition of mandates ignore the very real experiences of vaccine-injured individuals and, of course, studies that have found associations. Found associations via retrospective studies become “mere associations”, and are dismissed. In Popperian terms, the retrospective studies fail to provide a critical test. This approach not only fuels vaccine hesitancy but also undermines the credibility of health authorities. Mandating vaccines without comprehensive safety data is a reckless disregard for individual health and autonomy.
Call for Accountability
It is high time we hold those who have held the keys to databases and conducted sham studies accountable for decades of inadequate safety surveillance and research, as well as for scientific fraud. A prosecutorial investigation into potential scientific fraud at the CDC over the past 40 years is warranted. This investigation should focus on whether there has been success at efforts designed to provide systematic destruction of scientific findings via study manipulation and records destruction, a systematic failure to conduct and report comprehensive safety studies, and whether conflicts of interest have influenced vaccine policy and research. I would also investigate the VSD for data manipulation; the CDC and the vaccine industry have had exclusive control over that dataset far too long.
By exposing these issues and demanding scientific rigor, we can begin to rebuild public trust and ensure that our vaccine policies genuinely serve the best interests of public health. In a sane world, readers would be encouraged to contact their congressional representatives and the Office of Inspector General (OIG) to demand an investigation into these long-standing issues.
A New Approach: Independent, Prospective RCTs
Recognizing the failures of the current system, independents and advocates have long proposed an alternative: a large, prospective randomized controlled trial (RCT) funded by the government. I disagree. Such studies should only be done by independent research institutions funded through grassroots fundraising. These trials would run for four years and match vaccinated and unvaccinated children to avoid confounding variables and isolate the effects of childhood vaccines on chronic health conditions. This rigorous approach is necessary to provide definitive answers about vaccine safety and to restore public trust. I’m calling on well-funded individuals and organizations like those run by my friends Siri, Kennedy, and Bigtree to pull together, perhaps under the Vaccine Safety Foundation, and fund the studies needed.
We’ve built the infrastructure to do it, including independent journals and an independent IRB. Siri, Kennedy, and Bigtree have sufficient limelight to raise the millions needed to conduct these studies. Lawsuits, reporting, and campaigns are priorities, but I will never trust a study conducted by or funded by CDC. Neither should you.
Aaron, Bobby, and Del – Let’s hold a podcast and raise the funds. I’d be happy to participate in the design of the study and design of analysis.
I’ve tried for ten years to raise funds for such studies via IPAK. I’ve done my part for the sake of objectivity and science for the kids. You guys have the public’s attention. Use the systems we’ve built to safeguard objective science.
Conclusion: A Demand for Real Science
Salmon et al.’s admissions are too little, too late. Their reliance on flawed retrospective studies and post-market surveillance is inadequate. What we need are long-term, randomized clinical trials that can provide definitive answers about vaccine safety. The public deserves transparency, accountability, and a commitment to rigorous, unbiased research. Anything less is an abdication of our responsibility to protect public health.
References
1. Daley MF, et al. Association Between Aluminum Exposure From Vaccines Before Age 24 Months and Persistent Asthma at Age 24 to 59 Months. Acad Pediatr. 2023;23(1):37-46.
2. DeStefano F, et al. Childhood vaccinations and risk of asthma. Pediatr Infect Dis J. 2002;21:498-504.
3. Institute of Medicine. Adverse Effects of Vaccines: Evidence and Causality. Washington, DC: National Academies Press; 2011.
4. McNeil MM, et al. The Vaccine Safety Datalink: successes and challenges monitoring vaccine safety. Vaccine. 2014;32:5390-5398.
5. Glanz JM, et al. Cumulative and episodic vaccine aluminum exposure in a population-based cohort of young children. Vaccine. 2015;33:6736-6744.
AND JUST LIKE THAT, THE CLAIM VACCINES ARE THE WORLD’S BEST STUDIED PRODUCT DIES
The world’s leading vaccinologist, Dr. Stanley Plotkin, and company have just capitulated…
Injecting Freedom by Aaron Siri | July 10, 2024
Wow. After decades of Dr. Stanley Plotkin and his vaccinologist disciples insisting vaccines are the most well studied products on the planet, they just penned an article admitting precisely the opposite.
They just admitted vaccines are not properly studied—neither pre-licensure nor post-licensure. They admitted, for example, “prelicensure clinical trials have limited sample sizes [and] follow-up durations” and that “there are not resources earmarked for postauthorization safety studies.”
That is an incredible reversal. But let me provide context so nobody is fooled at what they are clearly up to:
For decades, the medical community insisted vaccines are the most thoroughly studied product ever; for example, Dr. Paul Offit said, “I think we should be proud of vaccines as arguably the safest, best tested things we put in our body.”
For decades, parents of vaccine injured children, vaccine injured adults, and other stakeholders contested these claims only to be shunned and attacked by the medical community and health agencies.
In 2018, I had the unprecedented opportunity to depose the architect of our vaccination program and the Godfather of Vaccinology, Dr. Plotkin, and lay bare the evidence that showed what these authors are now finally admitting about the utter lack of vaccine safety trials and studies. See https://thehighwire.com/ark-videos/the-deposition-of-stanley-plotkin/.
After this deposition is made public, Dr. Plotkin goes on a tirade, making demands that FDA add “missing information on safety and efficacy” in vaccine package inserts and that CDC exclude harms from its Vaccine Information Sheets, “lobbying the Gates Foundation to support pro-vaccine organizations,” working to have WHO list vaccine hesitancy as a global threat, lobbying AAP, IDSA and PIDS to “support training of witnesses” to support vaccine safety, etc. See https://icandecide.org/article/dr-stanley-plotkin-the-godfather-of-vaccines-reaction-to-being-questioned/.
The problem is, it doesn’t work. It doesn’t work because, at bottom, there are no proper safety studies. So, there is no safety data to add to the FDA package inserts, and hiding harms by removing them from CDC inserts doesn’t make them go away. Parents and other adults don’t simply stop believing what they have seen with their own eyes because CDC, WHO, the Gates Foundations, etc., won’t acknowledge them, or worse, they attack them.
That brings us to the present in which Plotkin and his disciples realize they can’t cast voodoo on the public. They can’t hide the truth. So, their only option is to try and co-opt the truth they have lied about for decades by now admitting that the studies to show vaccines are safe do not exist. But in making that admission, they conveniently fail to admit that for decades they lied, gaslit, defrauded (and I don’t use that word lightly) the public by claiming that vaccines are probably the most thoroughly safety tested products on the planet and that people should rest assured, no stone on vaccine safety was left unturned.
Thus, in their article just published, they pretend they never lied about vaccine safety. They pretend they are now just pointing out vaccine safety has never really been conducted, as if that was not known to them before.
Don’t be fooled. Their real agenda is plain, and it is not to study vaccine safety, but rather to confirm that which they already believe. This is crystal clear from the fact that, while their article admits the studies have not been done, they write in the same breath that serious vaccine harms are “rare.” But if the studies have not been done, how do they know that? The answer is, they don’t, and they don’t care to know the truth. Their goal is to protect the products they have spent their careers defending and worshipping and that have brought them fame and riches.
They also ignore the mountain of studies and data which already exist that clearly show serious vaccine harms. Just take a moment to review the large body of science around one of the adjuvants used in vaccines which multiple studies show can cause serious harm. See https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/38788092/.
Finally, just look at their proposed solution. After making the a priori conclusion that harms are “rare,” ignoring all the existing studies showing harm, these folk have the audacity to want to raid the federal vaccine injury compensation fund to presumably pay themselves and their compatriots hundreds of millions of dollars to conduct the studies that would, no doubt, seek to confirm their prior conclusion that vaccine harms are “rare,” while ignoring the studies that already show serious harm.
So, with that in mind, and sorry for the long wind-up, here are the things they admit in this article for maybe the very first time:
“[T]he widespread vaccine hesitancy observed during the Covid-19 pandemic suggests that the public is no longer satisfied with the traditional safety goal of simply detecting and quantifying the associated risks after a vaccine has been authorized for use.”
Comment: The parents of vaccine injured children, vaccine injured adults, and others were never “satisfied” with seeking to assess “risks after a vaccine has been authorized.”
“Postauthorization studies are needed to fully characterize the safety profile of a new vaccine, since prelicensure clinical trials have limited sample sizes, follow up durations, and population heterogeneity.”
Comment: Let me translate: the clinical trials relied upon to license childhood vaccines are useless with regard to safety since they virtually never have a placebo control, typically review safety for days or weeks after injection, and often have far too few participants to measure anything of value, just see www.icandecide.org/no-placebo; amazingly, I just had a dispute with a Plotkin disciple not long ago in which they were clearly still not ready to admit the above truth https://x.com/AaronSiriSG/status/1673483027618623489.
“It is critical to examine adverse events following immunization (AEFIs) that have not been detected in clinical trials, to ascertain whether they are causally or coincidentally related to vaccination.”
Comment: No shit and you have been claiming for decades this was being done!
“When they are caused by vaccines (vaccine adverse reactions), the risk attributable to vaccination and the biologic mechanism must be ascertained. That science becomes the basis for developing safer vaccines, if possible, and for determining contraindications to vaccination and the compensation that should be offered for AEFIs.”
Comment: Again, no shit, and you have also been claiming for decades this was being done!
“Currently in the United States, when the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) recommends a new routine vaccine, the only automatic statutory resource allocations that follow are for vaccine procurement by Vaccines for Children (VFC) and for the Vaccine Injury Compensation Program (VICP). Although the ACIP acknowledges the need, there are currently no resources earmarked for postauthorization safety studies beyond annual appropriations, which must be approved by Congress each year.”
Comment: Again, no shit! But nice of you to finally admit it after decades of gaslighting.
“Progress in vaccine-safety science has understandably been slow — often depending on epidemiologic evidence that is delayed or is inadequate to support causal conclusions and on an understanding of biologic mechanisms that is incomplete — which has adversely affected vaccine acceptance.”
Comment: More gaslighting because had a proper clinical trial been conducted pre-licensure, we would know the safety before it is unleashed on babies and we wouldn’t need to rely on confounded-biased-conflicted-post-authorization “epidemiological” studies you now want to conduct which you make clear you only suggest because you want to avoid “public concern and consequent decreases in immunization coverage,” not because you actually care about safety.
“In 234 reviews of various vaccines and health outcomes conducted from 1991 to 2012, the IOM found inadequate evidence to prove or disprove causation in 179 (76%) of the relationships it explored, illustrating the need for more rigorous science.”
Comment: Again, no shit, and I would appreciate if you would please properly cite to the ICAN white paper from 2017 from which you have plainly lifted this point https://icandecide.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/09/VaccineSafety-Version-1.0-October-2-2017-1.pdf.
“Identifying the biologic mechanisms of adverse reactions — how and in whom they occur — is critical for developing safer vaccines, preventing adverse reactions by expanding contraindications, and equitably compensating vaccinees for true adverse reactions.”
Comment: Shameless to pretend you have not for decades ignored or attacked those calling for these studies while pretending a mountain of such studies showing the foregoing don’t already exist.
“[T]he budget for vaccine-safety monitoring at the CDC (which is responsible for the majority of U.S. federal efforts) has remained stagnant … at about $20 million per year” which they write is an “inadequate level of funding.”
Comment: Again, shameless to pretend parent groups have not been yelling about this issue for decades only to be ignored and attacked.
“The public [now] also wants public health authorities to mitigate and prevent rare but serious adverse events – which no longer seem rare when vaccines are given to millions or billions of people.”
Comment: They have always been given to millions or billions of people, and the studies showing the harms they cause are not rare and they already exist, but you don’t really care about that reality as vaccine safety is not really the goal.
If they are really interested in the truth about what injuries vaccines cause and the rate at which these injuries occur, then they should welcome convening a bipartisan panel which could first review all the very concerning studies and hard data that already exists on this topic (often by scientists not on pharma’s dole) and we could design additional studies together and have them run in the open so everybody has to live with the result.
(Among other reasons to demand the study be conducted in the open is that I have witnessed firsthand what happens when a study comparing vaccinated and unvaccinated children in large multi-million person datasets, using historical insurance data, showed vaccinated children had multiple times the rate of numerous chronic diseases – the study gets buried hence the need to do it in the open.)
Plotkin and company should welcome studies which can show vaccines have not contributed to the rise in chronic childhood disease (many of which are immune mediated diseases) from 12% of children in the early 1980s (when CDC recommended 7 routine childhood injections) to over 50% of children now (when CDC recommends over 90 routine childhood injections).
And I think they do welcome such studies if they can assure that the outcome would show vaccines do not cause these harms. Alas, the reality is that (as they know) studies showing vaccines contribute to this rise already exist. But their goal, in any event, is not to really study safety. Rather it is to prove their prior assumption that vaccines are safe and harms are “rare.” This approach is how they designed VAERS, V-SAFE, VSD, and every other “safety” system.
As is transparent from their article, the only reason they even pretend to care about vaccine safety is that they want to avoid reduction in vaccine uptake – not actually assure safety.
That all said, if they are really well-meaning, I would welcome collaborating. To be fair, I will email all four of them to request a meeting to review existing science and design studies mutually agreed upon. If they are really interested in vaccine safety, they should welcome that (I have no hard feelings despite their attacks on me and I hope they can rise above any hard feelings they have for the sake of protecting children). Most importantly, I’m willing to live with the results of those studies. Are they?
Featured Video
MK Bhadrakumar, Alexander Mercouris & Glenn Diesen
Can India Become a Global Powerhouse?
or go to
Aletho News Archives – Video-Images
From the Archives
The ‘Great Food Reset’: Who’s behind plan to reengineer the global food supply?
By Suzanne Burdick, Ph.D. | The Defender | January 25, 2023
The world’s food supply is being reengineered under the guise of a fake food crisis, according to journalist James Corbett.
“From cricket powder dumplings and bug burgers to GMOs and glyphosate to bioreactors and designer microbes to nutrigenomics and 3D printed material, the future of ‘food’ is shaping up to be radically different from anything you’ve eaten before,” the author of the “The Corbett Report” said.
Food, Corbett noted a week earlier on his Substack, has been leveraged throughout human history as a “powerful tool of control.”
But it’s not too late to “start formulating our own plans for counteracting this agenda” of control, Corbett said.
What’s the first step? Look closely at who’s behind the agenda. … continue
Blog Roll
Recent Comments
Bill Francis on The limits of the Israeli esca… aletho on How Does Trump Resume Shipment… Dan Kelly on How Does Trump Resume Shipment… Dan Kelly on How Does Trump Resume Shipment… aletho on How Does Trump Resume Shipment… Dan Kelly on ‘Neocons Should Be Unhap… Dan Kelly on How Does Trump Resume Shipment… Dan Kelly on Israel’s Lobby Launches Preemp… Chris Moore on Israel’s Lobby Launches Preemp… roberthstiver on Israel’s Lobby Launches Preemp… papasha408 on Let’s Not Forget JFK’s Attitud… Bill Francis on Reality confronts the Euro rul…
Aletho News- Trump’s threats encourage Israeli breach of Gaza ceasefire: Hamas
- ‘The Romanian scenario’ – Fears of EU election interference in Poland after Brussels announces roundtable
- Kremlin reacts to Macron’s ‘war’ speech
- Zelensky changed his tune after Trump stopped (some) of the military aid to Kiev
- Can India Become a Global Powerhouse?
- USAID and the Venezuelan opposition: Corruption and intervention in the name of ‘humanitarian aid’
- The limits of the Israeli escalation against Egypt
- ‘Israel’ voiced position to US on direct talks with Hamas: Netanyahu
- German ministry dismisses lawyer for supporting Gaza, rejecting genocide
- Zelensky’s New ‘Ceasefire’ Offer Shows He’s Back to His Old Jokes
- If Americans Knew
- Trump issues death threat to the Palestinian people: Gaza in limbo – Day 5
- The Oscar-winner Israel partisans blocked Americans from seeing
- Gazans go hungry as Israel claims “enough food to spark an obesity epidemic”: Gaza in limbo – Day 4
- BBC & Guardian Editors Held Private Meetings With Israeli General
- Israel’s bombing of Gaza caused untold environmental damage − can it recover?
- Netanyahu only ever saw the hostages as his path back to genocide
- Israel poised to replace ceasefire plan with “hell plan”: Gaza in limbo – Day 3
- Trump administration supports the starvation of Palestinians – Gaza in limbo, Day 2
- Hamas explained why it attacked Israel on October 7, 2023
- Ceasefire expires, Israel blocks all aid to Gaza – back to war, or last-minute deal?
- No Tricks Zone
- Tectonic Political Shifts Have Made The Climate Issue Virtually Irrelevant (For Now)
- New Study Casts Doubt On The Accuracy And Reliability Of The Modern And Paleo CO2 Record
- New Study: 2000 Km Of Antarctic Ice-Covered Coastline Has Grown Slightly Over Past 85 Years!
- Forging A New Climate-Friendly Coalition Government For Germany A Daunting Task
- New Study: Ocean Warming Is Supposed To Increase Water Vapor – But It’s Been Declining Since 2008
- Results Of Germany’s Election Expected To Change Very Little As Country Deteriorates
- Germany Is Turning Into An Unlivable Tyranny
- A Biased Anti-Warming, Anti-CO2 Model Fails To Account For Profoundly Positive Effects Of Rising CO2
- Waking Up To Harsh Reality: Airbus Abandon’s Hydrogen Powered Airplanes
- Another New Study Finds Warming Has Missed China For Centuries
Aletho News 