A Comprehensive Review of Vaccines - Parts 1 Through 12

A Comprehensive Review of Vaccines – 12 Part
Series of Vaccines – Links to all 12 Articles

BY ADMIN · 14/11/2016
Part 1: Why Are So many People Choosing Not To Vaccinate?
Part 2: A Closer Look at Pharmaceutical Companies
Part 3: Vaccine Policymakers and Conflicts of Interest
Part 4: How The CDC, FDA and WHO Lost the Trust of Vaccine Skeptics
Part 5: Are Vaccines Safe & Effective?
Part 6: What Are The Real Risks of Not Vaccinating in the U.S.?
Part 7: Herd Immunity, Shedding and the Questionable Science Behind Vaccines
Part 8: Did Vaccines Really Eradicate Infectious Diseases in the 20th Century?
Part 9: The Conclusive Evidence Linking Vaccines and Autism
Part 10: Why Don’t We Hear The Whole Story About Vaccines?
Part 11: What Are Independent Experts Telling Us About Vaccines?
Part 12: Vaccines: The Greater Good or Greater Greed? – Conclusion

10/9/2019 Why Are So Many People Choosing Not to Vaccinate? - Vision Launch
Why Are So Many People Choosing Not to Vaccinate?

visionlaunch.com/many-people-choosing-not-vaccinate
Speed The Shift February 8, 2016
A Comprehensive Review of Vaccines – Part 1 of 12
What is With All These Vaccine Skeptics?

Most people have a difficult time understanding why any parent would choose not to vaccinate their
children. After all, we have been assured by our doctors that clinical trials show that vaccines are
safe and effective and that we need to vaccinate to protect everyone. So what’s the reason for these
people to refuse vaccination for their children?
Unfortunately, the further we objectively researched the whole body of evidence surrounding
vaccines, the more difficult we found it to come to the conclusion that vaccines are safe and
effective. The truth is, there isn’t just one reason for vaccine skeptics to forgo vaccination. There are
many.
Parents, (and people in general), are discouraged from researching vaccines and are told to blindly
trust the experts. In fact, there is a running vaccine skeptic meme that goes something like this:
“Parents did some google searches on vaccines and now they think they know more than scientists
or doctors.” Yes, it’s true, researching vaccines probably won’t get you any closer to an epidemiology
visionlaunch.com/many-people-choosing-not-vaccinate/ 1/17
degree, however, there are more than a few highly credible scientists and doctors with conflicting
information about vaccines, and most people will be very surprised to find out what is being put forth
as scientific studies these days. It became clearer to us after completing our own extensive research
why researching vaccines is discouraged like it is.
One of our primary goals with this series is to shed light on the fact that there is an enormous amount
of credible information that directly contradicts the official story presented to the public about the
safety and efficacy of vaccines. This is information which you won’t hear from traditional media
sources and is not currently part of the national vaccine debate. In fact, there is so much information
that this article needed to be written in a 12 part series to properly present just a fraction of the
information available. Most people already know the official version of this story which is what’s
broadcast the loudest and most often to the masses. We want to present the other side of the story
that vaccine skeptics see when researching the topic, to give some perspective on what makes up
their belief system. No meaningful debate can occur in the absence of the whole spectrum of
information.
It is not our intention to offend vaccine proponents and our hope is that the information presented
here might help bridge a growing divide between the two sides of the debate. Our health officials and
the news media are using fear and completely exaggerating the risks of disease in the U.S. as well
as the risks un-vaccinated children pose, which is pitting neighbor against neighbor and parent
against parent, using the classic divide and conquer strategy. Vaccine skeptics are experiencing a lot
of pressure to conform through bullying, name calling, shunning, and discrimination. Because of this
acrimony, some hard lines have been drawn. Unfortunately, this has the effect of shutting down any
meaningful dialogue between the two sides, obscuring the facts and preventing progress. This
strategy serves to keep the truth of the matter more elusive than ever.
This article is actually written for vaccine proponents and we are asking for a cease fire for one
moment so we can present some of the evidence that skeptics see when evaluating the decision to
vaccinate. At the very least, we would like to give vaccine proponents a better understanding of the
reasons behind the decision of so many not to vaccinate. Vaccine skeptics know why vaccine
proponents believe in their position – because most skeptics started as vaccine proponents. But we
don’t think proponents really know why skeptics feel the way they do. Rather than summarily
dismissing vaccine skeptics, it is far more productive to understand why they feel the way they do
because they do have valid concerns.
We would venture to say that over 90% of the general public is not aware of all the information
presented in this twelve part series. With any luck, vaccine proponents will see the information which
skeptics have seen, and realize that there is a enough conflicting data to make any parent think twice
about vaccinations. In the final analysis, maybe we can agree that skepticism can be a healthy
perspective and those who choose not to vaccinate are not the lunatic fringe we’ve been led to
believe.
We also hope that after reviewing all the information presented in this article, vaccine proponents
might feel more compassion toward skeptics. Many skeptics were pro-vaccine until an adverse event
or death of one of their children caused them to change their stance. Imagine how heartbreaking and
frustrating it is to have a perfectly healthy child one day and then, hours or days after they’re
vaccinated, watching them develop a debilitating condition or even die. Imagine then having your
doctor tell you it was just a coincidence. Then, to add insult to injury, you may be ostracized by your
friends, media, and community when you decide against vaccines for your other children. As a parent
of a vaccine injured child, you saw the cause and effect with your own two eyes but no one validates
your experience. This is why we urge compassion when dealing with these parents — their worlds
have been turned upside down. We also hope to open a productive dialogue between the two sides
and find out the truth behind this complex issue together, because this is something that affects all of
our children.
“Intelligence: Not because you think you know everything without

questioning, but rather because you question everything you think you
know.” – Unknown
Authors’ Disclosure
We would like to disclose right from the start that, although we are knowledgeable about the topic of
vaccines through countless hours of research, we are not epidemiologists or scientists. We are not
doctors or medical experts and we do not pretend to give medical advice. We are not here to tell
anyone whether they should vaccinate and the information in this article is for educational purposes
only. Our intention is to present data that is only found through diligent research and to let our
readers decide where they come down on the issues. We will, however, provide a narrative that is
based on the information we’ve learned, our belief systems, and personal biases – and all we have
written in this article should be viewed as such.
We are an independently funded research team in pursuit of the truth behind complex issues. We
have no control over advertisements that may appear throughout this 12 part series. All personal
examples used in this article are real and from one of the people on our research team. Each part of
this series is designed to be a stand alone article, and for that reason, we may present the same
material in a number of places to make different points.
Although we have provided a comprehensive look at vaccines in this 12 part series, this is by no
means all the information available about vaccines. For the sake of brevity, we had to leave a lot of
information out. This article, however, can be a good starting point for informing people who are new
to the subject and wish to get underway with their own research efforts. All of the material we used is
public information and we provided as many links as possible so our readers could to do their own
research and come up with their own conclusions.
Because we are told that vaccines are supported by a mountain of evidence, we thought it would be
best if we start the series by looking at the quality of information presented to the public about
vaccines as well as the sources behind the information, and then work our way through the various
topics. All twelve parts of the series are linked at the bottom of each article. From here on in we will
be narrating as one person, using “I” instead of “we”.
Okay, now that we have that out of the way, let’s get started!
The Debate is Far From Over

There is a raging debate going on between people who are for vaccines and those who are skeptical
of them and this has been further exacerbated by a new law on the books in California that eliminates
personal and religious vaccine exemptions, regardless of parent beliefs or concerns (SB277). There
is also proposed federal legislation in the works that would eliminate most vaccine exemptions
nationwide. As a result, this has brought a lot more awareness to the issue, and with that, more
people are researching vaccines and educating themselves on the topic. It seems that the more
people are learning about vaccines, the more they are deciding that it is not worth the risk to
vaccinate.
Don’t Be Too Quick to Judge Vaccine Skeptics

As we see in the above video, vaccine skeptics are mocked and made fun of in popular culture. They
are called deniers, stupid, ignorant and ‘anti-science’ (and those are the nice names) because of their
beliefs, but the evidence tells us a different story. It turns out that vaccine skeptics are not the
stereotypical complacent or uneducated demographic portrayed in the media. What we see in this
video is a total lack of understanding regarding the choice of some people not to vaccinate, as well
as a gross misunderstanding of the real issues.
Here is a 2008 article titled, “Highly Educated Parents Were More Likely to Stop Their Children
From Being Vaccinated” in which British economists held adiscussion that concluded with the fact
that vaccine skeptics were better educated and more affluent than previously thought.
Here’s an article from investigative reporter Jon Rappoport titled, “Top Government Scientists Say
No To Vaccines For Their Kids”showing that parents who work for the federal government with
science degrees are among those who do not vaccinate.
Here is an article from the Albuquerque Journal titled, “Los Alamos schools top NM in vaccine
exemptions”, which reveals that the heart of the scientific community is where the highest number of
un-vaccinated children reside. This article notes that “the major New Mexico school district with the
largest percentage of students opting out of vaccinations against contagious diseases is not in one of
the state’s known hotbeds for crystal gazing, cradle therapy or psychic readings. Nope, the highest
percentage of vaccine exemptions is in New Mexico’s, and one of the world’s, science centers: Los
Alamos.” And the paper reflects on just who lives in Los Alamos:
It’s a town founded on science, and the scientific evidence is

overwhelming that vaccines don’t cause autism or other developmental
disabilities. Many people in Los Alamos don’t just have college degrees –
they’re scientists, with lots of degrees. Los Alamos National Laboratory in
fact has done some heavy research on infectious disease and
development of an HIV vaccine.
Here is an article from the Chicago Tribune earlier this year, featuring some highly educated moms
who decided against vaccines.
Here is a study conducted by Kaiser Permanente, mapping the ‘undervaccinated’ in California.

Although they use the data to make a pro-vaccine point, it’s telling that the pocket of skeptics in
Northern California aren’t declining vaccines for financial reasons. Parents with graduate degrees are
less likely to vaccinate, according to this study.
Silicon Valley is home to prestigious universities such as Stanford and U.C. Berkeley. It is known as a
global hub for innovation, attracting some of the best and brightest minds in the world and it also
represents a pocket for vaccine skeptics.
Here is another article that counts the affluent and highly educated among the ranks of anti-vaxxers.
Malibu, California is one of the most affluent communities in the world with many highly educated
residents and they are also among the most un-vaccinated populations in the nation. In an article
titled, “Malibu Vaccination Rates Way Below State Average” the author describes greater
numbers of un-vaccinated among the affluent:
“Clusters of non-vaccinated children appear most often in affluent areas,

including Marin County, Santa Cruz, Malibu and some private schools. In a
2012 Associated Press survey, Saint Aidan’s in Malibu, Westside Waldorf
in Pacific Palisades, Oak Grove in Ojai and Highland Hall Waldorf in
Northridge topped the list of the unvaccinated among 1,600 schools.”
How Many Vaccine Skeptics Are In Congress?

In a poll conducted by NBC News in 2015, only 28% of congressional members would come out and
say that their children were vaccinated. NBC tried to spin the poll results by stating “Congress is
Unanimous on Vaccinations” but as we can clearly see, that is not the case.
I think it is safe to say that vaccine skeptics come in all shapes and sizes and are not the ignorant,
complacent, uneducated group we are told. Based on these examples, many of them are well
educated, affluent and apparently, informed. It would certainly be difficult to argue that the Los
Alamos skeptics are anti-science, being that science is their occupation. This is a trend that seems
to be increasing.
Vaccine Skeptics
I have spoken with many people on both sides of the debate, including doctors. After doing my own
extensive research, I have a pretty good idea where people are coming from on this issue. When
speaking with people who are concerned about vaccines, I find them to be critical thinkers with a
genuine interest in learning about vaccines, and in most cases, they are well informed and quite
knowledgeable on the subject. Skeptics also tend to be independent thinkers who march to the beat
of their own drum and do not succumb to peer pressure very easily. This is evidenced by their
willingness to stand strong in their position even though 80% of the population disagrees with them.
I think it’s a fundamental misunderstanding and a big mistake to stereotype vaccine skeptics as
ignorant or write them off as kooks, because they’re simply not. They are parents who want the best
for their children and they’re willing to put in the time and energy on the tedious research necessary
to discover the facts about vaccine safety and efficacy. It is not just vaccines these parents are
careful about. Most of the ones that I know and have spoken to, have a heightened overall
awareness of what their children consume and typically do not let them eat things like fast food, junk
food, soda or candy. They are quite aware of the current health crisis among our nation’s children
and are determined to keep theirs from being a part of those statistics.
In light of the facts that we’ve learned through researching this article, in my opinion, vaccine skeptics
have valid concerns, as we all might after carefully reviewing the whole body of the evidence, not just
what we are told by the television and newspapers.
Vaccine Proponents
When I speak with vaccine proponents about safety and efficacy, my questions are often met with
sarcasm, condescension, and even hostility, in some cases. This is particularly true of doctors. I’ve
presented several doctors with research and, not only were they unfamiliar with it, they became
visibly upset with me. Doctors have proceeded to lecture me using canned rhetoric, referencing
Jenny McCarthy and Andrew Wakefield, and pointing out that they are not credible sources. I never
mentioned their names, so it seems like they’re reciting some sort of central talking points memo
where these two names always come up.
I’ll go on to ask, “what if studies published in peer reviewed journals are not reliable?” As you might
imagine, that doesn’t go over well, nor should it. Peer reviewed journals have always been the
pinnacle of reliable science. Studies published in prominent, peer reviewed journals form the basis
for medicine as we know it. I’ll ask if they have heard about a particular expert or what the editors of
medical journals have had to say about clinical trials and they’ll be unfamiliar and grow more
impatient with me.
These conversations usually end rather abruptly and awkwardly. After asking these questions, I am
treated as if I am a lesser citizen and dismissed with condescension, as if I’m a child. It’s like we are
not allowed to question vaccines and I should be ashamed for even bringing up my concerns. I could
imagine such a response, if I were questioning someone’s religion.
I found that there is a strong cognitive dissonance at play with most vaccine proponents I encounter
and they show no curiosity to hear anything that will conflict with their current belief system. When
names like Jenny McCarthy, an actress, are brought up to try and make a point about vaccination, it
is clear to me that they are relying on traditional sources of media and have simply not seen, or else
refuse to look at, all the information that is available on the topic.
In my opinion, there are very few scientific truths in this world that are so complete and so certain that
they cannot be altered when challenged by evolving science, new information and unconventional
viewpoints. This is why I like to keep an open mind on any subject that I am contemplating. New
information is always shifting our understanding of long held beliefs, especially those that date back
hundreds of years ago.
It’s About Trust

When we look at people on both sides of the debate we find one significant dichotomy that separates
the two groups. Trust. Vaccine proponents trust the medical data and the institutions that provide it.
They think that vaccine skeptics are quacks or conspiracy nuts for not following suit. On the other
hand, vaccine skeptics do not trust the data or the institutions that provide it and they think
proponents are being naive. Parents’ prior experiences may have a lot to do with their positions, too.
One parent may have vaccinated their child with no problems or adverse effects, while another
parent’s child may have been seriously injured or died right after receiving a vaccines. Depending on
which parent you are in that scenario, who you trust is a matter of personal perspective.
Trust on either side is the bigger underlying issue in people’s decision to vaccinate. It supersedes all
of the other issues being talked about in the debate. You either trust what doctors and the medical
establishment say or you’re skeptical. Trust is particularly important when we receive health advice
because we’re dealing with the lives of our children and loved ones. We certainly do not want to rely
on untrustworthy institutions or information when making healthcare decisions for our families.
Trust will be a running theme throughout this 12 part series because it is an extremely important part
of the debate which is not being discussed. As with any business – and let’s be clear, healthcare is a
business – trust is primary. Madison Avenue is paid billions of dollars to instill public trust in the
business brands they represent. Successful companies know that when consumer confidence
wanes, so do sales. One very important question is: Can we trust that our doctors are properly
informed about the true data behind vaccines?
Where Do Doctors Learn About Vaccines?

Most people trust their physician’s advice and do not give a second thought about where doctors
learn their information. The plaques and degrees on the walls of his or her office assure us that our
doctors are well educated in medical school and that we are in good hands. Because the medical
field is so complex, we almost instinctively defer our power to our doctors. This is much like we might
behave with an attorney. The legal system is so complex that we would be foolish to try and navigate
it without a lawyer. But what if the information our doctors are using to make decisions is flawed?
Relying on experts is smart and it usually benefits us. Blind, unquestioning faith, however, is
something very different.
The truth is that most doctors are taught very little about the science behind vaccines or
pharmaceutical drugs in their formal studies. The average doctor is only taught the basic theory
behind vaccines, and defers to published studies for any further understanding on the topic. Many of
these studies come from medical schools who receive grants and medical journals which are
sponsored by those who make vaccines. Most Americans would probably be surprised to know that
nearly all of the information our doctors receive, in one form or another, comes from the very
businesses who have the most to gain by doctors’ promotion of their product.
It is well documented that pharmaceutical companies, along with the medical establishment, have
created and shaped the curriculum taught in medical academia. In many cases, professors at some
of the most prestigious medical schools are also paid consultants to multiple pharmaceutical
companies. The New York Times published an article titled “Harvard Medical School in Ethics
Quandary” in which they describe these unethical relationships. Pharmaceutical companies spend
billions of dollars every year marketing their product directly to doctors, many times under the guise
of education. It is really not difficult to see the inherent conflict of interest in this practice.If the
companies and institutions providing the information were honest about their findings and their true
mission was health discovery, this might not be so bad.
Unfortunately, there has been a wide array of industry insiders and whistle-blowers from the
pharmaceutical and medical industries who have come out in the last decade and they are all telling
us the same thing: the medical industry has been compromised from top to bottom. The medical
research and the journals that publish clinical studies on pharmaceutical products are not accurate
and cannot be trusted. They tell and show us how negative reactions in clinical trials are often
suppressed or manipulated so that the published studies do not reflect the true risks of a
pharmaceutical product. There is also overwhelming evidence that proves this to be the
case. Apparently, this is common knowledge to those in the industry.
How Accurate Are the Medical Journals?

Vaccine clinical trials, published in peer reviewed medical journals, are held in the highest esteem
among our medical community. This is the evidence pharmaceutical companies present to the FDA in
order to have drugs approved in the US. Doctors must follow the CDC’s recommendations and they
prescribe their patients medications based on the findings of these studies. We are told that there’s a
mountain of published information that proves vaccines safety and efficacy, but when we probe into
that mountain we find many problems. Let’s take a closer look at this research and the journals that
publish it.
FDA Oversight and the Problem with Trust
Here is the abstract for an article by Charles Seife, MS, published in JAMA in April, 2015. This paper
reveals huge ethical breaches found by the FDA when they inspected the sites of clinical drug trials
between 2008 and 2013. The author finds 57 published clinical trials inspected by the FDA during
this period had significant evidence of:
Falsification or submission of false information [22 trials, 39%]

Problems with adverse events reporting [14 trials, 25%]
Protocol violations [42 trials, 74%]
Failure to protect the safety of patients and/or issues with oversight or
informed consent [30 trials, 53%]
Inadequate or inaccurate record keeping [35 trials, 61%)
The paper notes that when these breaches occur, the FDA “has no systematic method of
communicating these findings to the scientific community, leaving open the possibility that
research misconduct detected by a government agency goes unremarked in the peer-
reviewed literature.” Actually, this is exactly what happens: Only 4% of the research found to have
significant violations mentioned any such problems when the research was published. Seife notes:
“No corrections, retractions, expressions of concern, or other comments acknowledging the key
issues identified by the inspection were subsequently published.”
A few key things to remember when looking at these findings:
1. These infractions occurred in research that became published clinical trials,

2. The FDA doesn’t inspect very many clinical trial sites. A Vanity Fair article from 2010
revealed that in sample year 2008, the FDA inspected about 1.9% of trial sites for research
conducted in the US (and less than 1%, when the research takes place outside the country).
A skeptic would be left with a number of additional questions about how much we can trust published
vaccine research:
How many of all vaccine clinical trial sites are inspected by the FDA?
How many of those inspected have ethical breaches or problems with conditions or
practices?
Did the landmark research ‘proving ‘ vaccines to be safe and effective undergo FDA
inspection during the trials? If so, did they have similar breaches?
How representativeare these findings of all clinical drug trials?
If clinical trials are published as valid and reliable, even after the FDA finds major issues
with the research, what is the purpose of inspection?
What about the 96% of published clinical trials that didn’t reveal the problems the FDA
found with their research? Is there any body or organization that requires researchers
to uphold these standards or are they on the honors system?
What do these findings mean for the integrity of the FDA approval system?
The conclusion of this paper makes a sound case for skepticism when considering published vaccine
research. The author explains the larger problem with journals:
“When the FDA finds significant departures from good clinical practice,
those findings are seldom reflected in the peer-reviewed literature, even
when there is evidence of data fabrication or other forms of research
misconduct.”
The Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA) addressed the gravity of this problem in an
editorial printed in the same issue in which Seife’s research is published. Based on the preview
available on their webpage, it looks like JAMA might share some of the same concerns we outlined
above. Unfortunately, if you want to read the whole article, you will have to subscribe to the journal or
pay $30 to view it for 24 hours. If you preview this editorial, you can see that they note that FDA
inspections cannot even be linked to particular clinical trials. It seems strange, indeed, that an
organization charged with protecting the public health would be so invested in protecting those they
regulate from public scrutiny.
Major Academic Publisher Finds Fraud in 10 of Its Journals

Medical News Today aptly describes the peer review process as being central to the medical journal
publication process, noting that it is “held as the best available means to help check the quality,
relevance and importance of papers being submitted by medical researchers. This in turn helps to
ensure that medical treatments are safe and effective for patients.” Peer reviewed medical journals
have historically been considered highly credible sources because they use the peer review process
to vet research before publishing it. More and more lately, we’re finding out that authors, researchers
and journal editors are manipulating the peer review process in order to get research published. In
fact, there is an organization devoted to investigating and publishing news about the retraction of
published studies. You can view their website here.
Springer is one of the largest research publishers in the world, owning more than 2,500 English
language journals alone. Here is an article published in The Washington Post in August, 2015, which
describes Springer’s recent retraction of 64 articles from 10 of its journals after discovering that their
reviews were linked to fake e-mail addresses. A few months earlier, in March, 2015, another one of
Springer’s journals retracted 43 articles for the same reason. The Washington Post article also cites
the practice of study authors writing reviews for their own publication and fraudulently submitting
them as independent reviews.
“Peer review is supposed to be the pride of the rigorous academic

publishing process. Journals get every paper reviewed and approved by
experts in the field, ensuring that problematic research doesn’t make it to
print. But increasingly journals are finding out that those supposedly
authoritative checks are being rigged.”
Springer is certainly not the only medical research publisher to have pulled multiple articles that don’t
follow peer review protocol — they just happen to be a recent example.
In case you’re wondering about retractions of vaccine research, specifically, here a few recent
examples: Here you can read about the December, 2015 retraction of pertussis vaccine research in
which the author failed to disclose having received grants and consultancy fees from
three pharmaceutical companies that help make or sell the vaccines. You can read here about the
May, 2015 retraction of malaria vaccine research in which an author manipulated images that were
supposed to reflect data. Read here about a former Iowa State University researcher who pleaded
guilty in January, 2015, to felony charges after faking AIDS vaccine research results.
The New England Journal of Medicine

Dr. Marcia Angell — Former Executive Editor of the New England

Journal of Medicine & Senior Lecturer, Harvard Medical School
Dr. Marcia Angell is the Former Executive Editor of The New England Journal of Medicine
(NEJM) and Senior Lecturer at Harvard Medical School. She is also the author of the book Drug
Companies and Doctors: A Story of Corruption. In the video above, Dr. Angell gives an excellent
presentation on the incestuous relationship between the powerful pharmaceutical industry, the
medical establishment and our local and federal politicians. She tells us how the pharmaceutical
industry has infiltrated every part of the medical system, buying access and the hearts and minds of
our physicians.
Dr. Angell’s statement is shocking:
“It is simply no longer possible to believe much of the clinical

research that is published, or to rely on the judgment 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.”
Dr. Angell goes on to say that drug companies portray themselves as organizations dedicated to
science and health, but that is simply not true. Pharmaceutical companies are, by a large margin,
among the most profitable companies in the world but they only spend a small portion of their
revenue on research & development, compared to marketing and administration costs. She also
points out that despite all the studies that they conduct, pharmaceutical companies are only
responsible for about 15% of new innovation in their field. Instead of focusing on innovation they
choose to spend their vast resources on influencing doctors and medical research to favor their
predetermined outcome, regardless of the safety or efficacy of their drugs.
Dr. Angell points out that the pharmaceutical lobby is the largest in Washington, spending billions
each year to influence legislators and policy makers and, as she puts it, “the pharmaceutical
companies nearly always get what they pay for”. Are our elected officials basing the increasingly
aggressive vaccination schedule on safety concerns or could their decisions be based on the billions
of dollars that pharma has fed the political machine? As Dr. Angell says, it’s useful to follow the
money in this situation.
Imagine what it might do for your industry if you could spend billions of dollars every year lobbying
politicians. In 2003, when the federal prescription drug program for seniors was being created, the
pharmaceutical industry spent $116 million to keep Medicare from bargaining for competitive drug
prices. Their lobbying paid off because it netted them an extra $90 million a year, (on the backs of our
seniors might I add), for a whopping 77,500% return on their investment. That is just one deal they
made. As you will see in part three of this article, some of those lobbying dollars go to vaccine policy
makers as well.
There are many other credible industry insiders, doctors, researchers and whistleblowers who
corroborate Dr. Angell’s findings. Again and again, they are telling us that the information circulated
among our healthcare experts and the public is simply not reliable, and therefore cannot be used to
make informed decisions about our health. According to these insiders, most studies are directly or
indirectly funded by pharmaceutical companies. Research data that support pharmaceutical products
are highlighted and published, while research that finds problems with drug safety or efficacy is
suppressed and never sees the light of day.
What About Other Medical Journals?

Dr. Angell is not an outlier and she is far from alone in her expert opinion, criticizing the validity and
reliability of medical journals and their publishing practices. Several other editors of some of the
world’s most prestigious peer reviewed medical journals have also come forward recently. They, too,
are warning us that medical research data is being manipulated and that there is an utter corruptness
about what gets published in these journals.
The British Medical Journal
Dr. Richard Smith

Dr. Richard Smith was the editor and chief executive of the BMJ Publishing Group for 13 years, and
worked for BMJ for a total of 25 years. He left in 2004, and in 2006 published the book: The Trouble
with Medical Journals.
Smith wrote an editorial that appeared in PLOS Medicine Journal in 2005, entitled “Medical
Journals Are an Extension of the Marketing Arm of Pharmaceutical Companies” in which he
asserts: “The Problem: Less to Do with Advertising, More to Do with Sponsored Trials”. This former
chief executive and editor of the world renowned medical journal says:
“Peer review is a failure and, ironically, it’s more faith-based than

science-based. What passes as ‘science’ today is really a cult of pet
opinions pushing an agenda.”
The Lancet Medical Journal
Dr. Richard Horton – Current Editor in Chief of The Lancet Medical

Journal
In April of 2015, Dr. Horton published an editorial in The Lancet Medical Journal that corroborates
the statements of his fellow editors regarding the trustworthiness of research published in medical
journals. This editorial is a quick read and offers a thoughtful perspective on what Dr. Horton refers to
as “one of the most sensitive issues in science today: the idea that something has gone
fundamentally wrong with one of our greatest human creations.”
Quoting from Dr. Horton’s editorial:
“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.”
“Journals have devolved into information-laundering

operations for the pharmaceutical industry.”
Dr. Richard Horton
The Manipulation of Clinical Trials
Dr. David Healy

Dr. David Healy is an internationally respected psychiatrist, psycopharmacologist, scientist and
author of many books on the medical industry, as well as more than 150 peer-reviewed articles. In
2012 he published a book entitled Pharmageddon, about how pharmaceutical companies have
hijacked healthcare. Dr. Healy is also an expert in research on the subject of clinical drug trials. He is
affiliated with Rxisk.org, which maintains a clearinghouse of patient-reported side effects of all types
of prescription drugs.
According to Dr. Healy, the medical industry is at a crisis point now, due to a lack of integrity. He
compares its situation to that of the Catholic Church during the child abuse scandal several years
ago.
Dr. Healy compares drug companies’ manipulation of published research to that of the science used
by the tobacco industry to show evidence in defense of smoking and notes that the only difference is
that the manipulation in the medical field is far more sophisticated. In this presentation, Dr. Healy
walks us through the process and shows exactly how the data from one particular published medical
study were manipulated to make unfavorable data look positive.
From the Rxisk.org site:
“….most data on prescription drugs is owned by the multinational

pharmaceutical companies who run almost all clinical drug trials
(60% of which are never reported). They simply are not sharing data
that may affect their bottom lines.”
Paroxetine: A Case Study

Dr. Healy uses as an example, a well-known controlled study about the use of the anti-depressant
Paroxetine to treat children. GlaxoSmithKline (GSK) performed studies regarding the drug and
concluded it was ineffective. GSK then cherry picked the good data from the previous study and
assigned authorship of the new publication using a who’s who of some of the most well-known and
respected doctors in the childhood psychiatric field. But as Dr. Healy learned, they were not the true
authors, as the published study was in fact ghost written.
Dr. Healy states that the clinical data published in medical journals may be a small fraction of the
data that is accessible through the FDA. Dr. Healy points out that the Paroxetine case study
highlights just one example and is not a rare case. This behavior is not unique to anti-depressants,
but applies to all drugs manufactured by the pharmaceutical industry.
Below are two charts depicting clinical trials of the same exact drugs. The first chart reflects the data
that was used to gain FDA approval and represents the published clinical data in medical journals.
The second chart contains all the clinical trials conducted for the drugs, including those that were
never published. The white boxes above the red line represent what’s put forth as “positive” studies,
or the cherry picked data, and below the red line are the black boxes which represent the negative
studies. If you look at the second chart you will see that there are fewer white boxes (positive results)
because a full 30% of the ‘positive’ studies published in the medical journal should actually have
been considered to be negative. There are also more black boxes due to new trials and studies that
were never published. You could only understand that this was a dangerous drug when looking at all
the data. The only place all the data was available was in FDA records, not in the published studies.
Journal View
FDA View
Dr. Healy noted that 100% of the published studies at the time were
actually ghostwritten. The published literature showed these drugs to be
safe and effective and we now know that in every single case that was
wrong. Once all the data was considered together, it painted a much
different picture. The published literature was in direct conflict with the
data from all available research.
Later in his presentation, Dr. Healy shows us a clinical trial where the author uses mis-coding to
make it appear as if a patient committed suicide on the placebo when, in fact, it happened after using
their drug. Mis-coding is a common practice, used to hide unfavorable data and manipulate the trial
results, according to Dr. Healy.
Dr. Healy goes on to say that this is a larger problem than manipulation of clinical trials by the
pharmaceutical industry. This is a system-wide institutional problem with evidence based
medicine. Dr. Healy also tells us that independent research groups with excellent reputations and no
financial ties to drug makers are sometimes fooled by these manipulated results and subsequently
end up as a marketing tool for pharmaceutical companies.
In another example, The Cochrane Review Group, comprised of independent researchers, only had
access to the published information from the journals. When they finished their research they
concluded that the drug Sertraline (Zoloft) was the best of all the anti-depressants listed. Once all the
data was revealed, however, it turned out to be the worst one. The industry practice of publishing
only the research that supports product safety and effectiveness means that sometimes, data can lie.
This is how even unbiased, highly ethical researchers can be fooled in their quest for truth.
Dr. Healy Makes it a point to mention several times in his presentation that this is not an isolated
incident and that it applies to all pharmaceutical products.
Dr. Tom Jefferson

Dr. Tom Jefferson is the head of the aforementioned Cochrane Collaboration Review Group and is an
expert researcher in the field of medicine. Dr. Jefferson has declared that the Cochrane Group
will no longer rely on published medical studies to form their conclusions. Not only was Dr.
Jefferson unable to access most of the data from clinical trials for the Tamiflu vaccine, he discovered
that the authors of the studies had no recollection of presenting the information and actually referred
him back to the drug maker. He came to the conclusion that these studies were ghostwritten.
Why is Information So Important?

Information has a powerful influence over our lives because it guides our behavior and drives our
decisions. Sometimes there is an agenda behind the information presented to us that we can’t easily
see. Information is what forms our belief systems about a particular topic and when the data is
manipulated or is not based on valid and reliable science, we must then reexamine our previously
held conclusions. Analyzing information is similar to working out a mathematical equation: when you
omit evidence or change it to reflect a desired finding, the conclusion will always be flawed. We have
more information at our fingertips than we’ve ever had, yet converting the raw data into actionable
knowledge is where the heavy lifting is required.
Summary
When you look up the term ‘pseudoscience’ in the dictionary, one of the definitions is as follows: a
collection of beliefs or practices mistakenly regarded as being based on scientific
method. What we are witnessing with these journals is certainly not science. Our medical journals
have devolved into something other than pillars of scientific truth in pursuit of health, and by
definition, would have to be characterized as pseudoscience.
Vaccine skeptics are constantly being told that they are anti-science or science deniers, but when we
look at the so called ‘science’, it becomes clear that the exact opposite is true. To be more accurate,
vaccine skeptics are taking issue with cherry picked data, buried studies, fraudulent data and poorly
conducted clinical trials, posing as science. Vaccine skeptics are well aware of the fact that our
medical journals left the realm of science years ago and have become valuable business tools in the
world of economics, marketing and politics.
The fact that so many experts from within the industry are telling us that we can’t trust data published
in the most prestigious journals in the world really cuts to the heart of the matter. We are told that the
debate is over and vaccines have been proven to be safe and effective, but from what evidence can
they conclude this? If pharmaceutical companies sponsor almost all of the research while then also
deciding what gets published and what doesn’t, how can we imagine we’re getting reliable
information? When we know that the data in these publications have been manipulated in favor of
pharmaceutical products, how can we trust it?
The truth is that studies favoring the safety and efficacy of ANY pharmaceutical products published in
medical journals can no longer be presumed to have integrity and cannot be safely cited as scientific
fact. Arguments that use this data as their foundation must be called out for what they are: agenda-
driven misinformation. Unless we have comprehensive independent audits, allowing auditors to
review ALL the information, or until trial results can be replicated by independent researchers, the
published research on vaccines is not reliable. Published vaccine trial data is lacking the scientific
rigor and the integrity we need, in order for it to provide us with the quality of information necessary
for giving adequate informed consent.
The information presented in part one of this article alone is enough to make any parent feel skeptical
about putting any pharmaceutical products into their children. As you will see in the following parts of
this article, medical journals are only one component of the systematic deception and corruption
taking place in this industry. When we take a closer look at the behavior of the pharmaceutical
industry and their ties with federal and local regulatory agencies, we find behavior that is equally
troubling.
This is Part 1 in the 12 part series: A Comprehensive Review of Vaccines
Part 1: Why Are So Many People Choosing Not To Vaccinate?
Sources & Credits: Centers for Disease Control, (CDC) Food and Drug Administration, (FDA) World
Health Organization, (WHO) Vaccine Adverse Events Database, (VAERS) the National Vaccine Injury
Compensation Program, (VICP) The British Medical Journal, The New England Journal of Medicine,
The Lancet Journal of Medicine, The Journal of the American Medical Association, (JAMA) The
American Academy of Pediatrics, (AAP) cochrane.org, cochranelibrary.com, nvic.org, chop.edu,
pubmed.com, globalresearch.ca, propublica.org, openpaymentsdata.cms.gov, westonaprice.org,
drpalevsky.com, mercola.com, drtenpenny.com, drsuzanne.net, russellblaylockmd.com,
naturalnews.com, putchildrenfirst.org, whale.to, thinktwice.com, healthnutnews.com,
vaccineinformationnetwork.com, sanevax.org, sharylattkisson.com, truthinmedia.com, rxisk.org,
therefusers.com, truthkings.com, thevaccineraction.org, edgytruth.com, vactruth.com,
greenmedinfo.com vaccinechoicecanada.com, vaccinationcouncil.org, vaccineimpact.com,
ageofautism.com, CGP Grey, The Vaccine Resistance Movement, The Greater Good Film, Dr. Sherri
Tenpenny, Dr. Suzanne Humphries, Dr. Russell Blaylock, Dr. Joseph Mercola, Dr. Lawrence
Palevsky, Dr. Lucija Tomljenovic, Dr. Nancy Banks, Dr. Peter Gøtzsche, Dr. Chris Shaw, Dr. Marcia
Angell, Dr. Richard Smith, Dr. Richard Horton, Dr. David Healy, Dr. Tom Jefferson, Dr. Raymond
Obomsawin, Dr. John Bergman, Dr. Mark Geier, Dr. Boyd Haley, Sharyl Attkisson, Ben Swann, Neil
Z. Miller, Sally Fallon Morell, Mike Adams, Robert Kennedy Jr., Jon Rappaport, Leslie Manookian,
Barbera Loe Fisher, Gary Null, Erin Elizabeth, Focus Autism and Vision Launch Development Group.
10/9/2019 A Closer Look at Pharmaceutical Companies - Vision Launch
A Closer Look at Pharmaceutical Companies

visionlaunch.com/a-closer-look-at-pharmaceutical-companies
A Comprehensive Review of Vaccines: Part 2 of 12

When we go to the doctor we usually don’t put too much thought into how our prescription medicine
is made or where it comes from. Most of us are familiar with the pharmaceutical companies through
their marketing. In fact, you would have to be living under a rock to miss their constant media
presence. Even though we know their names, I bet most of us don’t really know too much about
them. We simply trust our doctors and have faith that they will prescribe the right drug for the right
reasons and that we will be healthier as a result. The truth is that the companies who manufacture
and supply the medicine prescribed by our doctors are surprisingly unethical — not only regarding
medical and business standards but also legal requirements. In part two we will have a closer look at
just who these companies are and how they behave.
Do Pharmaceutical Companies Deserve Our Trust?

When we think of pharmaceutical companies we tend make the false assumption that they are health
care companies. In reality, they are businesses, out to maximize shareholder profit, plain and simple.
They come right out and say that their goal is not about healing the sick, it is about shareholder
profit. This was the justification given by Valeant Pharmaceuticals CEO for raising their drug prices
anywhere from 60% to over 500%, putting the costs out of reach for many people.
visionlaunch.com/a-closer-look-at-pharmaceutical-companies/ 1/14
These companies make products and they want as many people using their products as possible.
Ever-increasing growth and profit form the foundation of their business strategy. An auto maker wants
as many people as possible to buy their cars and a pizza maker wants to sell as many pies as
possible. There is nothing wrong with that concept in theory, it’s what all businesses want. But
because these companies are so entrenched within our medical system and are so closely tied to our
doctors, we tend to think of them as benevolent organizations out to heal the world. It’s what their
marketing slogans say, right? They say they are health care companies and we don’t think to
question it. If you think that improving health is priority #1, think again. In business, the bottom line is
king.
I want to point out that I believe most of people who work in the pharmaceutical industry are well
meaning. I don’t think it would be correct to hold them responsible for the actions of a few decision
makers at the top.
Pharmaceutical Legal History

Pharmaceutical companies are some of the most egregious corporate lawbreakers in the world. The
offenses include poor manufacturing practices, kickbacks, the sale of tainted drugs and outright
deception and fraud. They can afford to employ an army of attorneys and keep legal matters tied up
in the court system for a decade or more. They have paid billions of dollars in fines over the last ten
years, much of it as punishment for criminal behavior. This may be shocking information, but when
we look at the origins of some of these pharmaceutical companies it’s not surprising, after all.
You can find out more about the history of Bayer on this website .
The following information on the criminal history of the pharmaceutical industry is taken directly from
Propublica.org, as reported by Lena Groeger and taken from Department of Justice data:
*Added by author
Pfizer — September 2009

“Pfizer was fined $2.3 billion, then the largest health care fraud settlement and the largest criminal
fine ever imposed in the United States. Pfizer pled guilty to misbranding the painkiller Bextra with “the
intent to defraud or mislead”, promoting the drug to treat acute pain at dosages the FDA had
previously deemed dangerously high. Bextra was pulled from the market in 2005 due to safety
concerns. The government alleged that Pfizer also promoted three other drugs illegally: the
antipsychotic Geodon, an antibiotic Zyvox, and the antiepileptic drug Lyrica.”
GlaxoSmithKline — July 2012

“GlaxoSmithKline agreed to pay a fine of $3 billion to resolve civil and criminal liabilities regarding its
promotion of drugs, as well as its failure to report safety data. This is the largest health care fraud
settlement in the United States to date. The company pled guilty to misbranding the drug Paxil for
treating depression in patients under 18, even though the drug had never been approved for that age
group. GlaxoSmithKline also pled guilty to failing to disclose safety information about the diabetes
drug Avandia to the FDA.”
*China fined GSK $488 million after finding them guilty of creating a “massive bribery network.”
Johnson & Johnson — November 2013

“Johnson & Johnson agreed to pay a $2.2 billion fine to resolve criminal and civil allegations relating
to the prescription drugs Risperdal, Invega and Natrecor. The government alleged that J&J promoted
these drugs for uses not approved as safe and effective by the FDA, targeted elderly dementia
patients in nursing homes, and paid kickbacks to physicians and to the nation’s largest long-term
care pharmacy provider, Omnicare Inc. As part of the agreement, Johnson & Johnson admitted that it
promoted Risperdal for treatment of psychotic symptoms in non-schizophrenic patients, although the
drug was approved only to treat schizophrenia.”
*Here is an excellent expose presented by The Huffington Post and written by Steven Brill about
Johnson & Johnson called “Americas Most Admired Lawbreaker.”
Merck —2011, 2012 & 2014

“Merck agreed to pay a fine of $950 million related to the illegal promotion of the painkiller Vioxx,
which was withdrawn from the market in 2004 after studies found the drug increased the risk of heart
attacks. The company pled guilty to having promoted Vioxx as a treatment for rheumatoid arthritis
before it had been approved for that use. The settlement also resolved allegations that Merck made
false or misleading statements about the drug’s heart safety to increase sales.”
*Merck continued to promote Vioxx for years after knowing that it was dangerous. For more insight
into Merck’s response to the deadly drug Vioxx, you can take a look at this Wall Street Journal
article from 2004 or this New York Times article from 2011. Merck created a drug that doubled the
incidence of heart attacks and sat on that information for more than four years before they pulled the
drug off the market. They subsequently paid $950 million dollars in civil and criminal fines for their
handling of the Vioxx catastrophe. We cover this case in more detail in part 4 of this series.
*In 2012, two scientists from Merck, Stephen A. Krahling and Joan A. Wlochowski filed suit against
the company claiming the drug maker falsified data on the MMR vaccine. In the lawsuit, Merck is
accused of destroying data and submitting falsified data to the FDA. The scientists also accused
Merck of threatening to jail them if they went public. Merck has been delaying and trying to get the
case thrown out, but in 2015 a judge upheld the action.
Here is just one paragraph from the complaint:
“Third, Merck took steps to cover up the tracks of its fraudulent testing by destroying
evidence of the falsified data and then lying to an FDA investigator that questioned Merck
about its ongoing testing. Merck also attempted to buy the silence and cooperation of its staff
by offering them financial incentives to follow the direction of the Merck personnel overseeing
the fraudulent testing process. Merck also threatened a relator in the Qui Tarn Action, Stephen
Krahling, a virologist in Merck’s vaccine division from 1999 to 2001, with jail if he reported the
fraud to the FDA.”
*In 2014, after being secretly recorded, a senior epidemiologist from the CDC came out and said that
he and his co-authors destroyed data from a 2004 study on Merck’s MMR vaccine which linked the
drug with an over 300% increase in autism in African American boys under age 3. You can read more
about this story, Dr. William Thompson’s admission and CDC’s involvement in the cover-up in part 4
of this series.
Here is a quote from Dr. Thompson:
“It’s all there. This is the lowest point in my career, that I went along with
that paper. I have great shame now when I meet families of kids with
autism, because I have been part of the problem.”
After seeing this evidence it is not surprising that the then head of CDC, Dr. Julie Gerberding, went
on to head up Merck’s multi-billion dollar vaccine division where she has somehow
acquired almost 5 million of dollars worth of Merck stock. To be fair, it is unclear to us how Dr.
Gerberding acquired so much Merck stock, but it does make the conflict of interest look even worse.
Eli Lilly — January 2009

“Eli Lilly was fined $1.42 billion to resolve a government investigation into the off-label promotion of
the antipsychotic Zyprexa. Zyprexa had been approved for the treatment of certain psychotic
disorders, but Eli Lilly admitted to promoting the drug in elderly populations to treat dementia. The
government also alleged that they targeted primary care physicians to promote Zyprexa for
unapproved uses and “trained its sales force to disregard the law.”
AstraZeneca —April 2010

“AstraZeneca was fined $520 million to resolve allegations that it illegally promoted the antipsychotic
drug Seroquel. The drug was approved for treating schizophrenia and later for bipolar mania, but the
government alleged that AstraZeneca promoted Seroquel for a variety of unapproved uses, such as
aggression, sleeplessness, anxiety, and depression. AstraZeneca denied the charges but agreed to
pay the fine to end the investigation.”
Abbott — May 2012

“Abbott was fined $1.5 billion in connection to the illegal promotion of the antipsychotic drug
Depakote. Abbott admitted to having trained a special sales force to target nursing homes, marketing
the drug for the control of aggression and agitation in elderly dementia patients. Depakote had never
been approved for that purpose, and Abbott lacked evidence that the drug was safe or effective for
those uses. The company also admitted to marketing Depakote to treat schizophrenia, even though
no study had found it effective for that purpose.”
Endo — February 2014
“Endo Health Solutions Inc. and its subsidiary Endo Pharmaceuticals Inc. agreed to pay $192.7
million to resolve criminal and civil liability arising from Endo’s marketing of the prescription drug
Lidoderm. As part of the agreement, Endo admitted that it intended that Lidoderm be used for
unapproved indications and that it promoted Lidoderm to healthcare providers this way.”
Amgen — December 2012

“Amgen agreed to pay a $762 million fine to resolve criminal and civil charges that the company
illegally introduced and promoted several drugs including Aranesp, a drug to treat anemia. Amgen
pleaded guilty to illegally selling Aranesp to be used at doses that the FDA had explicitly rejected,
and for an off-label treatment that had never been FDA-approved.”
Bayer – 1980’s
*The video clip below describes how, in the mid-1980’s, attorneys presented evidence to the US
government that Bayer product, Factor VIII, was contaminated with the AIDS virus. Factor VIII is a
blood-clotting protein used to prevent hemophiliacs from bleeding to death. Rather than taking their
infected product off the market immediately, Bayer stopped selling it in the US and instead, sold it to
countries in Europe, Asia and Latin America. The catastrophe was kept quiet, even by the FDA.
Bayer’s statement to the press is that they behaved “….responsibly, ethically and humanely…”.
Bayer admitted no fault and took no responsibility for infecting untold numbers of people around the
world with the (then deadly) AIDS virus.
If you’re wondering how this turned out for Bayer, CBS ran this story in 2011, that explains the
fallout for Bayer. After three decades, they paid tens of millions of dollars in compensation for
infecting thousands of people abroad with AIDS. It sounds like a gag order was part of the settlement
agreements, which explains why we still think of Bayer as the benevolent health care company that
makes aspirin.
Obviously, when pharmaceutical corporations break the law, the consequences are a little different
than if you or I break the law. Not only are people not serving time, but the U.S. government, via the
Medicare and Medicaid programs, continue to do business with each and every one of these
companies. The FDA continues to work closely with Bayer to license new products and
treatments. and Bayer proudly states that they are “….committed to continually bringing new
therapies to hemophilia A patients who need them.” So there you have it. The message is that
we need pay no attention to Bayer’s track record. Some people died, but Bayer has officially
accepted no responsibility and life goes on. It appears that no regulation, no oversight and no
criminal system can or will say otherwise. Maybe, somehow, we can’t expect to uphold the same
standards for corporations as for individuals.
If the pharmaceutical industry is not to blame, then where do we look? It would not be in their own
best interests to address the safety or effectiveness of any of their products beyond what is required
by law and regulation or to spend any money beyond the inescapable costs of doing business. We
could take a clue from Nathan Shasho, who wrote the history book Perspective: Making Sense of it
All: “Indoctrination and propaganda, coupled with an uninformed public, are powerful tools that have
been used throughout history by those who would make us their pawns. Critical thinking, along with a
well-informed public, is the only way to combat this indoctrination.
Shasho quotes Albert Einstein: “Unthinking respect for authority is the greatest enemy of truth.” In
reality, if I’m pointing one finger of blame at the pharmaceutical industry, I have to be pointing three
others back at myself. If I choose to accept their brilliantly simple and oft repeated ‘safe and
effective’ slogan and I am content to skim the news for information about vaccines without looking
any further, my consent cannot be very informed. In this scenario, I consent by default, out of a
misguided trust, a dangerous respect for authority and complacency born out of comfort. Having
given our uninformed consent to vaccines for so long puts us in a bad position to object to vaccines
as they become increasingly numerous and legally mandatory. The less we know, the less we know.
Exploiting Developing Countries

Pharmaceutical companies have done some pretty awful things in the name of progress, under the
heading of science. Maybe even worse things have been done in the service of profit. For example, it
is common practice to test vaccines and other drugs on third world children whenever that research
cannot be done stateside for ethical reasons or when it is cheaper and faster to go elsewhere. A
2011 PBS segment titled “‘Explosive’ Growth in Foreign Drug Testing Raises Ethical
Questions”, reveals that in 2008, more than three fourths of FDA approved drug applications
contained data from clinical trials conducted outside the U.S.
In 2014, The Huffington Post published an article titled “Unethical Clinical Trials Still Being
Conducted in Developing Countries” that explains how some of the clinical trials carried out in
poorer countries would never be allowed in the U.S. for ethical reasons. In a 2005 New York Review
of Books review, Dr. Marcia Angell provides a more thorough explanation of the motives and
benefits for pharmaceutical companies to conduct clinical trials outside the country. Chief among their
motives, she notes, is the option of skirting FDA regulations and oversight.
In 2008, GlaxoSmithKline conducted clinical trials of the Synflorix pediatric pneumonia vaccine on
children in Argentina. Fourteen children who participated in the trials died and the Argentinean
Federation of Health Professionals accused GSK of misleading and pressuring impoverished,
disadvantaged families into enrolling their children in the trials. CNN tells us that GSK was fined a
mere $240,000 but that the vaccine has now been approved by regulatory agencies in 85 countries.
The vaccine is not approved for use in the U.S., by the way.
There are many examples of drug makers conducting questionable and sometimes, nefarious,
research that exploits the less privileged who live in poor or oppressed parts of the world. You can
read about pharmaceutical company exploits of the poor in India, their use of unapproved drugs
on children in Nigeria, a $250 million fine for bribery in China andunethical clinical trials being
conducted around the world. If you want to read about this growing trend in greater detail, you can
pick up a copy of Sonia Shah’s 2006 book The Body Hunters: Testings New Drugs on the
World’s Poorest Patients, which provides abundant evidence of the unscrupulous, unethical and
cruel treatment of people in the developing world by pharmaceutical companies. This behavior
doesn’t exactly square with that of an industry concerned with health.
The practice of conducting drug trials overseas has recently skyrocketed

in popularity. A 2011 Vanity Fair article by Donald L. Bartlett and James B.
Steele revealed that in 1990, just 271 drug trials were being conducted in
foreign countries for drugs marketed and sold in the US. By 2008, the
number of trials conducted outside the US was 6,485. They note this is an
increase of more than 2,000 percent.
Drug companies hire contract research organizations (CROs) to conduct clinical trials in poor areas
of the world where regulatory oversight is often deeply lacking. Outsourcing clinical oversight to
CROs is a way for pharmaceutical companies to manage risk and minimize liability for negative
outcomes and ethical breaches. In 2001, the US Department of Health and Human Services, Office
of Inspector General, published The Globalization of Clinical Trials, A Growing Challenge in
Protecting Human Subjects in which they recognize the trend toward outsourcing clinical trials to
countries that have little experience in conducting this type of research. A main point of the paper is
that the “FDA cannot assure the same level of human subject protections in foreign trials as
domestic ones.” This statement becomes even more concerning when you realize the ridiculously
small number of clinical trial sites the FDA inspects for research occurring within the U.S.: less than
2% in 2008.
Regarding where pharmaceutical companies are conducting clinical drug trials and who they’re
experimenting on, Bartlett and Steele tell us:
“(T)housands are taking place in countries with large concentrations of poor, often illiterate people,
who in some cases sign consent forms with a thumbprint, or scratch an “X.” Bangladesh has been
home to 76 clinical trials. There have been clinical trials in Malawi (61), the Russian Federation
(1,513), Romania (876), Thailand (786), Ukraine (589), Kazakhstan (15), Peru (494), Iran (292),
Turkey (716), and Uganda (132). Throw a dart at a world map and you are unlikely to hit a spot that
has escaped the attention of those who scout out locations for the pharmaceutical industry.”
Dr. Marcia Angell explains the recruitment of clinical research subjects in poor countries:
“This system makes a mockery of the notion of informed consent—the requirement that subjects be
given full information about the nature of the research and have the right to refuse to participate,
without penalty or consequences for their usual health care. That requirement is enforced in the US
and other well-to-do countries, and partly for that reason, drug companies are having a hard time
getting enough volunteers for the growing number of clinical trials. Not so in the third world, where
authoritarian regimes and corrupt local government officials and health authorities are eager to be
paid off by first-world organizations and to have good relations with them. They “encourage” entire
villages or prov-inces (sic) to enroll in research programs, while local doctors enrich themselves by
providing human subjects.”
Here’s what Bartlett and Steele discovered about FDA oversight of clinical trials conducted outside
the US:
“The F.D.A. gets its information on foreign trials almost entirely from the companies themselves. It
conducts little or no independent research. The investigators contracted by the pharmaceutical
companies to manage clinical trials are left pretty much on their own.”
In 2008 the F.D.A. inspected just 1.9 percent of trial sites inside the
United States to ensure that they were complying with basic
standards. Outside the country, it inspected even fewer trial sites—
seven-tenths of 1 percent. In 2008, the F.D.A. visited only 45 of the
6,485 locations where foreign drug trials were being conducted.
Dr. Angell explains that the FDA may not even know about clinical trials conducted abroad until after
the fact, when and if they are presented as evidence for drug approval.
Despite untold costs to human life, the strategy is an effective one. Costs are kept low, regulations
are often minimal and the trials get presented more expeditiously to the FDA. New drugs, including
vaccines, are approved quickly and stockholders enjoy a profit.
Trading Safety for Profit: Where Our Drugs are Made

Cheap labor and lack of regulation translate into pharmaceutical outsourcing on another front as well.
In addition to sending clinical trials overseas, pharmaceutical companies are now outsourcing
manufacturing operations. A 2012 USA Today article reports that pharmaceutical imports more than
doubled between 2002 and 2012. Public radio talk show host Diane Rehm did a program in
February, 2014 titled “The Safety Of Prescription Drugs Made Outside The U.S.”.
Rehm notes that 80 percent of the pharmaceutical drugs we use in

the U.S. actually come from India and China.
Rehm cites a Government Accountability Office study saying that “…. the FDA inspects foreign drug
manufacturing facilities about once every 11 years. The pace was even slower — once every 14
years — for those in China and India, America’s largest pharmaceutical suppliers.” Our government
admits that up to two thirds of the places that make our drugs overseas have never been inspected
by the FDA, Rehm tell us. This October, 2015 story in Bloomberg Business News, lists some of
the reasons they say the FDA is concerned about drugs manufactured in China. All of this begs a few
questions: Does the cost savings for pharmaceutical companies offset the risks of importing the
majority of our prescription medications from China and India, beyond the reach of FDA oversight? If
the FDA is not inspecting overseas manufacturing facilities, who is?
A possible answer to this question is that perhaps the World Health Organization (WHO) will help to
regulate and inspect the booming number of manufacturing facilities that are popping up outside the
US. For example, China is expected to become a global leader in vaccine production, having been
approved by the World Health Organization (WHO) in 2013 for an encephalitis vaccine and in
2015 for a flu vaccine. That means that the UN can now purchase vaccines from China. The initial
WHO nod toward China as a vaccine producer coincided with reports of the deaths of 17
newborns soon afterreceiving a Chinese-made Hep B vaccine in 2013. The South China Morning
Post reported in January, 2014, that the vaccine was not to blame: “The World Health Organisation’s
China wing said in a statement last night there was “no evidence that the quality of the vaccine has
caused these … events”.
Nevertheless, CBS News reports, three Chinese drug makers suspended operations in the wake of
this event because they failed to meet new manufacturing standards, including the maker of the Hep
B vaccine these babies received.You can take a look at this article fromMercola.com, which explains
the situation in greater detail, including information about how Merck helped to build the Chinese
company who made this vaccine, Shenzhen Kangtai. In September, 2015, Radio Free Asia
reported on 360 children from a single county in China who experienced adverse reactions after
receiving out of date vaccines the previous year. You may not be surprised to learn of the report that
“…. the Shenqiu county center for disease control and prevention (CDC) has published the results of
a report, which concluded that the diseases weren’t linked to vaccinations.”
Unsafe Manufacturing Practices and Tainted Drugs

Pharmaceutical manufacturers are regularly fined for breeches of the laws, rules and standards for
safe manufacturing of vaccines. In 2011, 60 Minutes ran a story on whistleblower Cheryl Eckard,
former GlaxoSmithKline (GSK) employee and manager of global quality assurance at a drug
manufacturing facility in Puerto Rico. A New York Times article notes that this “was
GlaxoSmithKline’s premier manufacturing facility, producing $5.5 billion of product each year.” Eckard
reported her dire concerns to GSK, expecting them to shut down operations. Her concerns were
regarding the broken nature of the facility, equipment and processes used to manufacture drugs at
this facility. She reported problems with bacterial contamination, water contamination, wrong drug
strengths and even drugs being mislabeled. For example, diabetes drugs were mixed up with over
the counter antacids and it appears that some 25 mg. Paxil was labeled as 10 mg.
Ms. Eckard references the discovery of the Paxil mix-up by a grandmother who discovered her 8 year
old grandson’s reaction after taking two and half times his prescribed dosage of Paxil due to the mix
up. Eckard was laid off 8 months after her initial report, at which time GSK had taken no action to
close the plant. Ms. Eckard, in conjunction with the US government, filed suit against GSK saying
that the pharmaceutical company had defrauded the government by selling adulterated drugs to
millions via the Medicaid program. GlaxoSmithKline paid $750 million dollars to settle the suit. They
take it in stride, though, because at the end of the day, the wheels kept turning and the manufacturing
process experienced only a mild hiccup as GSK moved operations and settled up with the feds and
the whistleblower.
The New York Times article mentioned above notes that this case is not an exception to the rule and
that these types of suits “…. have for years been rising in size and scope, but the collective threat to
the industry has been largely unnoticed because the growing mountain is obscured by a wall of
judicial secrecy. Each successful claim begets more suits, with more being filed almost every week.”
Maybe the most successful PR campaign is the one that flies under our radar — the one that keeps
ugly facts out of the news and out of our awareness. The ingenious campaign creates a reality in
which we think of pharmaceutical companies as part of the health care industry, focused on creating
and sustaining health. The imagined link between the pharmaceutical industry and the medical
industry has permeated our culture to such an extent that the media uses the term ‘health care’ to
refer to both. By association, the pharmaceutical industry has influenced our perspective and we
think of them as partners in health solutions. They bought themselves a prime spot in our awareness
of the health care industry. They have insinuated themselves right into our living rooms as health
experts and bastions of credibility, via the evening news. They have interwoven themselves with our
public health organizations in a brilliant and seamless way.
Pharmaceutical companies exchange employees with organizations like the CDC and FDA and
continue to enjoy extremely friendly relationships with both entities, despite flagrant criminal
wrongdoing. The pharmaceutical industry influenced Congress to make it legal for them to fund the
FDA by paying ‘user fees’ and to pass laws that mean that they own exactly 0% liability for vaccine
safety. They have helped to finance the educations and careers of many of those in charge of public
health. It’s a stunningly expensive, complex and effective strategy. Is it fair to demonize them for just
being so darn good at what they do? If you needed to market a product or service, wouldn’t you want
to hire someone this savvy?
Not unlike many other giants of industry, big names that form the financial backbone of our country,
pharmaceutical companies have done some unethical and immoral things. In the final analysis,
though, this corporate behavior has been very, very good for their bottom line. Those who aspire to
corporate greatness might say that when a company is so successful that it can incur a $3 billion fine
and never skip a beat, they must be doing something right for their stockholders! Truly masters of
commerce, they control the message about their product while creating exorbitant demand.
Pharmaceutical companies are a model for how to thrive in business in a capitalist economy.
Why Is Pharma Paying So Much To Our Doctors?

Doctors are the gatekeepers between pharmaceutical products and the consumer and a lot of money
flows between the two. Doctors wield the power to put pharmaceutical products in the hands of
patients so it is of great benefit to drug makers to influence these doctors to act on their behalf.
Doctors have the trust of their patients and there is just no substitute for that when it comes to patient
choice and consent. Without prescriptions, there is no revenue and without doctors, there are no
prescriptions.
Drug companies identify doctors who hold influence in niche medical markets as targets for strategic
partnership. Those who hold sway with other doctors, who are highly regarded within their field, can
be particularly helpful pharmaceutical industry partners. By influencing one esteemed physician, the
drug companies can influence countless others with whom that doctor holds sway. They’re killing
several birds with one very well-placed stone. This NPR story from 2010 explains the psychology
behind drug company choices about which doctors to target and how they win their favor.
Then there are other doctors who do research for pharmaceutical companies and the doctors who
serve on their advisory boards. Many of these same doctors also serve on the advisory boards of our
federal regulatory and oversight agencies. You would not need to acquire the staunch loyalty of too
many doctors in key positions and markets in order for your company to be in a position to influence
the health care agenda, including federal legislation.
Vaccine proponents tell us to pay no mind to this conflict of interest and that this money does not
influence doctors decisions. We know better. It is implausible that doctors, or anyone else, would not
be influenced by the amount of money being exchanged. Human nature tells us different. And billions
of dollars spent year after year buys a lot of influence. You can take a look at the numbers for
yourself in this article from Modern Healthcare in 2015. Then there is this finding from
research published in 2014: “Using data from twelve drug companies, more than 330,000 physicians
and nearly one billion prescriptions, we find that when a drug company pays a doctor he is more
likely to prescribe that company’s drug.” You can read this ABC story for a perspective on how
pharmaceutical companies have traditionally bought influence with doctors.
How many doctors are writing favorable reviews of pharmaceutical products while also owning
company stock? How many are voting to approve new drugs despite their allegiance to the
companies that makes them? How many doctors who serve in decision-making capacities have
blatant conflicts of interest?
The Affordable Care Act contains within it the Sunshine Act, which went into effect in 2013. It
requires pharmaceutical companies to report all cash payments, gifts, and other “transfers of value”
it makes to doctors. It is thanks to this law that we now have the numbers reflected in this partial
screenshot from a website called Propublica.org. This site tracks payments made to doctors from
pharmaceutical companies. This is the amount of money pharma companies paid doctors from
August 2013 to December 2014 and excludes research and ownership interests. As you can see in
the chart below, doctors received over $3.5 billion in just a 16 month period. That works out to over
$200 million every month.
Image Source
What Industry Whistleblowers are Telling Us
Dr. Peter Wilmshurst — Whistleblower

Dr. Peter Wilmshurst is a semiretired cardiologist from the UK. He has risked his career, his
reputation and even personal bankruptcy in favor of telling the truth and publishing his research
findings regardless of whether they support the drug company sponsors’ agenda. He was recently
recognized by BMJ with the Editor’s Award for courage and persistence in speaking truth to power.
Dr. Wilmshurst explains the problem we face:
“Doctors, institutions and journals that have responsibilities to

patients and scientific integrity collude with industry for financial
gain.”
In the above video, he offers two examples he experienced firsthand. Early in his career, Dr.
Wilmshurst declined a bribe from a drug company: he was offered twice his annual salary in
exchange for not publishing a study that revealed horrific side effects of a new heart medication.
Decades later, Dr. Wilmshurst was a principle researcher on the steering committee for a clinical trial
testing a new implant to treat migraines. In the middle of the study, he learned that several of the
other principles had failed to disclose significant conflicts of interest/ties to the pharmaceutical
industry. The paper that resulted from this research was fraught with errors and omissions and
authored by those with significant conflicts of interest, including a Vice President of the company that
manufactured the device. Dr. Wilmshurst and one other researcher declined to be authors on the
paper. As it turns out, the paper was published under the names of fifteen authors, many of whom
had little if anything to do with the study. None of them were on the design committee and one of the
‘authors’, in fact, died six months before the trial started.
NMT, the Boston-based pharmaceutical company that made the device that was being researched,
sued Dr. Wilmshurst for libel for speaking out about the problems with the research when he spoke at
a US cardiology conference in 2007. They threatened him with a libel suit for subsequent comments
he made on a BBC radio show. (NMT filed for bankruptcy in 2011, effectively ending what Wilmshurst
referred to as an attempt to silence free speech.) Wilmshurst describes a world where profit is valued
over health and safety by the pharmaceutical industry and where doctors and researchers are either
paid by the pharmaceutical companies or are stockholders. It seems clear that the means by which
we get information about vaccine safety and efficacy has been utterly corrupted.
Dr. Peter Rost, Former Vice President of Marketing, Pfizer

Dr. Rost is a former anesthesiologist and pharmaceutical VP turned whistleblower. According to Dr.
Rost, pharmaceutical companies influence every aspect of the healthcare industry. Here’s what he
has to say about the current state of affairs:
“Universities, health organizations, everybody that I’ve encountered in my former career as a

pharmaceutical executive, are out there with their hands out. You know everybody’s begging
for money, nobody has any money. The government doesn’t have any money. The universities
don’t have money. Nobody has money. The only ones that have money are these big
multinational corporations, and they have lots of money. And they use that money to basically
buy influence. And the way it’s done is – number one, you give these organizations and
institutions grants, grants for various kinds of research. You develop research together with
them. You establish friends. You make sure that they become beholden to you. And you also
pay individual professors and doctors – researchers – directly.”
Blair Hamrick, Former GlaxoSmithKline Rep, Whistleblower

Blair Hamrick is one of two whistleblowers responsible for the historic $3 billion fine against
GlaxoSmithKline. He is interviewed by Mike Adams of the Natural News Network. Hamrick describes
an industry that pays its sales reps six figure salaries and hefty bonuses for working a few hours a
day. He describes the drug company practice of selling drugs ‘off label’, whereby the reps were
encouraged to market drugs to doctors, encouraging them to prescribe them for unapproved uses
and populations. He tells us how sales reps were coached to minimize and marginalize physician
concerns about dangerous drug outcomes. He notes that GSK paid $3 billion in fines in the related
fraud settlement out of their cash reserves. You can can read more about this case in this New York
Times article from 2012.
Brandy Vaughan, Former Pharma Sales Rep, Whistleblower
Brandy Vaughan used to work for Merck selling Vioxx. She has since come out publicly against the
drug maker and the pharmaceutical industry as a whole, after being spurred to conduct her own
research before vaccinating her son. She started a non-profit organization called Council for
Vaccine Safety, and became an outspoken opponent of California SB277 and similar legislation that
removes parental choice and informed consent for vaccines. In the video, Ms. Vaughan describes her
experience of several covert attempts to intimidate her and to perhaps silence her, since becoming
vocal in her opposition to vaccines and to SB277.
Summary
Trust: reliance on and confidence in the truth, worth, reliability, etc, of a person or
thing
Question: If you go to a health food restaurant and notice some unsanitary culinary procedures, and
then your neighbor gets food poisoning after eating at the same place, would you continue to
frequent that restaurant? Now what if you found out that the restaurant had criminal charges against
them and they were caught hiding information regarding the safety of their food? Would it matter that
the health department gave the restaurant high scores on their inspection if you saw friend after
friend fall ill after eating there? Trust should be earned. How has the pharmaceutical earned our
trust?
Pharmaceutical companies are not health care companies. They are businesses which have profit
as their first priority. When profit is goal #1, you sometimes have to make some tough calls and,
while the stock value goes up, the fallout can be very ugly as it pertains to human life. There can be
only one first priority and all other matters take a backseat, including public health.
Are we really that surprised that people do not trust pharmaceutical companies? It’s common practice
for pharmaceutical companies to take advantage of the poor, oppressed and illiterate in developing
nations in order to expedite bringing drugs to market. They have outsourced vaccine production all
over the world because of cheap labor, less regulation and virtually no FDA oversight. Can we trust
the manufacturing standards of other countries? There are still many people who will never buy dog
food from China and yet, pharmaceutical companies are outsourcing clinical trials and drug
manufacturing operations to them and to developing countries around the world. They would have us
consent to injecting our babies with toxins, chemicals and viruses that come from places even the
FDA does not go.
How do we reconcile the fact that a major pharmaceutical company turned its back on blatantly
unsafe manufacturing practices and knowingly disseminated tainted drugs for a period of years? Far
from being the outlaws of the pharmaceutical industry, what if GSK is the rule, not the exception? We
have plenty of evidence to suggest this is so. Despite paying huge fines, they’re thriving. Essentially,
they paid this huge sum out of’ ‘petty cash’ and they’ve moved on to brighter shores. Now they’re
hard at work making that flu shot your doctor recommended.
The long list above, of criminal drug company offenses, is by no means a complete collection of all of
their wrongdoing. These are just some of the more recent ones. Our doctors are chummier with the
drug makers than they are with us, their patients. What engenders more favor than being trusted with
someone’s life? Well, the answer is money. And the drug industry plies our doctors with plenty of it.
Those who shape public policy often have ties to the pharmaceutical industry, being on their payroll
in many cases. Drug makers aren’t buying influence only with your family doctor. They’re close with
the doctors who research their drugs and those who vote to approve them. They are very close to the
doctors who run the agencies charged with regulating the industry. Sometimes, in fact, they turn out
to be the same people at different times!
Can’t we expect better? It’s tough to imagine a more corrupt system existing in a free society.
10/9/2019 Vaccine Policy Makers and Conflicts of Interest - Vision Launch
Vaccine Policy Makers and Conflicts of Interest

visionlaunch.com/vaccine-policy-makers-and-conflicts-of-interest
Source: Time.com
A Comprehensive Look At Vaccines: Part 3 of 12
Conflict of Interest – a situation in which a person has a duty to more than one
person or organization, but cannot do justice to the actual or potentially adverse
interests of both parties.
Sometimes a conflict of interest requires you to decide between doing the right thing or doing the
profitable thing. When we look into policy makers and regulatory agencies that promote and mandate
vaccines, we see over and over that they are financially tied to vaccine manufacturers. Of course
there are many parents who are vaccine proponents, who have nothing at all to do with the pharma
payroll. It’s the people who convinced us all that vaccines are safe and effective who invariably stand
to benefit financially: either they own drug company stock, hold a vaccine-related patent or receive
compensation of some type from pharmaceutical companies.
visionlaunch.com/vaccine-policy-makers-and-conflicts-of-interest/ 1/10
It isn’t only doctors who reap the financial benefit of an expanded and vigorous vaccine schedule.
Legislators and politicians have their hands in the pie too. No matter where we look, the drug
company money trail leads to the most fierce vaccine defenders. We must conclude that, at the very
least, the judgment of those sharing profit with pharmaceutical companies is compromised. So many
policy makers, regulatory agencies, doctors, medical institutions and academic institutions have
violated a fundamental principle of ethics, which is to avoid even the appearance of impropriety.
They consistently tell us that taking money from drug companies does not constitute a conflict of
interest because it does not influence their decisions, but it does and there is plenty of research to
prove it.
How Much Do Pharmaceutical Companies Pay Doctors?

Beginning in 2013, under the Sunshine Act, pharmaceutical and medical device companies were
legally required to release details of their payments to a variety of doctors and U.S. teaching
hospitals for promotional talks, research and consulting, among other categories. Below is a partial
screenshot from a website called Propublica.org
Propublica tracks payments made to doctors from pharmaceutical companies. This graphic
represents the amount of money pharma companies paid doctors from August 2013 to December
2014, not counting research and ownership interests. As you can see in the chart below, doctors
have received over $3.5 billion in just a 16 month period. That works out to over $200 million every
month.
Billions of dollars, spent year after year, buys a lot of influence. It is enough to buy an army of
loyalists. How many of these doctors are writing favorable reviews about pharmaceutical products?
How many times are they influenced to write a prescription for a particular drug, based on their
relationship with the manufacturer? How much advertising for the drug companies have these
doctors done, under the guise of continuing education? Somehow, these blatant conflicts of interest
are considered normal practice in the medical world. As Dr. Marcia Angell tells us, the
pharmaceutical industry spends vast sums of money to purchase influence, and, as she puts it, “”
Conflicts of Interest
Dr. Paul Offit

Paul A. Offit, MD, is the director of the Vaccine Education Center and an attending physician in the
Division of Infectious Diseases at The Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia. He is a favorite vaccine
expert of both the pharmaceutical industry and the media. He has published hundreds of papers on
the topic and has written a number of books on the subject of vaccines. He has also won many
awards and has been honored by Bill and Melinda Gates during the launch of their Foundation’s
Living Proof Project for global health.
Vaccine Millionaire
There are a few facts about Dr. Offit that you won’t find mentioned in his bio on his employer’s
website. For example:
Dr. Offit is listed as an inventor for a cluster of vaccines produced by drug manufacturer
Merck and has made millions of dollars (he won’t divulge how many millions) as a result of a
$182-million sale by the hospital of its worldwide royalty interest in the Merck Rotateq
vaccine. Dr. Offit and Merck appear to have a great relationship, in fact. He also holds a $1.5-
million research chair at Children’s Hospital, co-sponsored (funded) by Merck.
Dr. Offit is such a well-respected expert on the topic of vaccines that he sat on The Advisory
Committee on Immunization Practices from 1998-2003. ACIP is a professional board selected by the
Secretary of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services that advises the Centers for
Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) on vaccine-preventable diseases.
From his position of power, Dr. Offit voted three times in favor of his own Rotateq vaccine
being included in the schedule of childhood vaccines. As a result of Merck’s rotavirus vaccine
being added to the CDC’s childhood vaccination schedule, the value of Dr. Offit’s stake in the
vaccine has increased exponentially.
In 2008, the CBS Evening News ran a story by investigative correspondent Sharyl Attkisson, entitled
How Independent Are Vaccine Defenders? This was an exceedingly rare foray by traditional media
into news that is not overtly friendly toward the pharmaceutical industry. Dr. Offit and his connections
to drug manufacturer Merck played prominently in the story, in which he was dubbed “a vaccine
industry insider”. Even so, he declined to be interviewed.
100,000 Vaccines At One Time?

This was later backed down to 10,000 vaccines at once, but there is almost no difference in the two
because both figures are ridiculous. One has to wonder if Dr. Offit has ever met a vaccine he didn’t
like. Ever in favor of more vaccines for more people, more often, Dr. Offit has infamously insinuated
that vaccines are as safe as water. His research was cited in the following statement in the October,
2005 edition of the CHOP Parent Pack, a resource for parents published by the hospital where he
works:
“In fact, Dr. Offit’s studies show that in theory, healthy infants could safely get up to 100,000
vaccines at once.”
While no longer available on the CHOP site, the digital age has afforded us the ability to view this
bulletin easily, as copies of it are still available on a great number of websites.
Let’s just stop and think about that for a minute…. Dr. Offit’s research tells us that it’s safe for babies
to take 10,000 shots at once? Using Dr. Offit’s revised figure of 10,000 vaccinations at once, we have
to wonder what would make a person of Dr. Offit’s stature say something like this, being that there
are many documented cases of children dying after just 6-13 doses at once? Keep in mind that this is
one of the medical establishment’s and media’s foremost authorities on vaccines.
This would almost be funny if it weren’t so serious. As laypeople, as parents, do we need research to
tell us that 10,000 vaccines contain chemicals far exceeding any acceptable EPA maximum exposure
limits? To this day, we still haven’t performed any short or long term safety tests on the combination
of 3-9 vaccines, (normal visit with current childhood schedule), let alone 10,000. Vaccines are only
tested one at a time. What research is Dr. Offit using to support such a ridiculous and irresponsible
claim? What is his motivation? How are we to trust Dr. Offit’s recommendations when he doles out
safety advice like this, devoid of any research to support his claims?
Parental Rights Aren’t Really a Thing?

In an article titled Elimination of vaccine exemptions serves children’s best interests, published
on Healio.com, (for which Offit is an editorial board member), he is quoted as saying that parents
“don’t own their children”. In one bizarre sentence, Offit equates ownership with fundamental
parental rights. His reasoning is more than slightly askew, as he attempts to equate choosing not to
vaccinate with child abuse and neglect. Here is the exact quote:
In other words, parents don’t own their children,” Offit said. “When you
have a child, you have a certain responsibility to keep them safe and well,
and if you don’t meet that responsibility, then there are times that the state
can step in.”
Of course. The state steps in when you abuse or neglect your child. Otherwise, how you parent is
your choice and is based on your family’s individual values, beliefs and perspectives. This statement
just goes to show the level of arrogance we’re dealing with in Dr. Offit. If people could own other
people and children were property, would the state then own them? And exactly how is it that Dr.
Paul Offit’s opinion should prevail for all children, over that of their parents? How clever to frame
inalienable, fundamental parental rights as an ownership issue. How strange, too, that Dr. Offitt
would be so brazen. Parents make decisions based on the best interests of their children, while Dr.
Offit’s habit is to officially recommend things that make him lots and lots of money. Are we to believe
that this vaccine developer cares more about children than their parents, or that he knows what’s
best for our children even though there is no conclusive empirical data saying that forgoing vaccines
puts children at risk? (see more in part 6 about this)
Leader of a New Morality?

Not only does Offit purport to be an authority on the constitution, but also on morality and what
religion does and does not support. Healio.com quotes Offit: ‘“Religious exemptions don’t make
sense from the standpoint of either biblical scripture, constitutional law or religious morality,” Offit
said.’ It sounds like Dr. Offit fancies himself something of a enlightened leader, in need of a flock. It
would seem that Offit would have his particular kind of science be everyone’s new religion. Even the
New York Times had some harsh criticism on Dr. Offit’s religious viewpoints in regard to
vaccines.
What Are The Real Risks?
Implicit in Offit’s argument is that vaccines are safe and effective, but a closer look reveals that there
is absolutely no conclusive evidence that foregoing vaccinations is more dangerous than having
them. In fact, there is a growing body of evidence that is proving the exact opposite. What
about the children who are injured from vaccines every day? Is it a less heinous thing to subject your
child to a vaccine that injures him because it’s sanctioned by millionaire vaccine patent holder Paul
Offit?
Dr. Offit tells us that vaccines stand on a mountain of evidence and that to refute them is equivalent
to refuting gravity. Just because you say something with authority and an air of certainty, does not
make it true. As we illustrated in part one of this article, Offit’s ‘mountain of evidence’ is actually a
carefully constructed pile, containing a lot of flawed research, funded by pharmaceutical companies
and fraught with manipulation and corruption. The mountain crumbles when exposed to the truth. We
cannot use existing data to make reliable decisions. The evidence to which he refers is woefully
agenda-driven and one-sided.
If the pharmaceutical industry were looking for the perfect front-man to support their products and
improve their revenue, it would be tough to find a better partner than Dr. Paul Offit. Given his financial
arrangements with drug makers, it would also be tough to find someone less objective.
Dr. Richard Pan

Richard Pan is a medical doctor (pediatrician), a legislator and a pharmaceutical industry insider. He
is a freshman state senator in California and is co-author and sponsor of SB277, which was passed
into law in 2015. Beginning in 2016, the law removes the personal belief philosophical/religious
exemptions for vaccinations in California, thereby mandating childhood vaccines, regardless of
parental beliefs or concerns.
The Most Dangerous Substance in Vaccines is Water?

In the short video above, Dr. Pan gives a presentation on vaccinations which is quite remarkable. Dr.
Pan makes a bizarre attempt to argue that the most dangerous ingredient in vaccines is water. He
goes on to say “more people die of water toxicity than anything else in the vaccine.” At that point the
moderator is confused and asks Dr. Pan to clarify his statement. Dr. Pan then says more people die
from drowning than from vaccines, and then he says “but, yet, we’re not worried about water because
we know the dose matters, right?” “They’re not going to drown from an injection.” What?? I have to
admit, Dr. Pan’s logic escapes me.
Whoever He Answers to, it Isn’t the Voter

Then an audience member asks Dr. Pan “is it possible water is causing autism?”, to which Dr. Pan
replies: “one of the things we need to do as public health, you know. Uh, in the public health field, is
that, is actually educate people about… relative risks, right?” “I mean that is something we have not
done a good job at.” Less than a minute after Dr. Pan makes that statement, one of his co-presenters
goes on to explain the importance of herd immunity and then one of his constituents asks him a very
good question about herd immunity: “85% of the adults in this country are not vaccinated and you’re
talking about community immunity just among the children, I mean it doesn’t make any sense.”
Moderator: “We are now out of time.” Constituent: “What do you have planned for adults?” Dr. Pan
just talks over his constituent and never answers the question. The truth is, Dr. Pan doesn’t have to
answer to citizens. As you can see, he didn’t even need to prepare an intelligent or cohesive talk to
support the bill that takes away parent choice. He knows that his position is backed by the most
powerful lobby in the world.
In the video, you hear Dr. Pan state that they need to do a better job of educating people and then
one minute later, he ends the meeting and cuts off his constituent when presented with an
opportunity to do just that. Toward the end of the video, another constituent asks a question about a
vaccinated versus unvaccinated study but Pan does not answer him either. He is then whisked away
by what appears to be two burly security men.
Not Concerned with the Truth

Check out Dr. Pan’s statement (0:47) that Thimerosal is not in childhood vaccines. This is blatantly
untrue. Several versions of the flu vaccine contain Thimerosal, about half of which is mercury.
The CDC says children should receive the flu vaccine every year, even though they and the
American Academy of Pediatrics called for the removal of Thimerosal from vaccines in 1999.
While in private practice, Dr. Pan supported vaccine exemptions. Once in office, his position changed
significantly. He is co-author and sponsor of the law that ends personal and religious vaccine
exemptions in California. Lets take a closer look at Dr. Pan’s financial ties to pharmaceutical
companies.
The Sacramento Bee ran an article titled, “Drug Companies Donated Millions to California
Lawmakers Before the Vaccine Debate” about drug company influence on California lawmakers as
it relates to SB277. Their research revealed the following:
“Pharmaceutical companies and their trade groups gave more than $2 million to current
members of the Legislature in 2013-2014, records show. Nine of the top 20 recipients are
either legislative leaders or serve on either the Assembly or Senate health committees.
Receiving more than $95,000, the top recipient of industry campaign cash is Sen. Richard
Pan, a Sacramento Democrat and doctor who is carrying the vaccine bill.”
Following his sponsorship of SB277 and his work on behalf of pharmaceutical companies to eliminate
vaccine exemptions, California voters worked to initiate a recall to unseat Richard Pan as state
senator. The following statement is posted on the Change.org website: “We call on California State
Senator, Dr. Richard Pan to resign from his position due to his vested interests in profiting from
Merck, GlaxoSmithKline and literally dozens of pharmaceutical companies, and the conflict of interest
this causes.”
Rick Perry, Former Governor and Presidential Candidate

In 2007 Texas Governor Rick Perry decided to use an executive order to make the HPV vaccine
mandatory for 12 year old girls across the state. An article that appeared in the American Free Press
in May, 2015 described Perry’s HPV vaccine mandate:
“Few people had heard of human papillomavirus (HPV) vaccines prior to Texas Governor James
Richard “Rick” Perry’s failed bid for the 2012 Republican presidential nomination. What America
learned is that Perry bypassed the legislature and on February 2, 2007 issued an executive order
making Texas the first state in the country to force sixth-grade girls to receive the three-shot
vaccination series, which cost about $120 per shot, known as Gardasil.”
In 2011, Rep. Michele Bachmann (Minn.) suggested that Rick Perry made the HPV vaccine
mandatory in Texas in 2007 because he was beholden to the pharmaceutical manufacturer Merck,
which provided funding for his campaigns and which employed his former Chief of Staff, Mike
Toomey as a lobbyist. CNN explained it this way: “Perry’s friend, former chief of staff Mike Toomey,
spun through the revolving door to become a lobbyist for Merck in Texas, a position he held at the
time of the HPV-related executive order.” In 2011, Toomey co-founded a super PAC known as Make
Us Great Again to aid Perry’s presidential run.
A WSJ article from September, 2011 notes that Perry didn’t tell the whole truth when he said that
Merck made a $5,000 campaign donation. In fact, “Merck has actually given Mr. Perry $29,500
through its political action committee since Nov. 2, 2000.” Merck contributed heavily to the
Republican Governors Association, since 2006. That’s when Rick Perry became active in the
organization. He served as the chairman of the national campaign committee for two different terms
and was the finance chairman for RGA for a term, as well. “The RGA was also one of Mr. Perry’s
biggest donors during the past five years. Since 2006, it has given his gubernatorial campaigns $4
million, according to state records…”
“Perry’s actions benefiting donors from the pharmaceutical industry don’t appear to stop with Merck.
For instance, drug-maker Novartis Pharmaceuticals has also contributed handsomely to the
Republican Governors Association and it has also benefited from Perry’s support. Novartis has
donated $700,000 to the RGA since January 2006, although it has only directly donated $5,000 to
Perry’s own campaign. In 2009, Perry signed a bill into law mandating meningitis vaccines for all
college students, a requirement he expanded again earlier this year. Novartis was not the only
pharmaceutical company to benefit from the new requirement, but its Manveo vaccine, introduced
less than a year later, fit the bill.” (CNN)
Pharmaceutical companies have a vested interest in the outcome of elections. Mike Ludwig wrote an
articlefor truth-out.org in September, 2015 entitled “How Much of Big Pharma’s Massive Profits
are Used to Influence Politicians?”, which reveals that “Pharmaceutical and health product
companies injected $51 million into the 2012 federal elections and nearly $32 million into the 2014
elections, according to the Center for Responsive Politics (CRP). The industry has already spent
nearly $10 million on the 2016 elections and is expected to spend more…”
Kemp Hannon
New York State Senator Kemp Hannon heads the Senate Health Committee and is the author of the
new law that mandates the meningitis vaccine for all 7th and 12th graders in the state. In November,
2015, The Daily News revealed that Hannon “….has up to $130,000 in investments in
pharmaceutical and other health-related companies….”. The same article notes that last year,
Hannon invested in 14 companies that would fall under the purview of the Senate Health Committee.
Senator Hannon owns stock in the same companies that make the vaccines he’s mandating. They
stand to make huge profits due to the passage of the law Hannon wrote, and so does he. It was also
reported that Kemp has received more than $420,000 from pharmaceutical companies and other
medical interests in the last 4 years. This is the very definition of conflict of interest.
Dr. Robert M. Califf

President Obama has nominated Dr. Robert M. Califf to be the next FDA commissioner. This AP
story notes that Dr. Califf was characterized by Harvard University professor of government Daniel
Carpenter, as “…. the ultimate insider for the job, having been groomed for this position since
the George W. Bush administration” While Dr. Califf has an uncharacteristic lack of public health
experience compared to those who have historically held the position, he does happen to have some
very close relationships with various drug manufacturers. “A disclosure form filed with Duke
University last year shows Califf received research grants or consulting fees from a dozen
drugmakers, including Merck & Co., Roche and Eli Lilly & Co.”
Even traditional media sources, including The New York Times and TIME Magazine, have run articles
on Califf’s ties to the pharmaceutical industry. The NY Times article acknowledges that Califf “….
has deeper ties to the pharmaceutical industry than any F.D.A. commissioner in recent memory, and
some public health advocates question whether his background could tilt him in the direction of an
industry he would be in charge of supervising.” Prior to accepting his current position as a deputy
commissioner at the FDA in February, 2015, Dr. Califf spent decades as a researcher at Duke
University. His salary there was “contractually underwritten in part by several large pharmaceutical
companies, including Merck, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Eli Lilly and Novartis. He received up to $100,000
a year in consulting fees from drug companies, according to his 2014 conflict of interest disclosure.”
From a February, 2015 Time article regarding Califf’s ties to drug companies: “Diana Zuckerman,
President of the National Center for Health Research, which advocates for FDA regulatory authority,
says such ties “should be of great concern.” Dr. Califf is “a very accomplished, smart physician who’s
been an important name in the field,” Zuckerman says, but his “interdependent relationships” raise
questions about his “objectivity and distance.” She cites several studies suggesting the medical
products industry uses such ties to influence the behavior and decision making of doctors and
researchers, even when the scientists don’t realize it.”
Dr. Michael Carome, Director of Public Citizen’s Health Research Group notes the same concern in
the organization’s September 2015 press release. Urging the Senate to reject Califf’s nomination,
the release warns: “Califf’s appointment as FDA commissioner would accelerate a decades-long
trend in which agency leadership too often makes decisions that are aligned more with the interests
of industry, rather than those of public health and patients.”
Dr. Califf has alluded to a distaste regarding the degree to which regulation increases drug
manufacturer costs and extends timelines for new drugs to hit the market. If confirmed as
commissioner, time will reveal the extent of his convictions.
Dr. Julie Gerberding
Dr. Julie Gerberding was the head of the CDC from 2002 to 2009. During her tenure at the CDC,
there were many scandals within the department that are still reverberating today. There have been
allegations of destroying data linking Merck’s MMR vaccine to autism as well as other ethical
breaches that are still being discovered long after she left. After Dr. Gerberding left the CDC, she was
hired by Merck to head up their vaccine division where she enjoys a considerable pay raise and has
held almost $5 million dollars of Merck company stock. Was this a quid pro quo for all the covering up
the CDC did under her reign? We go more into detail about Dr. Gerberding in the next part of this
series.
Is This Group Legitimate?

NACCHO is the acronym for the National Association of County & City Health departments (LHDs),
which includes more than 13,000 public health professionals, who together provide services to
almost three-quarters of the U.S. population. NACCHO identifies their mission: to be a leader,
partner, catalyst, and voice for local health departments. While it sounds like a typical quasi-
governmental public health organization, many claim that it’s nothing more than a propaganda
machine, funded by the pharmaceutical industry. NACCHO, they say, is just another very clever
vehicle for embedding bought vaccine proponents into the very fabric of society, providing them an
esteemed forum and credibility as benevolent and concerned leaders.
NACCHO collects membership dues from local health department members, but that accounts for
only $595,000, which is less than 2% of its 2014 budget of $23 million. “NACCHO is generating the
majority of their annual revenue from two sources: government grants ($19.3 million) and other
grants ($3.6 million).” You can view partners/funders of NACCHO here. Their 2016 Fiscal Priorities
for Public Health document, available here, will give you a good idea of how NACCHO priorities line
up with those of our public health organizations and if you read between the lines, you can see that
these have a lot to do with the proliferation of vaccines.
Now that vaccine exemptions have been eliminated in California, a movement is afoot to do so in
other states. Despite the fact that organizations who receive federal funds are prohibited from
lobbying, it appears that NACCHO has been lobbying state legislators heavily in Oregon, as one
example. NACCHO has set forth a vaccine agenda in favor of more vaccines, vaccines for people of
all ages (cradle to grave) and a national vaccine registry.
Dr. LaMar Hasbrouck is the Executive Director of NACCHO and also appears to be a friend of Dr.
Gerberding. Both individuals went to UC Berkeley and both were employed by CDC during exactly
the same time period. At least one author suggests a connection, with Gerberding perhaps exerting
some influence in the creation of NACCHO and who was hired to lead it. It isn’t hard to see how the
pharmaceutical industry has created a deliberate and intricate network, forming alliances with those
in the most critical positions, and thus, has taken control of the national vaccine agenda.
Summary
No matter where we look, the policy makers pushing an aggressive vaccination agenda have some
sort of financial ties to the pharmaceutical industry or directly benefit from the promotion of vaccines.
Are they really concerned with the health of our nation, or are their motives financially driven?
Failing to disclose conflicts of interest in most occupations is highly suspect behavior and allowing
such conflicts to influence professional decisions is malpractice. Sometimes it’s criminal. In the world
of medicine and public policy, though, conflicts of interest are par for the course. As much as we
would like to imagine that policy makers have our best interests at heart, we will never know as long
as these financial motivations exist.
What is most troubling is the only catalyst for mandating vaccines and the removal of exemptions
seems to be based on economics, and not health concerns like we are told. What significant
infectious disease event has occurred to spark such an aggressive policy? And please, don’t tell me
that a hundred cases in Disneyland is the reason. That is not an epidemic and it does not even come
close to justifying such an over-reaction.
10/9/2019 How the CDC, FDA and WHO Lost the Trust of Vaccine Skeptics - Vision Launch
How the CDC, FDA and WHO Lost the Trust of Vaccine
Skeptics
visionlaunch.com/how-the-cdc-fda-and-who-lost-the-trust-of-vaccine-skeptics

As a society, we put our trust in the regulatory agencies established to protect us, but are they
fulfilling their duties or are they protecting someone else? Government bureaucracies are political by
nature, but now add the fact that there are hundreds of billions of dollars at stake and you have a
recipe for almost certain corruption. Remember, these are the gatekeepers for all drugs coming on to
market and their rulings determine which drugs come to market and which don’t. In part 4 of this
series we take a closer look at these agencies and see where their loyalties really lie.
Food and Drug Administration (FDA)

In addition to the president Obama nominating a commissioner with financial ties to a dozen or more
pharmaceutical companies, the FDA has an even bigger existing conflict of interest that we do not
hear much about. In 1992 congress passed the Prescription Drug User Fee Act (PDUFA) which
allowed the FDA to collect fees directly from drug manufacturers to fund the new drug approval
process. What this legislation did was allow the very companies the FDA is supposed to regulate, to
visionlaunch.com/how-the-cdc-fda-and-who-lost-the-trust-of-vaccine-skeptics/ 1/10
become its funders. Those who fund an organization enjoy privilege and control and this is no
exception. Are we to believe that with all the money we spend on frivolous items that we cannot even
fund our own federal agency to make sure our drugs are safe?
Dr. Marcia Angell

As we saw in part one of this article, the former Executive Editor of The New England Journal of
Medicine, Dr. Marcia Angell, is very familiar with the pharmaceutical and medical industry. Dr. Angell
wrote an article titled “Taking back the FDA” in 2007 with her critique of this fundamental conflict of
interest in this agency.
Here are some excerpts from her article:
But in 1992, Congress put the fox in the chicken coop. It passed the
Prescription Drug User Fee Act, which authorizes drug companies to pay
“user fees” to the FDA for each brand-name drug considered for approval.
Nearly all of the money generated by these fees has been earmarked to
speed up the approval process.
In effect, the user fee act put the FDA on the payroll of the industry it regulates. Last year, the fees
came to about $300 million, which the companies recoup many times over by getting their drugs to
market faster.
The FDA also refuses to release unfavorable research results in its possession without the
sponsoring company’s permission. Here again, it contends not to have the authority to do so, but
providing evidence of side-effects or negative results would seem to be an integral part of its job. It’s
no wonder that serious safety concerns about drugs such as Vioxx, Paxil, and Zyprexa have
emerged very late in the day — years after they were in widespread use.
The agency’s coziness with industry is underscored by the composition of its 18 advisory committees
— outside experts who help evaluate drugs.
Incredibly, many of these advisors work as consultants for drug companies. Although they are
supposed to recuse themselves if there is a direct conflict of interest, the FDA regularly grants
exemptions from that requirement. Of the six members of the advisory committee that in 1999
recommended approving Vioxx — the arthritis drug pulled from the market in 2004 because it caused
heart attacks — four had received waivers from the conflict-of-interest rule.
“The FDA now behaves as though the pharmaceutical industry is its user,
not the public.”
– Dr. Marcia Angell, Former Executive Editor for The New England Journal of Medicine
Dr. David Graham
Dr. David Graham was a senior drug safety researcher at the FDA during the Vioxx scandal. He
corroborates Dr. Angell’s sentiments as well. Dr. Graham researched Vioxx for several years before
coming to the conclusion that the drug was unsafe and has caused over 100,000 heart attacks since
its introduction. When he went to his superiors in the FDA about his concerns, he received feedback
that was quite surprising. Instead of the FDA trying to remedy the problem with Merck, Vioxx’x
manufacturer, they were disappointed in him, saying “why on earth did you study Vioxx and heart
attacks anyway”? Dr. Graham was told, “drug manufacturers are our client, not the public.” When Dr.
Graham said he is going public with the information he was met with strong resistance. Dr. Graham
went public anyway.
Dr. Graham went on PBS in October of 2005 and aired his concerns. One of the other key takeaways
from Dr. Graham is that he stressed that safety is not a concern for the FDA, but that their priority is
to keep their clients (drug companies) happy. This is a very troubling characterization of what is
supposed to be the nation’s last line of defense in regard to food and drugs.
The FDA is Not There to Serve the Public?

Dr. Angell and Dr. Graham told us that the FDA is there to serve the drug industry, which is a very
profound statement and may sound extreme. Maybe it’s just a few agents who have this ideology.
Unfortunately, when we look at the recent history and behavior of the FDA, it does seem to be a
systemic ideology throughout the agency. What I mean by that, is that the FDA comes down
extremely hard on any homeopath or natural health practice, while letting large pharmaceutical
companies get away with murder — some might say literally. If you’re an organic raw milk farmer and
the FDA gets you in their sights they will roll up with a dozen or more armed tactical agents and
destroy or seize your product on the spot and take all your cash. Could you even imagine that ever
happening to one of the big pharmaceutical companies?
Medical error is the third leading cause of death in America and pharmaceutical drugs account for
a large portion of those deaths.There is a well respected paper published by Dr. Barbara Starfield
from John Hopkins School of Public Health which concludes that there are over 100,000
deaths every year from pharmaceutical drugs alone. That’s almost 2,000 people a week dying from
pharmaceutical drugs. It’s a matter of public record that pharmaceutical companies promoted
products they knew were dangerous to the public and many lives were effected as a result. How
many people are dying from raw milk? Yet, the supposedly understaffed FDA chooses to spend its
precious time raiding and harassing raw milk farmers. I use raw milk farmers as an example, but this
seems to be the case with any type of natural or holistic product that comes across the FDA’s radar –
they pursue them with extreme prejudice. There are many examples of this and Natural News
compiled a list of FDA raids and a timeline in an article titled “Timeline of FDA raids on raw milk
farmers, dietary supplement makers and natural medicine practitioners.” It is plain to see
that the FDA has been bought off by the drug companies to crush any competition they see as a
threat to the drug makers.
This behavior is not just limited to the FDA, we have seen similar behavior from the American
Medical Association, the National Cancer Institute as well as many other allopathic agencies. All one
needs to do is look at Harry Hoxsey, Max and Charlotte Gerson, or Stanislaw Burzynski, to name
just a few. These agencies do not appear to have the public’s best interest at heart and seem more
like allopathic gatekeepers. If it is not a pharmaceutical drug or treatment and cannot be patented,
one or more of these agencies will likely be called in to intervene.
The FDA and Dr. Stanislaw Burzynski MD, PhD.

Stanislaw Burzynski is a doctor in Texas who has been treating people with inoperable brain tumors
naturally with great success. In fact, the first half hour of the documentary is solely about all the
patients he has cured when traditional doctors gave up on them after trying every conventional
method possible. The Texas Medical Board, backed by the FDA and the National Cancer Institute,
spent years harassing Dr. Burzynski by continually filing complaints against him and trying to put him
out of business.
The Texas Medical Board Filed against Dr. Burzynski at least a half a dozen times and they lost every
time. It got so bad that many of his patients testified on his behalf to try to keep the treatment
available or their children would have died. Keep in mind that Dr. Burzynski was not allowed to
treat anyone who did not use AMA approved cancer treatment first and in most cases he was
these patients last hope. Dr. Burzynski is by no means the only case where the FDA aggressively
pursued natural healers, but this documentary captures exactly whose side the FDA is on and it’s not
the people’s side. The FDA has clearly been compromised by the pharmaceutical industry. Like Dr.
David Graham from the FDA told us: the FDA is there to serve the drug and medical industry.
Professor Donald Light

Donald Light is a professor at the University of Medicine and Dentistry of New Jersey School of
Osteopathic Medicine and a founding fellow of the Center for Bioethics at the University of
Pennsylvania. He is currently researching the historical roots of institutional corruption in the
development of prescription drugs. In 2013 Professor Light wrote an article published by Harvard
University’s Edmond J. Safra Center for Ethics titled “Risky Drugs: Why the FDA Cannot Be
Trusted”
Here are some excerpts:
The bar for “safe” is equally low, and over the past 30 years, approved drugs have caused an
epidemic of harmful side effects, even when properly prescribed. Every week, about 53,000 excess
hospitalizations and about 2400 excess deaths occur in the United States among people taking
properly prescribed drugs to be healthier. One in every five drugs approved ends up causing serious
harm, while one in ten provide substantial benefit compared to existing, established drugs. This is the
opposite of what people want or expect from the FDA.
Prescription drugs are the 4th leading cause of death. Deaths and hospitalizations from over-dosing,
errors, or recreational drug use would increase this total. American patients also suffer from about 80
million mild side effects a year, such as aches and pains, digestive discomforts, sleepiness or mild
dizziness.
In 2013, Journal of Law, Medicine and Ethics (JLME) published an article co-written by Light, Joel
Lexchin of York University and Jonathan J. Darrow of Harvard Medical School entitled Institutional
Corruption of Pharmaceuticals and the Myth of Safe and Effective Drugs. This article provides
“systematic, quantitative evidence” of what’s happened since the pharmaceutical industry started
making large contributions to the FDA for reviewing its drugs: the FDA has sped up the review
process to such an extent that approved drugs are increasingly dangerous and result in harm,
hospitalizations, and deaths. He refers to this phenomenon as an “epidemic of harms” that will
increase revenues for providers at the expense of increased insurer costs and pubic harm.
Light and his colleagues show us why we cannot trust the FDA to protect the public. The FDA was
developed to address public demand for action in the face of drug disasters, but this agency has
nurtured a close relationship with pharmaceutical companies that has only “contributed to vague,
minimal criteria of what ‘safe’ and ‘effective’ mean”. Light explains that the FDA approves many ‘new’
drugs each year that are only minor variations of existing drugs, with very little evidence of their
safety. He explains that once a new drug is approved, then “a very effective mass marketing takes
over, and the FDA devotes only a small percent of its budget to protect physicians or patients from
receiving biased or untruthful information. The further corruption of medical knowledge through
company-funded teams that craft the published literature to overstate benefits and understate harms,
unmonitored by the FDA, leaves good physicians with corrupted knowledge. Patients are the
innocent victims.”
Although it now embraces the industry rhetoric about “breakthrough” and “life-saving” innovation, the
FDA in effect serves as the re-generator of patent-protected high prices for minor drugs in each
disease group, as their therapeutic equivalents lose patent protection. The billions spent on
promoting them results in the Inverse Benefit Law: the more widely most drugs are marketed, the
more diluted become their benefits and the more widespread are their risks of harm.
Professor Light describes ‘the selling of sickness’, a term coined to describe the process by
which the industry works to expand criteria for prescribing a drug as their profits begin to
diminish and patent protection runs out. “Regulations conveniently prohibit the FDA from
comparing the effectiveness of new drugs or from assessing their cost-effectiveness. Only
the United States allows companies to charge what they like and raise prices annually on last
year’s drugs, without regard to their added value.
Centers for Disease Control (CDC)

The CDC is an organization that has been mired in controversy and unethical practices throughout
it’s history, which dates back to its inception and it’s handling of the Tuskegee experiments. In 1976
the CDC’s handling of the swine flu pandemic that never happened was equally troubling. Not only
did the CDC overreact on very suspicious evidence by vaccinating almost 50 million people. It turned
out that the vaccine that was used had very little testing done on it and the CDC knew that it was
causing some people neurological disorders with side effects such as Guillain Bar Syndrome.
In this 60 minutes video from the late 1970’s, Mike Wallace discusses what happened at the CDC
during the swine flu epidemic of 1976.
In the last decade their behavior has become particularly appalling. Much of the controversy is
centered around Merck’s Measles, Mumps, and Rubella (MMR) triple shot vaccine. There is much
more disturbing information about the CDC in part 9 of this article titled “The Conclusive Links
Between Vaccines and Autism”.
Dr. Julie Gerberding

Dr. Julie Gerberding was in charge of the CDC from 2002 until 2009. Dr. Gerberding was the head of
the CDC when research was destroyed which found a link between the MMR vaccine and autism.
It’s hard to imagine that she has no knowledge or culpability. Was Dr. Gerberding the one who told
the authors of the MMR study to destroy the data linking autism to the MMR vaccine? Did she help
the two Merck scientists (who are now suing Merck) hide data from a different study about that same
vaccine?
Upon resigning her position with the CDC, she waited the required year before going to work for the
industry she previously regulated. She is now the President of Merck’s Vaccine division. Merck is the
leading manufacturer of CDC-recommended childhood vaccines, making 14 of the 17 currently on
the list, as well as a great many CDC-recommended adult vaccines.
A quick review of the CDC budget reveals that “Vaccines for Children” is the largest category within
the budget, and it increased from $3.5 billion in 2014 to $4 billion in 2015, an increase of $514
million. This adds up to quite a nice profit for Merck and the pharmaceutical industry as a whole, at
the enforceable ‘recommendation’ of the CDC and on the backs of the American public.
In addition to her questionable ethics while in charge at the CDC, Dr. Gerberding had years to fill the
CDC with her own loyalists, making her position at Merck that more valuable. Maybe that’s why she
was able to hold over $4 million worth of stock in Merck. Gerberding had seven years to stack the
CDC with personnel who could be used to grease the skids for her next employer’s drug approval
process.
There is more history between Merck and the CDC under Gerberding’s reign. In 2014, three different
whistleblowers came out and said Merck was hiding unfavorable data in regard to Merck’s MMR
vaccine. Two of these whistleblowers were Merck scientists and the third was a senior epidemiologist
employed by the CDC.
We should keep in mind that this is after Merck paid almost $1 billion in fines for holding
back crucial information related to the bad drug, Vioxx, which is estimated to have led to the deaths
of hundreds of thousands of people. In the end, Merck will tie this up in court for so long that any
public outrage will have migrated to a newer corporate transgression. Outside the spotlight, they will
pay a fine and it will be business as usual. These companies view these fines as the cost of doing
business.
Dr. William Thompson, CDC Whistleblower

We are told over and over that there is no link between vaccines and autism and yet, we have a
senior epidemiologist from CDC who tells us that in fact, some of his research showed a 340%
increase in autism and that he was directed to cover up these findings. In 2014, Dr. Thompson
admitted that he had helped CDC destroy data from a study which linked the MMR vaccine to an
over 300% increase in autism among African American boys. In a subsequent statement, CDC
admitted to withholding the data from Dr. Thompson’s study. What else are we not being told?
A quote from Dr. Thompson:
“It’s all there. This is the lowest point in my career, that I went along with
that paper. I have great shame now when I meet families of kids with
autism, because I have been part of the problem.”
In July, 2015, investigative journalist Sharyl Attkisson wrote an article entitled CDC Scientist: ‘We
scheduled meeting to destroy vaccine-autism study documents’, in which she quotes Dr.
Thompson when he described how the data that linked the MMR vaccine with autism was trashed.
She also shares Representative Bill Posey’s statement to congress about Dr. Thompson and the
MMR study data that Merck tried to hide. On July 29, 2015, Representative Posey implored
congress (1:02:24) to take a closer look at the data: “Considering the nature of the whistleblower’s
documents as well as the involvement of the CDC, a hearing and a thorough investigation is
warranted. So I ask, Mr. Speaker, I beg, I implore my colleagues on the appropriations committees to
please, please take such action.” Attkisson remarks on the likely outcome of his plea:“In an untainted
news environment, the allegations would make headlines in most legitimate publications and would
trigger federal inquiries. However, the interests of the powerful pharmaceutical industry reach deeply
into Congress and the news media through lobbyists, propaganda and advertising dollars.”
In 2014, Lawrence Solomon wrote an article for Huffington Post entitled Merck Has some
Explaining To Do Over its MMR Vaccine Claims.
Here are some excerpts which addresses the cases pending against Merck regarding the MMR
vaccine:
“Merck, the pharmaceutical giant, is facing a slew of controversies

over its Measles-Mumps-Rubella (MMR) vaccine following numerous
allegations of wrongdoing from different parties in the medical field,
including two former Merck scientists-turned-whistleblowers. A third
whistleblower, this one a scientist at the Centers for Disease Control,
also promises to bring Merck grief following his confession of
misconduct involving the same MMR vaccine.”
“The controversies will find Merck defending itself and its vaccine in at least two federal court cases
after a U.S. District judge earlier this month threw out Merck’s attempts at dismissal.”
Here are a few of the charges pending against Merck, outlined in just one of these three lawsuits:
Using improper testing techniques

Manipulating testing methodology
Abandoning undesirable test results
Falsifying test data
Falsely certifying compliance with CDC contract terms

Engaging in fraud and concealment.
More CDC Vaccine Cover-Ups

We have recently discovered that CDC was involved in yet another cover-up but this time involving
the World Health Organization (WHO), in what’s being called a globally coordinated effort to cover up
research fraud with the HPV vaccination. This story is still developing but there is more disturbing
information illustrated in the recently published article titled, “It’s Official: Global Coordinated HPV
Research Fraud Involving CDC, WHO, GAVCS & Others.” See more about this in the next section
on the WHO.
World Health Organization (WHO)

The World Health Organization (WHO) is a United Nations agency whose mission you can review
for yourself. The first objective of the WHO mission statement is ” To act as the directing and
coordinating authority on international health work” and WHO employs more than 7,000 people, with
offices in 150 countries.
In 2009, WHO declared the H1N1 strain of Swine Flu to be a pandemic. It never amounted to much
of a public threat, but the WHO declaration paid off handsomely for the pharmaceutical companies.
WHO made the decision to raise the pandemic flag based on the advice of individuals with strong
financial ties to drug makers who eventually profited from their decision. Dr. Wolfgang Wodarg, chair
of the Health Committee in The European Council, German parliamentarian and epidemiologist,
explains on his blog : ““The governments have sealed contracts with vaccine producers where they
secure orders in advance and take upon themselves almost all the responsibility. In this way the
producers of vaccines are sure of enormous gains without having any financial risks. So they just
wait until WHO says ‘pandemic’ and activate the contracts.” Time Magazine explained the actual
fallout from the H1N1 virus: “….catastrophe never came, and the total U.S. death toll from H1N1 —
about 13,000 people over the past year — was considerably smaller than the 36,000 people who are
estimated to die each year from the regular, seasonal flu. Millions of doses of H1N1 vaccine expired
unused on doctors’ shelves, and health officials are now under fire for overhyping what eventually
seemed like a harmless bug.”
What it all boils down to, according to this Government Accountability Office report, is that by
December, 2010, the US alone had spent over $4 billion in response to the supposed pandemic.
You can imagine what governments around the world spent. You can read more about Dr. Wodarg
and European leaders’ concerns in the the article: “Council of Europe Parliamentary Assembly to
Investigate WHO and “Pandemic” Scandal“. The US press took a rather low key approach to the
topic, as is typically the case for stories that might be unflattering to drug company advertisers. The
Washington Post ran this article covering the European concerns and the WHO response.
In this video, Dr. Wodarg discusses his concerns about WHO conflicts of interest in relation to the
H1N1 pandemic scare.
In 2010, the BBC published “WHO swine flu experts ‘linked’ with drug companies“, which
discusses a BMJ article on the same topic. It concludes: “Key scientists behind World Health
Organization advice on stockpiling of pandemic flu drugs had financial ties with companies which
stood to profit, an investigation has found.”
You can read this article, which highlights just one such case, wherein a WHO board member is a
‘large shareholder’ in a company that makes vaccines. This site also contains some WHO
documents that look a lot like advertisements for booming growth in the global vaccine market.
Dr. Sin Hang Lee’s Open Letter

In a recent article titled “Newly Leaked Emails Prove WHO Suppressing HPV Vaccine’s Harmful
Effects”, it seems as if WHO is taking a page out of the CDC playbook. Dr. Sin Hang Lee, MD,
former Associate Professor at Yale University and the current Director of the Milford Molecular
Diagnostic Laboratory in Milford, Connecticut, filed an open letter of complaint to the Director General
of the World Health Organization. His letter states that there has been a coordinated effort to cover-
up the dangerous side effects of the HPV vaccine and he has the internal emails to prove it. There is
another article titled, “It’s Official: Global, Coordinated HPV Research Fraud Involving CDC,
WHO, GACVS & Others” which goes into more detail about the cover-up.
Here is part of Dr. Lee’s letter:
To view Dr, Lee’s whole letter click here.
As you can see, even the World Health Organization is not above the fray when it comes to ethics
breaches, conflicts of interest and, knowingly or unknowingly, further lining the pockets of drug
company shareholders.
Summary
As we see from the evidence above, the regulatory agencies that we entrusted to keep unsafe drugs
off the market and make legitimate recommendations about public health have been compromised
just like the medical journals. It is really no surprise that these agencies would be a target for
corruption. After all, they are the agencies that pharmaceutical companies need to get their products
on the market. They are also the agencies that can declare epidemics or outbreaks, which
significantly increase vaccine uptake. In many cases the beneficiaries of such declarations and the
resulting uptick in vaccine sales are those who sit on the boards of these organizations.
We have several highly credible industry insiders telling us that these agencies are not there to serve
the public’s interest and their full allegiance is to drug makers. These agencies have corroborated Dr.
Angell’s and Dr. Graham’s assertions with their actions. We have proof that these agencies have
covered up crucial safety information about vaccines. It would not be difficult to imagine that maybe
the reason the CDC recommended vaccine schedule has increased so much in the last 20 years is
because of the incestuous relationship between the CDC and drug makers. So when parents learn
about these relationships and the behavior of these agencies, can you fault them for their lack of trust
or for being skeptical about the information coming out of them? I think not.
10/9/2019 Are Vaccines Safe and Effective? - Vision Launch
Are Vaccines Safe and Effective?

visionlaunch.com/vaccines-safe-effective
Image Source: yournewswire.com
A Comprehensive Look at Vaccines: Part 5 of 12
The Most Important Question

The most important question for most people is: are vaccines safe and effective? More and more,
parents want to know if they if they are putting their child’s well-being at risk by vaccinating, and
whether they will be protected as a result. Unfortunately, the hard evidence tells us that not all
children who go through the vaccination process come out unharmed or protected. The evidence
also tells us that vaccines are not always effective, and in many cases, they are not effective at all.
There is even compelling evidence linking vaccines to autism which we will discuss later in this series
in part 9, but let’s take a look at vaccine safety and efficacy first.
What is the Vaccine Injury Compensation Program?
visionlaunch.com/vaccines-safe-effective/ 1/13
In 1986, pharmaceutical lobbying resulted in Congress passing the National Childhood Vaccine Injury
Act. This created the Vaccine Injury Compensation Program, or VICP. Sometimes referred to as
the ‘Vaccine Court’, VICP does not refer to a court with a jury, but is actually an administrative
procedure that serves to protect the pharmaceutical industry from civil litigation based on injuries and
deaths that result from vaccines. Whenever federal health officials determine that compensation is
not due a family who petitions them for vaccine related injury or death, the case is heard by an
administrator in US Claims Court.
Drug companies are not required to take part in the proceedings and taxpayers foot the bill for any
damages awarded. There is no discovery process required for a hearing in vaccine court, thereby
keeping potentially incriminating evidence obscured. Circumventing the standard legal process in this
way shields drug companies from liability for the vaccines they manufacture and sell while also
keeping such litigation and its findings out of the public view. In the video, the mother of a child
injured by vaccines characterized the vaccine court process as:
In 1988, the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program was created as a result of the National
Vaccine Injury Act. To date, more than $3 billion has been paid out to thousands of people for vaccine
injuries. This huge amount is telling, as the system is specifically designed to make it difficult to win
these awards. It also tells us that vaccines are obviously not as safe as we are led to believe.
The most troubling part of the compensation program is that it completely absolves pharmaceutical
companies of any legal recourse regarding vaccine products. We see how these companies have
conducted themselves when faced with litigation, and now they are completely shielded and have the
American taxpayers pick up the tab with nothing to motivate them to make vaccines that are safe and
effective. Also, because there is no discovery process in the VICP, pharmaceutical companies do not
have to disclose any damaging data with their product.
In her July, 2015 article, Sally Fallon Morell, President of The Weston A. Price Foundation,
describes the VICP:
“The biggest impediment to the vaccine producers was huge lawsuits for vaccine injuries; the VICP
gave the pharmaceutical companies immunity from prosecution for injuries, and paved the way for
the rapid growth of the vaccine industry. Compensation comes from a seventy-five cent tax on each
vaccine given.”
In the same article, Fallon Morell describes how certain VICP data has simply disappeared from
public view:
Since January of 2014, twice as many victims have won compensation

than the previous eight years combined. In these cases, the vaccine court
ruled the evidence showed vaccines “more likely than not” caused the
plaintiff’s injuries. Also on the rise is the number of vaccine injury cases
the government has “conceded”: up 55 percent in a little over one year.
However in March the federal government removed the latest vaccine
injury court statistics—more than a year’s worth of data—from one of its
publicly reported charts.
Fallon Morell explains that changing the monthly report means that the public cannot see “…the
recent sharp rise in court victories for plaintiffs who claimed that they or their children were seriously
injured or killed by one or more vaccines. For example, the number of flu vaccine cases conceded by
the government since January of 2014 is more than double the previous eight years combined. The
adjudication chart only reflects half of the current number.”
You can review the HRSA’s ‘monthly statistics report’ on VCIP cases for yourself. You will be able
to verify that this data is aggregate, versus a monthly report. Therefore, the government’s report is
of no use in identifying current safety threats posed by any particular vaccine.
What Is VAERS?
VAERS is an acronym for Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System which is a national safety
surveillance program co-sponsored by the Centers for Disease Control (CDC) and the Food and
Drug Administration (FDA), which was started in 1990. VAERS was created to track adverse events
after the administration of routine vaccines.
In response to The National Childhood Vaccine Act (NCVIA) of 1986, health officials and vaccine
manufacturers are supposed to report to the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS)
adverse events that arise from routine vaccinations. An adverse event can range from a small side
effect to more serious injury and death.
According to their website, VAERS receives around 30,000 adverse event reports annually with 13%
classified as serious (e.g., associated with disability, hospitalization, life threatening illness or death).
That works out to around 4,000 cases per year. What is not usually discussed, but is openly admitted
by VAERS, is that because this is a self-reporting system and diagnosing adverse events can be very
subjective, it is estimated that only 1-10% of all adverse reactions are ever reported to VAERS.
Doctors have been conditioned to not connect a child’s subsequent maladies with vaccine visits,
therefore the bulk of the cases go unreported.
When we look at the trend in reported incidents, VAERS cases are rising steadily every year. So far,
2014 had the most reported cases of adverse events following vaccines, with a record 38,519
reports.
In her November 2005 article, Lynn Borne describes the multiple problems with VAERS: “When a
vaccine is released onto the market, post-marketing surveillance is supposed to track any negative
reactions from the millions of people taking the newly released vaccine. However, not only is the
adverse reporting system entirely voluntary, 90 to 99 percent of all adverse reactions are never
reported…”. Borne points out that “….no oversight of any kind ensures that reports made directly to
the pharmaceutical companies are then forwarded to the FDA–the process is run entirely by the
“honor system.”
Borne goes on to discuss President Bush’s Smallpox Vaccination Program of 2003. “Before the
program, the public was repeatedly told to expect death rates from the vaccine of one to two per
million.” In fact, she states, 3 deaths occurred out of about 36,000 civilians who received the vaccine.
“This makes the actual death rate 80 times higher than that which the CDC told the public to expect.
Serious adverse reactions such as brain swelling, heart inflammation, heart attacks, uncontrolled
ulceration of the skin, among others, were one in 583, seven times higher than the CDC’s original
guesstimate of one in four thousand. And yet medical authorities and mainstream news continue to
use the old, inaccurate numbers rather than update the risk estimate as they should.”
Borne noted that “…just as with childhood vaccination reactions, reporting adverse reactions during
the smallpox vaccine was not mandatory and was also limited to an arbitrary and ill-defined time
frame of 2-4 weeks.” She points out that we cannot know what deaths and injuries actually occurred
as a result of the vaccine in the months and years that followed. Borne concludes: “All of these
important risks should have been studied and tracked for an honest assessment of the true risk of
this vaccine, but researchers missed this valuable opportunity due to the usual shoddy and
incomplete tracking system that reflects the poor science behind vaccine development.”
Are Vaccines Safe?

While the exact number of cases may be debated, what the Vaccine Injury Compensation Program
and VAERS clearly show us is that vaccines sometimes have life altering negative consequences.
This is an inarguable fact. Once our government decided that pharmaceutical companies weren’t
going to be responsible for the safety of the vaccines they manufacture, they had to create some kind
of system for handling vaccine injuries. Our federal government had to create a multi-billion dollar
Vaccine Injury Compensation trust fund to compensate vaccine injured children and set up a
reporting system to track serious adverse vaccine reactions, up to and including death.
This shows that, without a doubt, vaccines are in fact NOT safe for
everyone.
In my opinion, what is forgotten in the debate, but could end up having the greatest impact on our
children’s health, is that we have no idea about the long term safety of vaccines. There are no long
term studies on this topic. Vaccine trials typically last for only 4-8 weeks and are simply not designed
to determine long term vaccine health effects. There have also been no studies performed on the
combination of multiple vaccines typically given in one doctors visit. By design, these clinical trials
test for effectiveness, not safety, and short or long term health effects are not even on the radar.
Scientists are only looking to see if the vaccine creates the desired response that can produce
antigens so the drug can obtain FDA approval.
For example, look at the Flulaval (flu vaccine) package insert below. Outlined in red it clearly states ”
Safety and effectiveness of Flulaval in pediatric patients have not been established.” You can
also add pregnant women to that statement because there is no data showing safety for this
population either, yet this vaccine is widely promoted for babies starting at 6 months and for pregnant
women.
Lest you think this particular package insert is an exception to the rule, you can visit this site to
download the package insert from any number of vaccines. This site also contains a link to the
current approved U.S. vaccine schedule. Reading every vaccine package insert in depth will certainly
yield a great deal of information that contradicts the popular message about vaccine safety, but you
don’t have to rely solely on them for your research. There are a number of highly credible experts in
the field who have shared their own concerns about vaccine safety.
Dr. J. Anthony Morris, Former Chief Vaccine Control Officer and

Research Virologist, US FDA
In July, 2014, The Washington Post published Dr. Morris’ obituary, which noted that he was “forced
into retirement after public disagreements with superior officers over the efficiency of federal vaccine
programs and the effectiveness of influenza vaccines”. According to the obituary, “he accused the
government of basing its mass vaccine programs for flu primarily on claims made by pharmaceutical
manufacturers.” Dr. Morris went on the Phil Donahue Show in 1976 and told America that the Swine
Flu vaccine he’d been testing at the FDA was neither safe nor effective. He was subsequently fired
for insubordination after going public with his concerns. A paper titled Whistleblowing and research
integrity: making a difference through scientific freedom, currently in press in the Handbook of
Academic Integrity, notes that Dr. Morris was correct. The swine flu vaccine “…led to deaths or
paralysis in hundreds of cases, and the incidence of swine flu was seven times higher for those who
received it than those who did not.”
If you’re interested in accessing more facts, quotes, opinions and graphics regarding the safety of
vaccines, you can take a look at the compendium on this blog and follow any given citation
wherever it may lead. If you want to see what the body of research actually says about vaccine
safety and effectiveness, you can pick up a copy Neil Z. Miller’s just published book, “Miller’s
Review of Critical Vaccine Studies: 400 Important Scientific Papers Summarized for Parents
and Researchers”, wherein he summarizes the results of 400 scientific studies on the topic.
Some More VAERS Data

The HPV Vaccine is relatively new and was one of the vaccines that was fast tracked to market. As
you can see from the chart below, safety is not a real concern for vaccine makers. Keep in mind that
VAERS only captures a fraction of adverse events, per the former head of the FDA, and this chart
reflects adverse events following the administration of only one of the scheduled vaccines (HPV
vaccine) during a 6-year period. For a more thorough discussion of the safety and effectiveness of
the HPV vaccine, check out this short video.
Is The Current Vaccination Schedule Safe?
Up to 13 Vaccines in One Visit?

Why are we giving our children so many doses in one visit? We have seen some immediate deadly
reactions with some children taking multiple vaccines. Some anecdotal evidence is this case where
a doctor gave a 6 month old 13 doses in one visit and the baby died 5 days later. Another one-
year-old died after six doses in one visit. A four month old baby died after receiving 7 vaccines
in one visit. What are the consequences of so many shots at once, on an undeveloped immune
system? The answer, again, is that we don’t know. There is no research on the safety of receiving
multiple vaccinations in one visit, yet that policy is strongly promoted. I don’t want to sound like I’m
nitpicking but we have thousands of children being vaccine-injured every year, as well as a whole
host of autoimmune diseases and neurodevelopmental disorders manifesting in our children with
increasing frequency. What could be the justification for our regulatory agencies failing to require this
kind of research? Isn’t it strange that the CDC would recommend 6 vaccines at once for a 2 month
old infant without any proof whatsoever that 1) individual vaccines are safer for children than forgoing
them and 2) all the recommended vaccines can be given safely in combination?
Dr. Paul Offit (vaccine patent owner and widely accepted mainstream vaccine authority) tells
us: “Vaccines are not a belief system, they are an evidence-based system,” he said. “Vaccines
stand on a mountain of evidence — you don’t have to believe in vaccines any more than you
have to believe in gravity or evolution.”
“ In fact, Dr. Offit’s studies show that in theory, healthy infants

could safely get up to 100,000 vaccines at once.”
Dr. Offit later backed down to 10,000 vaccines at once. How can Dr. Offit or any responsible person
advocate such nonsense, in the absence of any studies to back up the safety of receiving even 3
shots at once? What Dr. Offit should have actually said is: ‘In my opinion, it is safe to take 100,000 or
10,000 vaccines at once.’ When vaccines are tested, they are only done one at a time. When
administering 3, 6 or 10 vaccines at once, you are administering dozens of ingredients and chemicals
that interact with one another and with the unique physiology of each recipient.
U.S.: Highest Vaccination Rate & Infant Mortality Rate

Is there a link between Sudden Infant Death Syndrome (SIDS) and vaccinations? A 1983 study was
conducted to determine if there is a temporal association between DTP immunization and SIDS. The
following is a quote directly from the findings of the published study:
These SIDS deaths were significantly more than expected were there no
association between DTP immunization and SIDS.
And this:
These data suggest a temporal association between DTP immunization,

physician visits without DTP immunization and SIDS.
Don’t be misled by the red herring (doctor’s visits) in this research. It sounds like the authors might
have started out earnestly seeking an answer but by the time the study got published, someone
thought it was a good idea to throw in another variable to muddy the waters. Of course, we already
know that babies are scheduled for well child exams during the period of time when SIDS is most
likely to occur. It would have been heartening to see a more thorough analysis of these findings to
determine more precisely why babies who died of SIDS were more likely to have recently received a
DTP vaccine.
Green Med info published an article about a study titled: “Adverse events following Haemophilus
influenzae type b vaccines in the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System, 1990-2013,which
references CDC and FDA’s denial of any link between vaccines and SIDS despite their own research
data. Author Sayer Ji asks the question: “…what happens when the actual evidence from the
scientific and clinical literature produced by these very agencies contradicts their own vaccine
policies?”
This is exactly what has happened with the publication of a new study in
the Journal of Pediatrics titled ,“Adverse Events following Haemophilus
influenzae Type b Vaccines in the Vaccine Adverse Event
ReportingSystem, 1990-2013,” wherein CDC and FDA researchers identify
749 deaths linked to the administration of the Hib vaccine, 51% of which
were sudden infant death linked to the administration of Hib vaccine.
Despite the shocking findings outlined above, the conclusion reads: “Review of VAERS reports did
not identify any new or unexpected safety concerns for Hib vaccines.” Odd, no? I’m no
scientist, but I certainly have some safety concerns. At the very least, you might imagine the authors
would have some recommendations for further study based on their findings. The findings should
have been alarming, but the only thing that gets reported is the unsubstantiated conclusion.
Not unlike many studies whose findings threaten the safe and effective message, this one was buried
by publisher Elsevier, who charges outrageous prices to access it. Here’s another funny thing. The
authors of this study work for CDC and the FDA, which is to say, organizations that are supposed to
work for the American taxpayer. We funded the study, but we have to pay $30 to view it for 24 hours.
More Safety Issues

There are many published articles that report on the injuries from vaccines but they are rarely
publicized in the U.S.
An article published in 2014 in The Japan Times explained some of what has happened in that
country relative to vaccine related injuries and deaths:
In the 1970s, about 300 victims and relatives of children who died after receiving vaccinations
against smallpox and other diseases in Tokyo, Nagoya, Osaka and Fukuoka fought against the
government and won compensation in the 1980s and ’90s.
Japan introduced the MMR (measles, mumps and rubella) vaccine in 1989 but was forced to
take it off the shelves four years later after about 2,000 people suffered side effects that
included aseptic meningitis.
These incidents led to a major revision of the Preventive Vaccination Law in 1994, with
lawmakers deciding to recategorize vaccination from being mandatory to one that is routine
and optional.
The Japan Times article cites statistics compiled by the health ministry which reveal that 38 infants
died after receiving the Haemophilus influenzae type B or streptococcus pneumoniae vaccines
between 2011 and 2014. There were more than 2,000 complaints lodged as a result of side effects of
the new HPV vaccine. Japan withdrew its recommendation for HPV vaccine in 2013.
The same article discusses the opinion of Hiroko Mori, the former head of the infectious disease
section at the Institute of Public Health in Japan:
“Medicine is supposed to be about healing, but babies who cannot speak

are being given unnecessary shots because parents are scared. Children
are losing their ability to heal naturally.”
“There are so many people who have suffered side effects (from vaccination),” Mori says. “All we are
asking is to establish the right to say ‘no.’ The right to choose should be recognized as a fundamental
human right.”
How Vaccines Should Be Tested

It just makes sense that if you want to learn the effects of a particular drug or vaccine, you would
compare what happens in a group of people exposed to it, versus what happens in a group not
exposed to it. This is the cornerstone of sound scientific methodology and it is used to ensure that
research results are valid and reliable. In science, valid means you’re measuring what you think
you’re measuring and reliable means you get the same results in multiple trials. The scientific
method requires that credible research is both valid and reliable. The first two charts below illustrate
how scientist achieve validity and reliability by using a placebo-controlled research design.
How Vaccines Are Typically Tested:

The illustrations below document two examples of actual clinical vaccine trials. Vaccine trials are
very often conducted using flawed research designs, whereby there is no true placebo. In these
trials, instead of the control group receiving a harmless placebo, they receive everything in the
vaccine except for the active ingredient. That means they are injected with some or all of the same
chemicals and byproducts present in the vaccine, minus the virus itself.
By doing this, researchers deliberately skew the results in favor of safety. There is never a way to
compare outcomes between those who receive the vaccine and those who do not. In fact, they have
to go to some level of trouble and expense to distort the process in this way, but it reaps dividends for
them by helping them avoid gathering data which would be hard to explain or justify. In other words,
maybe the virus they’re injecting could be safe, but the aluminum, for example, is not. If this were the
case, this kind of flawed research would never reveal it.
You Will Not Find What You’re Not Looking For

When we see how vaccines are tested, and the utter lack of important testing, it’s really not surprising
that there are so many VAERS reports on vaccines. As the examples above demonstrate, clinical
vaccine trials are actually designed to avoid gathering data that would yield information about overall
safety of the product. This fact, in and of itself, should be cause for sincere concern. It is clear that
drug makers actively avoid learning of adverse effects, rather than strive to discover and remedy
them.
The utter lack of true placebo-controlled vaccine trials is a glaring problem and it reflects a deliberate
choice on the part of regulatory agencies and drug companies to look the other way when it comes to
vaccine safety. It smacks of collusion among these entities and shows an utter disregard for those
they would mandate be vaccinated. Anyone citing clinical vaccine trials that were conducted in this
manner as the basis for their argument for vaccine safety or effectiveness is either naive or
deceptive; they are either the dupers or the duped. Flawed research in vaccine clinical trials yields
data that is neither valid nor reliable and this is at the heart of the trust issue, particularly among
skeptics who are schooled in the sciences.
Are Vaccines Effective?

The answer to this question is: we don’t know. We know that most vaccines produce antigens for
some people but we have no conclusive evidence on how that really translates into immunity. If we
believe the medical journals, vaccines have varied efficacy rates. However, we have MANY (too
many to fit in this article) documented cases that prove that vaccines were not effective, and it is
reasonable to suspect there are many others that we don’t know about. These cases not only
challenge the effectiveness of vaccines, they also show that vaccine acquired herd immunity is not a
viable theory.
In a study published in the British Journal of Medicine, researchers found that influenza vaccines
have had little or no effect on reducing the incidence of influenza.
When we look at the historical graphs and see where vaccines were introduced in relation to disease
down-trends, it is really difficult to identify vaccines as the cause. It seems much more likely that
improvements in sanitation accounted for the decline. We go into further detail about this topic later in
this article and in greater depth in Part 8 of this series.
Recent Cases That Question Vaccine Effectiveness

For years, China has experienced measles outbreaks despite the fact that 99% of the population
has been vaccinated. In 2014 there was a well- documented flu outbreak aboard a US Navy
minesweeper, among a highly vaccinated population. The FDA released a notice in 2013 reporting
that the pertussis vaccine did not prevent pertussis, noting outbreaks among the fully vaccinated:
“There were 48,000 cases reported last year despite high rates of vaccination,” said Anthony S.
Fauci, M.D., director of the NIH’s National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases. These are just
a handful of examples that point to major problems with vaccine effectiveness.
Here is another article that further calls into question the effectiveness of vaccines. A February, 2015,
NBC article titled, Flu Vaccine Doesn’t Work in Europe, goes into some detail about the
effectiveness of the influenza vaccine. The article notes that the flu vaccine was almost completely
ineffective last year against the flu that was present in Europe and the U.S., protecting only about 3
percent of those vaccinated, as estimated by British health officials. According to this article, U.S.
health officials said the flu vaccine reduced disease risk by 23 percent.
In fact, a study published in the journal Eurosurveillance in February, 2015,

found that the overall vaccine effectiveness in preventing influenza was 3.4
percent.
This information makes you wonder whether there might be a connection between the highly
ineffective 2014-2015 flu vaccine and the disappearance of the VICP data we discussed earlier. In a
June, 2015 article, Sharyl Attkisson describes what amounts to a flu shot catastrophe, where the
number of flu vaccine cases conceded by the government was more than double the previous eight
years combined. The government altered the way it reports data at exactly the same time people
were receiving a very ineffective flu shot that was also especially dangerous. Attkisson sorted out the
data that has become obscured by the new reporting format in her article titled “Government Wipes
Recent Injury Data From Website.”
Reno County, Kansas has been experiencing an outbreak of pertussis, commonly referred to as
whooping cough. An August, 2015 article in Natural News reports: “A majority of the people coming
down with whooping cough in Reno County, Kansas, were vaccinated against the disease, according
to the county’s health department.”
A spokesperson for Hutchinson Schools took it further, noting that

every case he had seen was in a vaccinated child.
A July, 2015 article published in The Vaccine Reaction, Pertussis in Reno County: Another
Outbreak Among the Vaccinated?, explains that most of the people contracting pertussis in
outbreaks across the country have been fully vaccinated.
Dr. Anne Schuchat is the director of the Centers for Disease Control’s (CDC) National Center for
Immunization and Respiratory Diseases. In an article titled “CDC: Whooping Cough Heading to a
50-Year High,” published by WebMD Health News on July 19, 2012, Dr. Schuchat is reported to
have said that “better diagnosis and reporting of whooping cough may be contributing to the
increased numbers, along with the fact that the disease tends to peak and wane in cycles. It does not
appear that anti-vaccination sentiment among parents has contributed to either the national rise in
cases or the Washington State epidemic.”
Note the following excerpt from “Immunized People Getting Whooping Cough” published by
KPBS of San Diego State University on June 12, 2014:
“Most of the people who got whooping cough in San Diego County so far
this year were up to date with their immunizations, according to county
data. Of the 621 people who contracted the illness, 85% had all their
preventative shots—calling into question the efficacy of the vaccine.”
In 2012, Reuters published an article about a study published in the Clinical Infectious Diseases
journal.In looking at 132 patients who tested positive for pertussis, the researchers discovered that
81% of them had received all of the recommended pertussis vaccines and boosters and 11% had
received at least one round of the vaccine.
In 2012, there was a major outbreak of pertussis in Vermont. As of August

10 of that year, public health officials had determined that 90% of 178
infected children in the state between the ages of six months and 18 years
old had received at least one dose of the pertussis vaccine, and that about
80% of them had gotten 5-6 doses.
Based on what we know and on what even the CDC has admitted, the pertussis vaccine cannot be
considered effective.
Here is an article documenting a 2015 Today Show segment, titled “Flu Vaccine Barely Working
This Year, CDC Says” which goes into more detail. The segment notes “The flu vaccine is barely
protecting people this year – reducing the risk of serious disease by just 23 percent, federal health
officials said Thursday. It’s not the worst year ever for the flu vaccine – there have been years when
the flu vaccine was only 10 percent effective.”
A January, 2015 article, titled “Navy Proves Flu Shot Doesn’t Work”, explains one recent example
of flu shot failure and why some experts don’t recommend it. There was an outbreak of influenza
among 102 individuals on a U.S. Navy minesweeper. A full 96 percent of them had received the flu
vaccine. The author quotes Dr. David Brownstein, a holistic family physician:
“I guess I could encourage people to get vaccinated if the flu vaccine

actually worked and did not contain toxic additives,” says Dr. Brownstein.
“However, the opposite is true: It doesn’t work, and it contains mercury
and formaldehyde. The toxicity of the flu vaccine is reason enough in and
of itself to avoid it.”
Here is another article about a pertussis outbreak in Park City Utah: 19 confirmed cases of
pertussis and all 19 were vaccinated.
Historical Effectiveness of Vaccines

When we see some of the writings from the late 19th and early 20th centuries, we learn that vaccines
were not that effective at their inception, either. Dr. Charles Creighton was a scholar, historian and
epidemiologist. He was a strong and credible voice against vaccines and chronicled his research in
his book, “Jenner and Vaccination, a Strange Chapter in Medical History.”
In his book, Dr. Creighton summarized how he imagined history would view the practice of
vaccinating:
“It is difficult to conceive what will be the excuse made for a century of
cowpoxing; but it cannot be doubted that the practice will appear in as
absurd a light to the common sense of the twentieth century as blood-
letting now does to us. Vaccination differs, however, from all previous
errors of the faculty, in being maintained as the law of the land on the
warrant of medical authority. That is the reason why the blow to
professional credit can hardly help being severe, and why the efforts to
ward it off have been, and will continue to be so ingenious.“
Dr. Walter R. Hadwen

Dr. Hadwen was a brilliant man and an acclaimed scholar who wrote his first article on the topic of
vaccines in 1923, titled The Fraud of Vaccination. He was an outspoken proponent of researching
matters for oneself, rather than following the herd or trusting common wisdom. His research led him
to consider traditional medicine’s stance on vaccines “a grotesque superstition”. Dr. Hadwen pointed
out the fact that vaccines often killed more people than the disease they were designed to prevent.
Dr. Hadwen became famous for shepherding the city of Gloucester, England, through a smallpox
epidemic in a shorter time than any other. He accomplished this by favoring hygiene and isolation of
the infected, over vaccination.
This is only an introduction to the pioneering skeptics in the field and their research showing that
vaccines never were the highly effective disease preventatives advertised. As you can see in part 8
of this series, there is compelling evidence showing that vaccines did not eradicate diseases
in the 20th century like we were all told.
Summary
As we can clearly see, vaccines have been proven to be neither safe nor effective, as we are so
often told. What is most troubling is that so many of us have no idea about VAERS or the Vaccine
Injury Compensation Program because doctors don’t typically tell parents the real risks of
vaccination. To do so would risk diminishing vaccine uptake and that would be a blow to everyone
who is invested, literally and figuratively, in the pharmaceutical industry. If people know the facts
about vaccine injury, more and more will opt out. If we’re looking at what the authorities are sharing
with us about the risks and benefits of vaccines, we can in no way consider the consent we give to be
informed consent.
Let’s look at this another way: What other product would you buy and put in your children’s bodies,
knowing that the manufacturer had conducted no long term safety studies? Outside of vaccines,
what other chemical cocktails would you happily ingest or inject, based solely on the advice of
authorities, all of whom stand to profit from their sale? Consider an example that’s even more benign
than injected viruses and chemicals: Would you buy a particular model of car if research showed that
30%-40% of the time, it might result in some kind of adverse effect, injury or even death? Would it
matter that the manufacturer had sold that model for decades? If they had the slickest ad campaign
in the world? If 5 out 5 salespeople recommended it? Would you want to see the data? What if the
only data they could show you had been manipulated to hide results that could hurt sales? Oh, and
by the way, the car may not even work.
I certainly realize that a vaccine and a car are different in many ways, but they are both products from
businesses. Somehow, we live in a reality in which the cars we drive are more stringently tested than
the vaccines we inject. Car companies have some accountability for their products while drug
manufacturers have no such motivation to create safe and effective vaccine products.
So at the end of the day, parents are forced to play a game of vaccine roulette with their children’s
safety, because we really don’t have the data we need in order to know which children are at risk for
which injury at which developmental stage or at what age. We are so bereft of data, we don’t even
know the scope of what we don’t know. In the absence of valid and reliable data, we have not yet
begun to identify the various factors that mitigate vaccine safety or effectiveness.
Part 10:Why Don’t We Hear The Whole Story About Vaccines?
10/9/2019 What Are the Real Risks of Not Vaccinating in the U.S.? - Vision Launch
What Are the Real Risks of Not Vaccinating in the U.S.?

visionlaunch.com/what-are-the-real-risks-of-not-vaccinating-in-the-us
Image Source: springfieldnewssun.com
What Are the Current Risks of Infectious Disease in the US?

We are repeatedly told by health officials and the media that those who do not vaccinate are reckless
and irresponsible and that they are not only putting themselves, but everyone at risk. The question is,
exactly what are the risks of choosing not to vaccinate? How bad are these diseases that vaccines
are designed to prevent? Are unvaccinated children really that dangerous? Before we go any further,
I would like to point out that most childhood infectious disease mortality rates were firmly in decline
before most vaccines were even introduced. We even have documented cases that show that
communities who stopped mandatory vaccines actually did better than those who didn’t. You can
read more about this in part 8 in this series. In fact it turned out that sanitation and modernity
had much more of an effect on the eradication of infectious diseases than vaccines ever did.
What Has Changed in the Last 50 Years?
visionlaunch.com/what-are-the-real-risks-of-not-vaccinating-in-the-us/ 1/13
I don’t want to minimize the threat of a massive outbreak of a truly deadly virus because there is that
possibility, but at the same time, I think it’s important to put some of these more common childhood
diseases in perspective. Back in the 60’s and 70’s most of these diseases were considered
benign. What catastrophic event regarding infectious diseases has happened since then that has
everyone so scared and turning against each other? We even have some people calling for the
imprisonment of people who do not vaccinate.
In 2015, when the Disneyland measles “outbreak” occurred, the media and health officials were quick
to spread fear and point fingers at unvaccinated children for what turned out to be just over 150
cases nationwide. Really? Just a few decades ago, we did not get hysterical about a few dozen or
hundred measles, mumps, flu or chickenpox cases, even though we were historically closer in time to
the last deadly outbreaks which occurred earlier in the twentieth century. We did not have parents
turning on each other either. Before vaccines were even introduced, most childhood infectious
disease mortality rates had dropped by over 95%. Our doctors knew that these diseases were
benign and benefited children in many ways including their developing lifelong immunity to the
disease.
Yes, in some cases, these diseases can cause complications, particularly for people with weak
immune systems and for those who live in less developed countries with sub-standard living
conditions, poor sanitation and inadequate nutrition. In the U.S., however, common childhood
illnesses result in a statistically small number of complications. In part 6 we will take a calm, rational
look at the real risks of infectious diseases in the U.S.
Influenza
The seasonal influenza vaccine is one of the most widely distributed vaccines and it also has the
most cases on record with the vaccine injury compensation program. The influenza vaccine is one of
the only vaccines to still contain the controversial mercury-based thimerosal. You can get this
vaccination from just about anywhere, including your local pharmacy and retail giant stores like
Walmart.
One of the things we know about the influenza virus is that there are so many different strains that
scientists cannot always predict which strain might show up from year to year. Despite dire warnings
and advice to get the flu shot, it turns out that even the scientists who develop the vaccine can’t
vouch for its effectiveness.
The swine flu scare of the late 70’s turned out to be based on four people with the illness. In fact, only
one person died from the swine flu, while at least 25 died from the vaccine. The swine flu vaccine
that was used was never tested before distribution and subsequently injured thousands. The recent
flu scares turned out to be more hype too.
Are we really that worried about the seasonal flu in regard to epidemics? I would certainly not want
my loved ones damaged or killed by a deadly strain of the flu but at the same time, statistically, I am
more worried about automobiles, cigarettes or even cheeseburgers when it comes to odds of death.
The risk versus reward balance regarding the influenza vaccine is also something to seriously
consider too, with effectiveness rates as low as 20% in some years, and others not effective at
all. There are also many other examples of vaccines that did not perform that we cover extensively in
part 5, 7, and 8 of this series.
In a study published in the British Journal of Medicine, researchers found that influenza vaccines
have had little or no effect on reducing the incidence of influenza. Now take a look at the actual risk
of the flu.
Influenza Deaths Highly Exaggerated

Seasonal flu deaths are much lower than most people may realize. The CDC once had influenza
deaths listed at 36,000 (now at 3,000—49,000) per year but we are told those numbers are not
accurate because the CDC skews the statistics by including pneumonia deaths in the numbers.
The above chart is from an article titled “Flu Myths” that uses CDC data on actual Influenza deaths
per year in the US, broken down into age groups. As you can see, the vast majority of influenza
deaths (88%) occur in populations of 65 years and older.
According to CDC records, 88% of influenza deaths occur in those

over 65 years old. The influenza mortality rate for children under 15
years old on average is 3% of total deaths or less than 20 deaths per
year. Why are we giving millions of infants, children and pregnant
mothers mercury laden flu shots that have not been proven safe and
effective ?
Less than 20 deaths a year from the flu in the U.S. with children under 15 years old. This campaign
for children to get their flu shots makes absolutely no sense at all, especially when you factor in the
costs of administering all these vaccines, both in dollars and vaccine damaged children. It’s like we
are trying to kill a mosquito with a shotgun. To put that in perspective, well over 100 times that
number die every year by something as innocuous as water, mostly bathtubs and pools. We lose
more children to television accidents (falls) than the flu.
Dr Mark Geier
Dr. Mark Geier raised questions about the safety of vaccines and paid the price at the hands of the
medical establishment. Although he has extensive experience as a doctor, scientist and geneticist,
when he tried to make vaccines safer he was professionally attacked and subsequently lost his
license to practice. One of the main concerns of Dr. Geier was the fact that mercury-based thimerosal
was still in childhood vaccines, via the influenza vaccine. He also points out that the threat of the flu
is highly exaggerated. In the above video Dr. Geier talks about why the influenza vaccine is not
effective and the fact that it is not tested for safety or efficacy. As you can see below, it is right on the
package insert.
Peter Doshi
In 2005, Peter Doshi wrote an article that was published in the British Medical Journal titled “Are US
flu death figures more PR than science?” Doshi addresses the fact that CDC skews flu death
statistics, making it appear that many thousands more Americans die from the flu each year than
they do in reality. His message is clear: CDC flu death numbers simply don’t line up with national vital
statistics numbers. What makes this problem even worse, according to Doshi, is the “… marketing of
fear—a CDC communications strategy in which medical experts “predict dire outcomes” during flu
seasons.” So the CDC dishes up a double whammy that drives up flu shot sales: inflated death
statistics paired with scary predictions and urgent warnings to get the vaccine. To seal the deal, the
flu shot is now widely available and you don’t need a doctor or a nurse to give it to you. Pharmacies
around the country have boosted sales by offering walk-in flu shots and they’re free — your health
insurance picks up the tab.
Our media continue to report the inflated CDC numbers as if they are fact, with no attention given to
the discrepancies. As Dr. Geier points out in the video above, about 300 million flu shots are given
each year, versus 20 million childhood vaccines. Dr. Geier asks: “Which one do you think matters to
them monetarily and power-wise?” Follow the money.
Measles
We are led to believe that the measles is a very dangerous disease and, while that can be true in
certain circumstances, for the average American, not so much. Measles complications arise most
often among those with weakened immune systems and those living in less developed countries. In
the last 10 years more people died in the U.S. from the MMR vaccine than from measles.
A WHO measles fact sheet notes:
The overwhelming majority (more than 95%) of measles deaths

occur in countries with low per capita incomes and weak health
infrastructures.– World Health Organization
In a 2012 interview with Dr. Joseph Mercola, pediatrician Dr. Lawrence Palevsky explains the typical
course for a case of measles: “The measles is a classic example, as in many cases it causes fever,
runny nose, cough and rash, but clears up in a few days without serious consequences.” Dr.
Palevsky also explains a concept from the study of virology which maintains that viruses actually
serve a function in the body which is to “… help protect the host, to clean the body out of waste, and
to remove obstacles for optimal cellular function. This is what we’re supposed to learn in medical
school, but don’t necessarily.”
Let’s look at the U.S. measles statistics during the last century:
The CDC chart below depicts U.S. measles cases over the past 15 years:
As we see in these charts, in a population of over 300 million people, there are a few hundred cases
of measles each year and measles deaths are now a rare occurrence. Measles is a primarily benign
disease and recovery from measles may actually be beneficial to our immune systems. This doesn’t
sound like something we should be overly concerned about.
In 2015, the CDC recorded 189 cases of the measles that occurred
within 5 different “outbreaks.” This doesn’t even move the needle as
far as health related concerns go in this country, yet these are
portrayed as dangerous outbreaks. In reality, they are statistically
non-events.
Human Papillomavirus (HPV)

And now we come to the HPV vaccine. This is a relatively new vaccine whose marketing implies that
it can prevent cervical cancer in women, even though there are no conclusive studies that prove
this. There are scores of young girls who claim to have been seriously damaged by this vaccine and
well over 100 deaths have been attributed to it so far. A New York Times article notes: “In the United
States, cervical cancer mortality rates plunged by 74% from 1955 – 1992 thanks to increased
screening and early detection with the Pap test.” As was the case with so many other diseases, the
HPV vaccine was introduced as the problem it’s designed to solve was already being addressed very
effectively. The CDC tells us that HPV is a very common virus and that most sexually active people
will contract it at some point. They also note that condoms can prevent the spread of HPV. In the
video below, Dr. Diane Harper explains that in about 90% of HPV cases, the body clears the virus on
its own within 2 years.
Dr. Diane Harper

Dr. Diane Harper is a practicing OB/GYN and was one of Merck’s lead researchers who developed
the Gardasil vaccine. According to Dr. Harper, the incidence of cancer resulting from HPV cases
turns out to be a very small percentage of HPV cases. After hearing what Dr. Harper says about the
low risk of getting invasive carcinoma from the HPV virus, let’s consider the VAERS data on Gardasil
and ask ourselves if it is really worth the risk to use this vaccine.
As we can see from the graphic above, the incidence of abnormal pap smears, cervical dysplasia (a
precancerous condition) and diagnoses of cervical cancer increased over this period, following
introduction of the HPV vaccine. An April, 2015 study found that “… vaccinated women had a higher
prevalence of nonvaccine high-risk types than unvaccinated women.” Dr. Mercola tells us that these
findings indicate that the HPV vaccine may actually make women more susceptible to more serious
strains of the virus. He also notes that at present, cervical cancer is responsible for less than 1% of
all cancer deaths in the US.
Hepatitis B
The Hepatitis B vaccine for infants is perhaps one the most questionable vaccines of all. Hepatitis B
is contracted primarily in two ways: IV drug use and sexual transmission. Infants are simply not in
that risk group. So why would we give newborn babies, only hours old, the Hep B vaccine? These
vaccines will wear off before a child would ever even need it. Even so, as you can see in the chart
below, Hepatitis B is not some national scourge that requires us to vaccinate our babies. This makes
no sense at all.
Dr. Jane Orient is the Executive Director of the Association of American Physicians & Surgeons, an
organization comprised of doctors which takes no money from drug companies. This group is not
anti-vaccine, but they oppose mandatory vaccines and have shared concerns regarding the
necessity and safety of the Hep b vaccine. In 1999, Dr. Orient testified before Congress about the
organization’s concerns. She said: “For most children, the risk of a serious vaccine reaction may be
100 times greater than the risk of hepatitis B.”
Polio
Even polio, the infamous and highly feared ‘epidemic’ of the 1950’s, has very little effect on 95% of
the population who contract it and only a minute percentage of the remaining 5% experience any
long term symptoms. The vast majority of those who contract polio will have no symptoms. Maybe
even more surprising is that synergistic factors have now been identified which account for the polio
spikes we saw in the earlier part of the last century. We will cover this extensively in part 8 of this
series.
Here is what expert vaccine researcher, Dr. Sherri Tenpenny, has to say about polio:
The polio virus normally lives in our guts. Most people will never know that they have polio because
up to 95% of all polio infections have no symptoms. About 5% of polio infections are accompanied
by some flu-like symptoms, such as an upper respiratory tract infection (sore throat and fever) and
gastrointestinal disturbances (nausea, vomiting, abdominal pain, and diarrhea). In this small number
of polio cases that have these symptoms, it is impossible to tell polio apart from many other types of
viruses, and it typically results in complete recovery. Once you’ve had polio, you will be immune to it
for the rest of your life. Less than 1% of all polio infections result in any kind of paralysis and the vast
majority of those who have it will still make a complete recovery.
The Mayo Clinic website affirms that “… the vast majority of people who are infected with the polio
virus don’t become sick and are never aware they’ve been infected with polio.” The site explains that
those with polio typically experience mild, flu-like symptoms which last 1-10 days.
For a very thorough and supremely researched perspective on the actual dangers of polio and its
supposed ‘eradication’ by the polio vaccine, you can watch Dr. Suzanne Humphries’ presentation
at the Association of Natural Health Conference in 2013.
Varicella (Chicken Pox)

Every death is significant and I do not want to minimize any of them, but as you can see on the chart
below, chicken pox is not statistically very deadly.
Even when chicken pox cases numbered in the hundreds of

thousands in the U.S. there were still well under 200 deaths per year.
This is hardly enough to warrant mass vaccinations and all the potential for adverse reactions that
come with any vaccine. Most children who contract chicken pox fully recover, with the benefit of
having developed lifelong immunity. Chicken pox tends to be more deadly if you get it as an adult,
without having had it as a child.
Some believe that the rise of the chickenpox vaccine is responsible for the increase in the number of
shingles cases diagnosed in the US. Dr. Mercola explains the relationship between the varicella
vaccine and an increase in shingles cases:
“The incidence of adult shingles has increased by 90 percent from

1998 to 2003, following the release of the chickenpox vaccine for
mass use. Shingles results in three times as many deaths and five
times as many hospitalizations as chickenpox, and accounts for 75
percent of all medical costs associated with the varicella zoster
virus.”
He explains that shingles can be prevented through contact with children who have had the virus,
thereby stimulating the immune response in small doses and thus, beefing up the immune system to
prevent a reactivation of the virus that results in shingles in adulthood. With fewer and fewer children
contracting chicken pox, he explains, this opportunity for natural immunity boosting is becoming lost.
Here is an excellent article on herd immunity, written by Dr. Suzanne Humphries, in which she
addresses the circumvention of natural contraction and its unintended consequences. Here she
quotes Gary S. Goldman, Ph.D., who has conducted extensive research on the topic of the chicken
pox vaccine:
“Prior to the universal varicella vaccination program, 95% of adults experienced natural chickenpox
(usually as school aged children)—these cases were usually benign and resulted in long term
immunity.
This high percentage of individuals having long term immunity has

been compromised by mass vaccination of children which provides
at best 70 to 90% immunity that is temporary and of unknown
duration—shifting chickenpox to a more vulnerable adult population
where chickenpox carries 20 times more risk of death and 15 times
more risk of hospitalization compared to children.
Add to this the adverse effects of both the chickenpox and shingles vaccines as well as the potential
for increased risk of shingles for an estimated 30 to 50 years among adults. The Universal Varicella
(Chickenpox) Vaccination Program now requires booster vaccines; however, these are less effective
than the natural immunity that existed in communities prior to licensure of the varicella vaccine.”
Whooping Cough (Pertussis)

When we look at the historical trend in the first chart below, you notice that, like most infectious
diseases in the 20th century, deaths due to pertussis (whooping cough) were rare after the 1950’s.
By the 1960’s, you can see that pertussis had all but vanished in the U.S. But something interesting
has happened with pertussis in the last 10 years. Despite widespread vaccination for the disease,
pertussis is popping up in pockets of fully vaccinated populations.
As we see here in the second chart, there has been a resurgence in pertussis cases despite
widespread vaccination. In a population of over 300 million people 2,000-3,000 cases per year is still
a very small number to worry about, but if this is a trend it could be a problem. There is mounting
evidence suggesting that pertussis may be mutating. This is not a new phenomenon. We have
seen bacteria adapt to inhospitable environments and mutate, to create new and more virulent
strains. This is just what has happened with various bacteria becoming resistant to the antibiotics
that have been over-prescribed to treat them.
Could This Aggressive Schedule Be Making Things Worse?

One of the challenges we face in medicine today is the over prescription of antibiotics, which causes
the mutation of bacteria, creating a new strain of the germ that is resistant to the drugs we have to
treat it. In an article titled, “5 Frightening Consequences of Overusing Antibiotics” CDC Director
Tom Frieden warns us of “nightmare bacteria” which have evolved against modern antibiotics. He
tells us that this can lead to strains that are more dangerous. Could we be doing the same thing with
vaccines? As we saw in part 5 of this article, vaccine effectiveness is anything but consistent and the
fact that we are seeing so many cases in fully vaccinated populations means that we must ask
ourselves what is the true worth of vaccines, especially when all the side effects are factored into the
equation.
There is evidence that whooping cough is evolving and becoming resistant to current vaccines.
What if we are actually making things worse with so many vaccinations? What if we are actually
promoting the development of a deadlier next generation of diseases with so many vaccinations?
What if infectious diseases serve to strengthen our immune systems but, by circumventing the
natural process, we are doing more harm than good? Unfortunately, our health officials think vaccines
are the hammer and every disease is a nail. They are really not interested in looking at vaccines as a
possible cause for so many other ailments which are becoming more prevalent.
Are We Trading True Health for the Perception of Health?

Here is a question I think we should ask ourselves. Are we trading real health for the perception of
health? What I mean by that is, despite implementing a broad and aggressive vaccine schedule over
the last two decades, the health of our population has seriously declined in some significant ways.
Over the past 50 years, we have witnessed a drastic uptick in the incidence of neuro-developmental
disorders like autism, autism spectrum disorders, ADD and ADHD. As you can see in part 9 of this
series, there is empirical evidence linking vaccines to autism and health officials know it.
We have also seen a huge surge in autoimmune disorders like Lupus, MS, Crohn’s Disease, Celiac
Disease, Fibromyalgia, Asthma, Rheumatoid Arthritis and many new allergies. In most cases we
simply do not have the data to link vaccines or specific vaccine ingredients to this phenomena, but in
the absence of data, is it prudent to continue with such an aggressive vaccine agenda? Giving
vaccines the benefit of the doubt for a moment, even if some vaccines have helped to eradicate
some diseases (which is arguable), it is impossible to know if the benefits outweigh the risks without
solid research. This is especially true now that we understand that childhood illnesses we vaccinate
for do not typically result in the dire outcomes we’ve been led to believe.
Vaccines bypass the natural immune defense system. There are many doctors who tell us that this
can be a problem. The natural way for us to be exposed to a virus, for example, is via our nasal
cavity or throat. Vaccines, on the other hand, penetrate our first line of natural defense: our skin.
They introduce foreign matter directly into our blood systems and bypass the natural immune
functions of our skin, tonsils and mucous membranes. By attempting to circumvent natural infectious
disease contraction by injecting the viruses into our muscles, we are disrupting the natural order of
things and preventing our immune systems from exercising the full array of defenses our bodies
possess. What kinds of short-term and long-term consequences occur as a result?
As we illustrated in part 5 of this article, vaccines carry their own set of risks which are sometimes
much worse than the disease itself, especially in developing countries where complication risks are
much higher.
Infectious Disease Not the Problem, it’s Chronic Disease

Even the CDC has acknowledged that chronic disease is the larger issue we face. Unfortunately, they
seem to want to fix it with more vaccines. The CDC published a peer reviewed paper in 2012 titled In
Search of a Germ Theory Equivalent for Chronic Disease, in which author Garry Egger, PhD,
MPH, reflects on the fact that we have experienced a shift in predominant illness from infectious
diseases to chronic disease over the past decade or more. Dr. Egger notes a need to identify a
theory for chronic disease, particularly the epidemic of metaflammation. Metaflammation is low-
grade, chronic inflammation that is prevalent in those with diabetes and obesity. Some other
associated conditions, according the author, are depression, cancer, dementia and heart disease.
Among possible causes of metaflammation, the author lists environmental anthropogens — things
that induce metaflammation and result in various chronic diseases. The author notes the significant
rise in these conditions beginning in the early 1900’s, with the advent of the industrial revolution.
Some potential anthropogens, the author suggests, are smoking, air pollution, sleep deprivation,
stress, ratio of omega 6 to omega 3 fats and fast food, among a few others. Buried in this list of
potential causes of chronic disease, Dr. Egger includes EDCs, which are endocrine disrupting
compounds. EDCs are chemicals that mimic, block or otherwise interfere with the body’s hormones.
Aluminum and mercury are known EDCs and they are both found in our vaccines.
For the astute reader, this article incites a number of questions regarding the CDC’s willingness to
publish an article that points out, (albeit in small print, in the form of an acronym on a graph), the
potential damage caused by the vaccine products they so adamantly promote. How could the author
and the CDC fail to notice the correlation between vaccines and the rise of metaflammation? How
did they miss mentioning the fact that aluminum is found in abundance in vaccines? Or that the flu
shot is full of mercury, in the form of thimerosal, which is a well-known EDC? How do they avoid
drawing the connection? You can read more about the topic of EDCs in vaccines in this 2009 article
from Huffpost Healthy Living, by Deirdre Imus. In article after article, you will find the dangers of
EDCs highlighted but the sources are always listed as environmental, food and consumer products.
It is interesting that the only EDCs injected directly into the bloodstream are vaccines but, somehow,
they are never mentioned. They have simply been banned, it appears, by the powers that be, from
the talking points on the topic of EDCs.
The very organization which sponsors our early and robust vaccine schedule, beginning at 2 months
of age, is publishing a paper that acknowledges the inherent danger of vaccine ingredients. Dr. Egger
postulates that vaccine adjuvants are anthropogens, responsible for the rise of the costliest and
deadliest afflictions we face today: cancer, obesity and heart disease. You didn’t miss this in the
news. It never made the news. One can only imagine the CDC’s choice to publish such an article.
The lead was buried, to be sure, but has no one really made the connection? Unlikely. More likely is
that CDC is laying the groundwork for tomorrow’s vaccines for obesity, cancer and diabetes. Perhaps
some new vaccines to treat the damage done by the old vaccines.
What Effect Do Multiple Vaccines Have on Immature Immune

Systems?
We have vaccinated more children with more vaccines than ever in the history of our nation, yet the
US falls behind most developed countries in overall health. Is the overarching goal really to improve
our health or is it to increase the number of people who rely on pharmaceutical products and to
increase the number of products they need? These two purposes present a glaring dichotomy that
will never be squared.
When a baby is born in the U.S., he or she is vaccinated with a Hepatitis B vaccine within the first 24
hours of birth. Most newborns are given a vitamin K shot as well. The reason for the vitamin K shot is
because mothers usually become deficient in vitamin K in the last trimester. We know that newborns
have very immature or underdeveloped immune systems. This is why new mothers are advised to go
straight home after being discharged from the hospital and to keep their newborn in the house for the
first 4-6 weeks.
The hepatitis B Shot contains multiple ingredients in addition to the virus itself, including aluminum
and formaldehyde, and is injected into babies when they’re only hours old. The vitamin K shot is a
synthetic form of vitamin, and in some cases there is aluminum in this shot as well. There are also 9
milligrams of benzyl alcohol in the vitamin K shot that is said to be absorbed by the baby’s liver.
Some doctors say the benzyl alcohol is the cause for jaundice diagnosed in many babies soon after
birth. During the well baby doctor visits that occur over the next 24 months, babies’ immune systems
are bombarded with a battery of 18 different vaccines, with as many as 10-13 in one visit. There is no
rationale to justify giving anyone, let alone infants with developing immune systems, this many
injections at one time.
Correlation between Vaccines and Infant Mortality
The charts below demonstrate that children in the US receive more vaccines before they are 6 years
old than children in any of the other 29 developed nations listed, while also having the highest infant
mortality rate of the 26 countries listed. Neil Z. Miller and Gary S. Goldman published a study in
2011 highlighting the statistically significant correlation between number of vaccines given to infants
in a specific country and that country’s infant mortality rate. It is a linear correlation, across the board,
which means that as number of doses increase, infant mortality increases.
This study suggests that vaccines may be the actual cause of death for some portion of infant deaths
attributed to other causes, including SIDS.
Why Not Compare Vaccinated to Unvaccinated?

Vaccines have been around for many decades yet we still have not compared vaccinated versus
unvaccinated. We are told by our health officials that it would be unethical to do a test like that
because they do not want anyone going without vaccines. They make this peculiar issue the one
untouchable thing they could never do, from an ethical standpoint. This really makes no sense at all,
though. We have thousands, if not millions, of people who have not vaccinated or do not vaccinate
for religious, philosophical or other reasons who could participate in these studies.
Why have we not done this already? This is really basic science 101. If you have a product, any
product, and you want to truly learn how safe and effective it is, you have to compare outcomes in
those who receive it to at least some people who do not receive it. That’s the whole premise of
approving a drug, right? The idea would be that receiving a particular vaccine would be better than
not receiving it. What are we afraid of finding? Does anyone else find this strange?
Could it be that an industry with so much invested in vaccines, would never risk doing a study that
could possibly undermine sales? Or worse yet, could it be that the results of a single study of this
type would stand to hurt the sales of all vaccines? Maybe the most damaging of all potential
outcomes would be that the safe and effective message that has been so carefully developed and
promulgated by drug makers would fall apart and, with it, the confidence of the people in vaccines all
together? The pharmaceutical industry will not allow this type of research to be done if they can help
it and if it is done, they will likely ensure that it is never published, because even one study of this
type could reveal data that would be their ultimate undoing.
Independent Studies
Because we have no research of this type, we need to turn to less formal data in the form of a survey
(which may be a good thing, considering the issues that abound with clinical trials lately) to search for
clues about the difference between those who are vaccinated, versus those who are unvaccinated.
In 2004, NVKP, an association comprised of doctors, therapists, parents and others, conducted a
survey in The Netherlands that compares the incidence of numerous symptoms and illnesses among
vaccinated vs. unvaccinated people. This chart only lists a few of the maladies but the study itself
contains much more information, which you can read for yourself. The red bars represent the
vaccinated and blue bars represent the unvaccinated.
Why Has the Vaccine Schedule Increased So Dramatically?

What has happened in the last 30 years that has made us so afraid of these diseases in the US?
Why has the vaccine schedule increased so dramatically? The only significant event in the last 30
years that we could find through our research was the passing of the National Childhood Vaccine
Injury Act in 1986. This made way for the Vaccine Injury Compensation Program (VICP) which
completely absolves pharmaceutical companies from any legal liability whatsoever for the safety of
their vaccines and shifts the burden of responsibility of compensation payments to the American
taxpayers.
Is this legal immunity the catalyst that enabled the ever-expanding vaccine schedule we’re
witnessing? We could not find any significant event in the U.S. that would call for such a dramatic
increase in the vaccine schedule.
Follow the Money

As any investigative reporter will tell you, to get to the bottom of any complex story you must follow
the money. As you can see from the chart below, there is a substantial monetary gain for the drug
makers to increase vaccination rates. In fact, just from 1990, the costs of vaccinating children from
birth to 18 years of age has increased over 2500%, and they are lobbying for more. Is this the
reason that billions of dollars are allocated to lobbying our elected officials every year? Why does the
pharmaceutical industry spend almost 3 times the amount lobbying legislators as the next closest
industry? What are they getting in return for all that money?
Summary
As we can see in the statistics above, infectious diseases in the US has not morphed into some new
national threat over the last 30 or 40 years. There are no new developments in public health which
warrant the extremely aggressive and expensive vaccine schedule that is now in place in the US.
The illnesses for which we vaccinate do not typically result in the horrific outcomes we’ve been told.
In fact, third world statistics are very often used to scare people into vaccinations. When terrible
outcomes are associated with a particular illness, they are sometimes fewer in number and less
harmful than those associated with the vaccine for that particular illness.
Why have our health officials taken such extreme measures? They would tell us that that they are
singularly concerned with children’s health. All we have to do to see the folly of such a statement is
to note the absence of research showing that receiving any particular vaccine is better for us than not
receiving it. If you care about child health, you study products rigorously. If you care, you make sure
that your product is safe in the short-term, in the long-term and in combination with your other
products. If you are concerned with children’s well-being, you make sure that your product doesn’t
inadvertently cause more problems that it solves.
Keep in mind, drug makers have over 250 additional vaccines in development which they will roll out
as soon as possible. It seems that the ultimate goal is to vaccinate our whole population of 300
million + and to do so in the absence of informed consent and without exemption. Does this make
any sense? It only makes sense when you look at the growth strategy of the pharmaceutical industry.

10/9/2019 Herd Immunity, Viral Shedding and the Questionable Science Behind Vaccines - Vision Launch
Herd Immunity, Viral Shedding and the Questionable Science

Behind Vaccines
visionlaunch.com/herd-immunity-viral-shedding-and-the-questionable-science-behind-vaccines
Original caption: Dr. Edward Jenner (1749-1823), British physician performing his first vaccination on
James Phipps, a boy of eight, on May 14, 1796. Painting by E. Board in the Welcome Museum,
London. Undated painting. --- Image by © Bettmann/CORBIS
Herd Immunity
Herd immunity is a highly sensitive and extremely polarizing topic within the vaccine debate.
Understandably, it enrages parents on both sides of the issue. Like all good parents, vaccine
proponents want to protect their children. We’re all being told by our health officials that everyone
must be vaccinated to achieve herd immunity, or else the entire population will be at risk. For vaccine
skeptics, the herd immunity concept is a primary point of contention because they are being
pressured to vaccinate their children based on what they perceive to be a false premise. It’s a dirty
but effective trick to pit us against one another as parents, playing on our most vulnerable fears
regarding our children’s health. Vaccine skeptics find fatal flaws in the application of the herd
immunity concept to a vaccinated population.
visionlaunch.com/herd-immunity-viral-shedding-and-the-questionable-science-behind-vaccines/ 1/13
Vaccine skeptics perceive the herd immunity concept as creating social pressure, which is supporting
a legislative agenda to remove vaccine exemptions. Herd immunity is also an effective marketing tool
to convince the masses for universal mandatory vaccines. It is being widely used to convince us that
everyone who can be vaccinated, should be vaccinated, with every vaccine possible, from cradle to
grave and without informed consent (in fact, without consent of any type). We have already seen this
scenario play out in California with the 2015 passage of SB277, and there is legislation pending
around the country with an eye toward accomplishing this very thing.
In part 8, we will take an in-depth look at herd immunity theory and the facts behind naturally-
acquired, versus vaccine-acquired immunity. We will also discuss the role viral shedding plays in
proliferation of disease and how it may have facilitated recent outbreaks. Finally, we will delve into the
ideological foundation of vaccination and the science behind the theory.
What Is Herd Immunity?

A.W. Hedrich studied the epidemiology of measles in the US from 1900-1931 and in 1932, published
a paper on measles susceptibility in children.He concluded that once 68% of children in a
population had been infected with measles, the measles cycle in that population would be
interrupted, thereby ending the outbreak. The foundation of the theory was the knowledge that once
a child has measles, the child becomes immune to measles for a lifetime. Herd immunity theory
assumes that a large portion of the population is truly immune to the pathogen in question.
Health officials and vaccine proponents have recently begun using herd immunity theory to
pressure the public into vaccinating. Their argument is that the unvaccinated are only safe from
contracting ‘vaccine preventable’ disease because they are enjoying the broader protection of the
vaccinated herd. In other words, they maintain that when a certain portion of a population is fully
vaccinated, incidence of disease will be so rare that exposure is severely limited. It sounds plausible
on the surface and it has been marketing gold for vaccine manufacturers, adding to the building
momentum for a legislative agenda that will make vaccines mandatory and without exemption. It is
effective because it is, at once, a scare tactic and an appeal to our sense of obligation and
compassion for others. Influencing public opinion is job #1 when you have something to sell and it
would be hard to find a more effective tool. The only problem is that it isn’t true. We have to dig a
little deeper to get the full picture.
The original concept of herd immunity referred to natural immunity, conferred as a result of
contracting and recovering from disease. Transferring the concept and applying it wholesale to a
vaccinated population assumes some basic facts which do not hold true. It is a fundamentally flawed
theory in relation to a vaccinated population.
Natural Immunity
As depicted by the graphic below, natural immunity offers benefits to individuals and to a population
across time and generations. Mothers who contract and recover from a childhood illness pass their
immunity to their babies while in utero and through breast feeding.
The immunity of those who are vaccinated is different from, and inferior to, the immunity of those who
have recovered from an infection. Natural immunity often lasts a lifetime, while vaccination immunity
is relatively short-lived. Natural immunity is superior to the vaccine acquired type because it has
staying power but also because natural exposure to a pathogen challenges the immune system as a
whole, rather than simply creating antibodies, and fortifies overall immunity while supporting long-
term health.
Natural immunity strengthens our immune systems, preparing us to better handle future exposure to
various pathogens. Viera Scheibner, PhD, tells us that natural immunity to certain childhood
illnesses may also offer protection from asthma, degenerative diseases of the bone and cartilage and
even cancer. A study was published by Mayo Clinic in July, 2014, documenting the use of an
engineered version of the measles virus to cure what was deemed ‘incurable’ cancer and research is
currently underway to replicate these results.
Dr. Scheibner offers the perspective that “(w)ell-managed natural infectious diseases are beneficial
for children.” She believes that childhood diseases serve a function in the human ecosystem and that
they “… prime and mature the immune system and also represent developmental milestones.” This
perspective is shared by pediatrician, Dr. Lawrence Palevsky, in his interview with Dr. Joseph
Mercola in 2012:
Some of the diseases vaccines are designed to prevent, such as chickenpox, measles, and
the flu, may actually have an important place in childhood development – and may ultimately
be beneficial for the child’s future health by helping their immune system, nervous system
and brain mature.
True Herd Immunity

Natural immunity typically offers lifetime protection. In a population where immunity has been
conferred naturally, each generation of children contract childhood illnesses while also naturally
boosting the immunity of those who were previously infected through a cycle of re-exposure. This is a
model for true herd immunity, and its benefits for protecting the herd are self-evident. In a natural
immunity model, the incidence of common childhood illness is greatest among the young, whose
systems are best equipped to handle them and for whom long term protection is maximized due to
their young age. Generally speaking, common illnesses of childhood are less benign and result in
more severe complications when experienced by adults.
Before vaccines were in wide use, babies would receive immunity from their mothers who had
acquired natural immunity as children. Today, many mothers have been vaccinated and cannot offer
their babies immune protection. Vaccines prevent natural immunity and so babies born today are in a
more vulnerable position than babies born in the pre-vaccine era.
Vaccine Acquired Immunity
Vaccines wear off. When vaccines work, they confer immunity for some period of time, but
vaccines are short-lived compared to natural immunity. This is why booster shots exist.
Vaccine-conferred immunity cannot offer us the inter-generational protection afforded by
natural immunity, whereby mothers pass on immunity to their infants.
‘Fully vaccinated’ does not translate to ‘fully immune’. In order to estimate the number of
people who must have immunity before herd immunity occurs, epidemiologists look at the
basic reproduction number (written ‘RO’) for any given pathogen. RO refers to the number of
people one infected person might expose to a pathogen and thereby, infect with the disease.
The more easily transmitted a disease, the higher the RO. The chart below shows
epidemiological estimates regarding the immunity threshold required to confer immunity to
the herd for common childhood illnesses.
Please notice that we said ‘immunity threshold’, not percentage of vaccinated people. The reason for
this is that being fully vaccinated does not translate to immunity. Because vaccines generally are
effective for only 2-10 years, and those of us who have not had vaccines or boosters since their
childhoods, are no longer enjoying vaccine-conferred immunity. If we get our last childhood vaccines
at age 18, then by the time we are 28, at the latest, we have likely lost any immunity we gained from
vaccines. Even in the most generous scenario, if we were to imagine that all vaccines are effective
and that all of them confer immunity for a full ten years, the folly of applying this idea to a vaccinated
population is apparent. As of 2014, a full 67% of Americans were 26 years of age or older. How
much immunity, then, actually exists in our general population as a result of vaccination? How much
could have ever existed since the introduction of vaccines?
Media stories hyping a dire need to vaccinate based on protecting the herd invariably assume that if
a certain percentage of the population is fully vaccinated, we will achieve herd immunity. Knowing
that vaccine protection is temporary and not always effective, we can see that this is an absurd
assumption. Is this a critical detail that they happened somehow to overlook? Or is it a major point
that undermines the entire marketing campaign for mandatory vaccines?
What if the public were to respond to the vaccine marketing campaign and 95% of us became
vaccinated today? In short, the herd immunity concept still falls painfully short as a remedy for
infection control. Applying the concept to a vaccinated population wrongly assumes that only infected
herd members can infect others. This is patently untrue, as we will discuss later. Viral shedding is a
well known side effect of vaccination. In addition, even those who are immune to a pathogen can
carry it and pass it on to infect others.
Vaccines bypass the immune system’s ‘first responders’, the linings of the airways and
intestines and the skin itself. Each of these subsystems plays an integral and complex role in
the natural immune response. Pediatrician Dr. Lawrence Palevsky explains: “…when you
inject materials into your body, you are bypassing that crucial first step called the primary line
of defense. With vaccination you are just creating an antibody. That does NOT impart long-
term immunity because it does not create the kind of memory that occurs when you breathe it
in, eat it, or are exposed through the skin, and then go through the course of the natural
disease.” Avoiding activation of the entirety of the human immune response may have serious
consequences about which we know very little so far.
Vaccines prevent natural immunity. Vaccine-conferred immunity prevents natural immunity

and all of the known and as yet undiscovered benefits it offers. Lynn Borne describes natural
immunity: “When a baby becomes infected with a communicable disease, his immune
system responds through a sophisticated web of interlocking reactions that can
produce immunity for life to naturally acquired childhood diseases.” She goes on to
explain that one of the functions of these defenses is to prevent pathogens from “… taking hold
in the deeper systems and organs of the body.” Borne describes mass vaccination as “… a
man made attempt to remove the natural infection response from human development and
replace it with a series of artificially imposed infections and immune responses determined by
the doctor’s vaccination schedule.”
The Dangers of Herd Immunity

An emerging model suggests that vaccine-acquired herd immunity is not something to aspire to, even
if it were possible to achieve. In his 2016 book, Miller’s Review of Critical Vaccine Studies, Neil Z.
Miller explains that “Herd immunity may never be achieved because high vaccination rates
encourage the evolution of more severe disease-causing organisms” (p.109). Miller cites
several examples of published studies which support this assertion, including this paper published in
2012 in the World Journal of Virology, this research, published in 2006 in the journal Evolution and
this paper published in 2007 in JR Soc Interface. Miller notes that vaccine-conferred immunity is
always imperfect and notes that this “… may cause a resurgence of disease” (p.112). Dr. Suzanne
Humphries, in her article “Herd Immunity. The flawed science and failure of mass vaccination”,
notes that“… vaccination creates a “quasi-sterile” environment that opens up the possibility of
disease outbreaks.” It’s very hard to improve on Mother Nature, as we have learned time and again.
This model suggests that striving to attain vaccine-acquired herd immunity may be a foolish goal,
raising the stakes and creating new and more serious mutations of existing pathogens.
You can read more about the protective role of viruses as part of the natural, evolving ‘human
microbiome’ in this report by Barbara Loe Fisher from the National Vaccine Information Center. This
report represents a very thorough discussion of emerging information about how exposure to viruses
supports health.
Most people fear and view viruses as dangerous microbes that only cause
sickness and death. However, emerging evidence has revealed
that viruses play an integral role in helping us stay well, too.
-Barbara Loe Fisher
Vaccine-Conferred Immunity is a Flawed Concept

Let’s take a look at some real world data. As we see in the charts below and in part 5 of this article,
there are many documented cases of infectious disease outbreaks in populations in which more than
90% were vaccinated. Even if the protection afforded by vaccines were long-lasting, (which it is not),
they are imperfect and can fail to protect the vaccinated. This is just one more reason why the herd
immunity concept does not and never will translate to vaccinated populations.
More Cases of Vaccine Induced Herd Immunity Failures
What Independent Experts Are Saying
Dr. Russell Blaylock

Dr. Russell Blaylock wrote an article in 2012 titled “The Deadly Impossibility Of Herd Immunity
Through Vaccination”. He reflects on the short-lived nature of vaccine-acquired immunity and notes
that “… we have all lived for at least 30 to 40 years with 50% or less of the population having
vaccine protection. That is, herd immunity has not existed in this country for many decades
and no resurgent epidemics have occurred. Vaccine-induced herd immunity is a lie used to
frighten doctors, public-health officials, other medical personnel, and the public into
accepting vaccinations.” Dr. Blaylock alludes to the value of herd immunity as a marketing tool. He
goes even further, connecting the herd immunity hype with a campaign underway to do away with
vaccine exemptions and, thereby, our ability to decline vaccines for ourselves and our children:
“Without the mantra of herd immunity,public health officials would not be

able to justify forced mass vaccinations.”
– Dr. Russell Blaylock
Dr. Suzanne Humphries

Dr. Suzanne Humphries has done extensive research on vaccines and the theory of herd immunity.
She wrote about her findings in the article cited above, titled “Herd Immunity. The flawed science
and failure of mass vaccination”. In this very thorough explanation of the problems with herd
immunity, Dr. Humphries explains the unintended consequences we face as a result of a strong pro-
vaccine mindset: “Vaccinators miss the point that the body defends most efficiently as a result of
ongoing re-exposure. They try to mimic this with boosters. But the vaccination plan leaves the elderly
(due to vaccine-induced immunity being short-lived and antigens taken out of circulation) and the
very young (due to lack of transferrable maternal immunity) more vulnerable to several diseases that
were not a threat to them before vaccination.”
She also addresses the use of herd immunity theory to intimidate the public into vaccinating, noting
her belief:
“… we are being systematically altered, sickened and manipulated by

powerful governing bodies that either don’t understand the risks of
vaccination, or don’t care.”
-Dr. Suzanne Humphries
Another worthwhile article was written by Joanna Karpasea-Jones: “The Herd Immunity Myth”.
This is an extremely well-sourced article which exposes the faulty reasoning behind any translation
of herd immunity theory to a vaccinated population.
So far, we have identified that the foundation for applying herd immunity theory to a vaccinated
population consists of at least four basic premises which are false:
Herd Immunity: 4 False Premises

⊗ False Premise 1: Vaccines can confer herd immunity.
Reality: Vaccines are imperfect and they confer imperfect immunity; outbreaks occur
regularly among the fully vaccinated. This means that we cannot assume that 100% of those
who have been fully vaccinated can be counted among the immune.
⊗ False Premise 2: Once vaccinated, an individual will always be immune.

Reality: Vaccine immunity wears off; it is temporary. That means that, for any population
currently, a very much smaller number of people have immunity than would be required to
achieve a theoretical herd immunity threshold (estimated to be 75%-94%, depending on
pathogen).
⊗ False Premise 3: Vaccines stimulate immunity just like having the illness.
Reality: Vaccines bypass significant functions of the immune system. This may have
short and long term effects on pathogen-specific and overall immunity among the vaccinated.
⊗ False Premise 4: Preventing illness is always a good idea.

Vaccines can prevent natural immunity. Emerging evidence is suggesting that natural
immunity may play a preventative role in a number of diseases, including autoimmune disease
and cancer. Natural immunity has a number of benefits, including a strengthened immune
system, inter-generational immunity and lifelong immunity.
In explaining the impossibility of herd immunity among the vaccinated, experts talk about an
additional problem which we must now add to the list of reasons why it just doesn’t add up: viral
shedding.
What is Shedding?
Shedding is a medical term used to describe the transmission of a pathogen through the urine,
excrement, saliva and breast milk (in the case of rubella) of infected persons and those who receive
live virus vaccines. Shedding occurs for weeks, and sometimes longer, following vaccination.
Sometimes this exposure results in infection of others. Viral shedding is acknowledged by our health
officials and by the pharmaceutical industry, alike, as a by-product of vaccination with live attenuated
viruses. Examples of current live virus vaccines include measles, nasal flu vaccine, shingles vaccine,
rotavirus vaccine, chicken pox vaccine, and yellow fever vaccine.
This report from the National Vaccine Information Center, alludes to the fact that shedding is not a
topic our health officials are eager to explore: “There is no active surveillance of live virus
vaccine shedding and most vaccine strain virus infections likely remain unidentified, untested
and unreported.” Twenty years ago, a new procedure was developed which helps to identify the
strain of virus causing an infection. When someone has measles, for example, it is impossible to tell
what strain of measles they have simply by noting their symptoms. RT-PCR (reverse transcriptase
polymerase chain reaction) testing is a highly sensitive means for distinguishing vaccine-strain from
wild-type measles virus. We have the technology to discern between wild-type and vaccine-strain
infections, but are we using it? If so, where are the results? When there is an outbreak and the
blame is placed on the unvaccinated, we haven’t yet learned to ask if the infectious pathogen might
actually be the vaccine strain itself.
If you have any doubt that health officials, medical institutions and physicians know about viral
shedding, you can review the visiting rules for any hospital and find exhortations to avoid visiting
immune-suppressed patients if you have been recently vaccinated. The graphic below, for example,
is from the Johns Hopkins Patient Guide. Similar precautions are in place at every hospital. You can
also view the visitation rules at St. Jude Children’s Research Hospital, for example, which mirror the
same information.
If you have any doubt about whether vaccine manufacturers are aware of the dangers of shedding,
just check out the package inserts for the live attenuated vaccines. Below is a screenshot of the
chicken pox vaccine insert.
Here is a table taken from the package insert from FluMist, a nasal flu vaccine. You can see the
duration of shedding measured for this vaccine was between days 17 and 28. The table also shows
that between 20 and 89% of those vaccinated measurably shed the vaccine.
You can view all of the package inserts firsthand to assess for yourself what the manufacturers
share regarding the shedding risk for individual vaccines.
In March, 2015, CNBC published an article titled “Public Health Officials Know Recently
Vaccinated Individuals Spread Disease”. The article addresses the issue of viral shedding
following vaccination and quotes Sally Fallon Morell, president of the Weston A. Price
Foundation: “Evidence indicates that recently vaccinated individuals should be quarantined in
order to protect the public.” The article cites no fewer than ten sources in its summation: “Scientific
evidence demonstrates that individuals vaccinated with live virus vaccines such as MMR (measles,
mumps and rubella), rotavirus, chicken pox, shingles and influenza can shed the virus for many
weeks or months afterwards….”. Of interest is the article’s reference to recent research
demonstrating that the vaccinated can carry diseases in the back of the throat and infect others while
displaying no symptoms of a disease. Finally, the article concludes that viral shedding as a result of
vaccines poses a risk to both vaccinated and unvaccinated individuals due to the transient and
imperfect immunity conferred by vaccines.
“Vaccine failure and failure to acknowledge that live virus vaccines can
spread disease have resulted in an increase in outbreaks of infectious
disease in both vaccinated and unvaccinated individuals.”
-Leslie Manookian,
producer of The Greater Good
Shedding or Unvaccinated Children?

Whenever the smallest outbreak occurs in the US, the media and our health officials immediately
point the finger of blame toward the unvaccinated. As if acting as a hundred arms of a single, well-
oiled machine, they will speculate that it was started by an unvaccinated person. The top priority, they
will tell us, is that everyone get vaccinated. Soon after that, the digital lynch mob comes out posting
mean spirited memes and the shaming campaign begins. But what if it is not the unvaccinated
children who are transmitting the virus, but rather, the recently vaccinated? When we consider the
benefits of natural immunity among the unvaccinated, in conjunction with the phenomenon of viral
shedding, who would you rather your child be in close contact with —the child who was recently
vaccinated with a live virus or an unvaccinated child who has not? There is mounting evidence
showing that those who recently received a live virus vaccine can and do spread disease and
cause outbreaks. As we can see from the vaccine inserts, viral shedding can last for a long time. If
we are concerned about infecting the immune-compromised, shouldn’t we be concerned about
infecting the general population as well?
The Questionable Science Behind Vaccines

The science that supports the idea of vaccination is remarkably muddy and was born from a
fundamentally flawed concept. Namely, the theory wrongly presumes that the creation of antibodies
to a particular pathogen is sufficient to confer immunity. In fact, not only are antibodies insufficient, we
now know that they are sometimes completely unnecessary for immunity.
The Theory Behind Vaccines

The idea behind vaccines started as a noble one. The basic premise is that we could save some
misery and even some deaths by avoiding certain common illnesses. The idea is to reduce illness.
The plan is to trick our bodies by having just enough contact with a pathogen that we develop
immunity to the real thing. The mechanism is that a vaccine introduces one or more antigens into the
body and, in response, we produce antibodies. These antibodies learn to recognize the illness and
then form memory cells that will immediately identify this illness in the future and do away with it
before we get sick. This is referred to as the primal theory of disease prevention.
We have been raised to believe that vaccines work and that this theory is a factual and complete
justification for the widespread use of vaccines. You might be surprised to learn how wrong the
theory has been regarding what mechanism actually confers immunity. Whenever these problems are
addressed, it is often as the subject of lengthy, academic articles and studies. These kinds of studies
don’t make the evening news and, for this very reason, they are important to cover here.
Problems with the Primal Theory of Disease Prevention

Originally published in 1928, H.M. Shelton’s work was grounded in the belief that the human body is
adept at handling illness without interference and the human immune system is brilliantly complex
and effective when the body is well nourished.
“Nature makes no mistakes and violates no laws. She is uniformly

governed by fixed principles and all her actions harmonize with the laws
that govern those actions.”
-Herbert M. Shelton
from Human Life: Its philosophy and laws.
This primal theory of disease prevention is the bedrock upon which vaccination practice is built. This
is how doctors are taught to understand the mechanism of vaccines; it explains why we vaccinate
and how vaccines work. Except that it doesn’t — and the medical community has known this for a
long, long time.
The theory has been in question from the beginning. At the outset, as vaccines were first being
used and the primal theory of disease prevention was being developed by Paul Ehrlich, there were
skeptics of the practice who were highly esteemed within the field of medicine. One example of an
early critic is W.H. Manwaring, who was a professor of bacteriology and experimental pathology at
Leland Stanford University. Raymond Obomsawin, PhD, in his book UNIVERSAL IMMUNIZATION
Medical Miracle or Masterful Mirage, quotes Manwaring:
I believe that there is hardly an element of truth in a single one of the basic
hypothesis embodied in this theory. My conviction that there was
something radically wrong with it arose from a consideration of the almost
universal failure of therapeutic methods based on it . . . Twelve years of
study with immuno-physical tests have yielded a mass of experimental
evidence contrary to, and irreconcilable with the Ehrlich theory, and have
convinced me that his conception of the origin, nature, and physiological
role of the specific ‘antibodies’ is erroneous.
Antibodies are not reliable predictors of immunity. Dr.Obomsawin points out that the role of
antibodies as primary predictors of immunity continued to lose ground as a viable theory during the
mid-1900’s. He notes that, for example, children with an inherent immune deficiency
(agammaglobulinaemia) cannot produce antibodies at all, and yet they still recover from measles and
develop lifelong immunity. Obomsawin quotes the Nobel prize winning virologist Sir MacFarlane
Burnet: “In his view it was clear “‘that a variety of other immunological mechanisms are
functioning effectively without benefit of actively produced antibody.'”
In the 1940’s, Dr. Merrill W. Chase helped to discover another aspect of the immune system: cell-
mediated immunity. In publishing Chase’s obituary in 2004, the New York Times quoted other experts
regarding Chase’s research: ”So many areas of medicine rely on this type of reaction that he
clearly distinguished as not being antibody mediated,” said Dr. Ralph Steinman, a professor
of cellular physiology and immunology at Rockefeller. ”People never anticipated that there
would be something other than antibodies. It was an amazing finding.”
In 1980, researchers knew that the primal theory of disease prevention was wrong. Authors of this
study, published in the New England Journal of Medicine, examined a rubella outbreak among staff
at one hospital and found that “(n)either a history of rubella nor a history of immunization with
rubella vaccine was reliable in the prediction of the presence or absence of immunity.” They
concluded: “It is important to stress that immunity (or its absence) cannot be determined
reliable on the basis of history of the disease, history of immunization, or even history of prior
serologic determination.” This means that titers showing a high level of antibodies did not reliably
predict immunity and vice versa; antibody levels were unrelated to immunity.
Obomsawin offers a long list of research examples in his book, which have built upon one another
over time, to substantiate that the antibody theory of vaccines is, at best, a gross oversimplification of
a brilliant, multi-dimensional living system. It simply no longer works as a theory. Those who
research this and who think about it, marvel at the fact that vaccines are heralded everywhere we
turn, as the saviors of us all. The reality is that vaccines have created antibodies which, alone, do not
confer immunity. The contrast between the reality and the prevalent vaccine marketing message is
disconcerting.
The flu vaccine has now been shown to have exactly the opposite of the advertised effect. Dr.
Mercola references a study published in 2011 in the Journal of Virology which found that the flu
vaccine may weaken children’s immune systems and increase their chances of getting sick. Dr.
Mercola explains: “With vaccination, you are merely creating an antibody, but as the Journal of
Virology study showed, the unvaccinated children actually built up more antibodies against a wider
variety of flu virus strains than the vaccinated children!”
“Warning: All Vaccines Compromise Natural Immunity.”

-Dr. Joseph Mercola
Summary
We should ask ourselves this question: We have recently learned that vaccines are only effective for
anywhere from two to ten years (thus the need for boosters) and we know that most of the
population does not receive the full schedule of vaccines. The US has an estimated immigration
population of anywhere from 10-20 million people, many without access to the full schedule of
vaccines. All of this begs the question: unless everyone in our country had all these diseases as
children which conferred lifetime immunity, (which is not the case), how can there ever be herd
immunity?
Why are we hearing so much about herd immunity lately? Why do our officials promote this theory so
aggressively, despite all of the conflicting evidence showing its flaws? Are our health officials really
worried about our health or is their concern more likely for maintaining the sponsorship of the
pharmaceutical industry that funds them? Is this a grand gesture in support of the pharmaceutical
industry agenda regarding vaccines? As our human rights are stripped away in the name of public
health, perhaps they have resorted to bolstering their argument with a plea to protect the weakest
among us.
Maybe this is Plan B, to fall back on in the event they can’t sufficiently influence our lawmakers and
courts to implement mandatory cradle to grave vaccines based on the data. Or perhaps it’s the
beginning of the second wave, whereby once childhood vaccines are mandatory, this will be the
argument that supports mandatory adult vaccines. Unless we get seriously involved in doing our own
research, informed consent is dead or dying and history will show the myth of herd immunity to have
been a nail in the coffin.
Not only does the herd immunity concept fail to translate to a vaccinated population, but the very
theory of disease prevention by which vaccines are sanctioned is fatally flawed.
10/9/2019 Did Vaccines Eradicate Diseases in the 20th Century? - Vision Launch
Did Vaccines Eradicate Diseases in the 20th Century?

visionlaunch.com/vaccines-eradicate-diseases-20th-century
Image:bbc.com
Vaccines and Infectious Diseases

If you ask most doctors about infectious diseases in the 20th century they will tell you that vaccines
eradicated them, end of story! This is a particularly touchy subject within the vaccine debate and
when we look at the facts supporting this theory, it is actually more akin to a religious belief than
scientific fact. Our health officials continue to tell the same scripted story, but the whole body of
evidence suggests otherwise. One of the ways this part of the debate has been stifled is that we are
not even allowed to suggest that there may be other reasons diseases were eradicated, without
being labeled a quack or kook. This is quite astonishing when you realize that the data for such an
assertion is so weak and really tells a different story. In part 8 we will drill down deeper into all the
information surrounding infectious diseases in the 20th century and find out what really eradicated
them.
Historical Revisionism
visionlaunch.com/vaccines-eradicate-diseases-20th-century/ 1/14
We have been taught since grade school to believe that vaccines saved us from infectious diseases
in the 20th century. Even though there have been scores of credible doctors with dissenting opinions
about the role vaccines played in the eradication of diseases from their inception, right up to the
present, those voices are ignored and we are taught a different version of history. The version of
history that we are taught ignores empirical data and takes a more faith based approach involving
agenda driven motives and dubious studies. Historical revisionism is not a new concept and
scholars have been debating the interpretation of history since time immemorial. The difference we
see in the vaccine industry is that there are powerful interests with a large stake in making sure the
version of history that gets told is in line with their business model. As we mentioned many times in
this series, vaccines are a business, and the vaccine market is significant, with enormous potential
for growth.
An important part of the strategy is that the population truly believe that vaccines saved us from
disease because that is the foundation for the whole theory of vaccines. This strategy has been very
effective and our false belief that vaccines saved many of us from certain death is the reason most of
us don’t question the science behind vaccines. It’s a powerful message and we hear it over and over
again because they can’t take a chance on us forgetting. Here is just one example of how the case
is carefully crafted to support the flawed theory, but there are many more like this article circulating
around the web.
The website vaccines.gov is run by the National Vaccine Program Office, a division of US
Department of Health and Human Services. Their list of identified responsibilities includes “necessity
and effectiveness of vaccines”, with no reference to a responsibility for public health, by the way. The
article is titled, “Vaccines are Effective” and it is a very brief treatment of the topic. Like the
organization itself, the article approaches disease eradication by vaccine as a foregone conclusion.
It attempts to breezily dismiss the substantial body of evidence that soundly refutes the claim that
vaccines were responsible for eradicating diseases in the last century.
This article claims to put vaccines in perspective, but it actually presents limited data which narrows
our perspective on the topic. Instead of using the historical mortality rate charts of infectious
diseases, for example, they use an abbreviated version and address only measles cases. Here is the
graph from the vaccines.gov site:
Notice how the chart only starts in 1950 and makes it appear as if the measles vaccine was
responsible for the the eradication of measles. This hardly gives a proper historical perspective of the
risk measles posed to the public in relation to vaccines. To consider only the number of diagnosed
measles cases does not tell us much regarding the actual threat posed by the disease. Because we
know that after 1950, the measles was a mild, short-lived virus in developed countries like the US, it
is important to make a distinction between measles cases and measles mortality rates, which this
article seems to purposely avoid.
To get a proper perspective on the real medical threat of measles we need to take a broader view
using measles deaths, not cases. The graph above reflects measles deaths, beginning in 1838. It is
a much more telling visual representation of the history of measles. As you can see, measles deaths
were rare by the time the vaccines were introduced. This reveals that by the time the measles
vaccine was introduced, the death rate had declined to fewer than 1 deaths per 100,000
measles cases, or less than 00.001%.
After 1950 Measles Were No Longer a Threat in the U.S.

The vaccine.gov article also states that the measles vaccine was licensed in 1962 and that’s when
measles started to decline. What the article fails to mention is that the 1963 version of the measles
vaccine was a failure which actually produced a deadlier form of the measles known as
atypical measles. It wasn’t until 1968 that a second version of the vaccine was introduced, and by
that time, measles mortality rates had dropped by 98%, making it a benign childhood disease. I’m not
suggesting that measles is a pleasant sickness without discomfort, but in regard to public safety,
measles was no longer a threat to our society after 1950, which is the start date on the misleading
chart. So when we’re told that vaccines saved us, it’s just not true. We still have measles cases
today, despite our aggressive vaccination program and very few people in the U.S. are dying or
having serious complications as a result.
Measles is not the dangerous disease we are told and most of the complications we see in measles
cases today are found in developing countries, not the U.S. Even The World Health Organization
acknowledges that most measles complications happen outside of the U.S. The WHO also states
that even in developing countries, only up to 10% of measles cases result in death. I certainly do not
want to minimize any deaths, but statistically speaking, the measles is far less dangerous than we
are led to believe. The Disneyland measles “outbreak” in 2015 that the media sensationalized was
more of a vaccine marketing event than an infectious disease event. This was all over 150 cases of
the measles in a country of over 300 million people.
Here is what the World Health Organization (WHO) states about measles deaths:
In populations with high levels of malnutrition and a lack of adequate

health care, up to 10% of measles cases result in death. Women
infected while pregnant are also at risk of severe complications and
the pregnancy may end in miscarriage or preterm delivery. People
who recover from measles are immune for the rest of their
lives. Measles is still common in many developing countries –
particularly in parts of Africa and Asia.
The overwhelming majority (more than 95%) of measles deaths

occur in countries with low per capita incomes and weak health
infrastructures.
– World Health Organization
A Historical Look at Infectious Diseases

In the video above, producer CGP Grey gives us some historical perspective on infectious diseases
throughout the world. One of the main culprits for the prevalence of the plagues that were brought
westward from Europe was horrendous sanitation practices. Notice how there is an emphasis on
sanitation and that vaccines are not mentioned at all throughout the presentation.
Vaccinations or Modernity?
When we look at the whole body of information and published articles, it is difficult to make the case
that vaccines were the reason infectious diseases were eradicated in the twentieth century. Instead,
there is a much stronger case for improved sanitation practices and infrastructure, refrigeration,
better nutrition, indoor plumbing and NATURAL herd immunity as the factors which resulted in
plummeting disease rates.
Medical Intervention’s Contribution to Disease Eradication: 3.5%

When you review historical papers closer to the times of these deadly outbreaks you will find that
medical intervention, including vaccines, had very little effect on mortality rates in the 20th century.
John and Sonja McKinlay published an article in 1977, titled “The Questionable Contribution of
Medical Measures to the Decline of Mortality in the United States in the Twentieth Century”, in
which they carefully chronicle mortality rates in relation to medical intervention in the 20th century.
“…by the time laboratory medicine came effectively into the picture the job
had been carried far toward completion by the humanitarians and social
reformers of the nineteenth century… When the tide is receding from the
beach it is easy to have the illusion that one can empty the ocean by
removing water with a pail.”
“In general, medical measures (both chemotherapeutic and prophylactic)

appear to have contributed little to the overall decline in mortality in the
United States since about 1900-having in many instances been introduced
several decades after a marked decline had already set in and having no
detectable influence in most instances.”
“More specifically, with reference to those five conditions (influenza,

pneumonia, diphtheria, whooping cough, and poliomyelitis) for which the
decline in mortality appears substantial after the point of intervention-and
on the unlikely assumption that all of this decline is attributable to the
intervention-it is estimated that at most 3.5 percent of the total decline in
mortality since 1900 could be ascribed to medical measures introduced for
the diseases considered here.”
This landmark article concludes that vaccines and medicine, in general, had little to do with the
decline in mortality from diseases for which most people still vaccinate.
Dr. Robert Mendelsohn

Dr. Robert Mendelsohn was one of the first medical doctors in North America to speak out about
vaccine safety concerns:
“There is no convincing scientific evidence that mass inoculations

can be credited with eliminating any childhood disease. While it is
true that some once common childhood diseases have diminished
or disappeared since inoculations were introduced, no one really
knows why, although improved living conditions may be the reason.
“If immunizations were responsible for the diminishing or

disappearance of these diseases in the United States, one must ask
why they disappeared simultaneously in Europe, where mass
immunizations did not take place.”
Disease Rates in Relation To Vaccines

We are told that sanitation had no role in the eradication of infectious diseases from articles like the
one we mentioned earlier from the vaccines.gov site. The article makes a fairly simple argument
using polio, HIB and pneumococcal meningitis. We will address polio later in this part. The main point
the article makes is as follows:
“If the drop in disease were due to hygiene and sanitation, you
would expect all diseases to start going away at about the same
time.”
When we look at the data, that is exactly what we see. Most of these diseases diminished around the
same time, right after 1950. Here are several charts from the U.S. and other countries illustrating the
risks of infectious diseases in the 20th century and their relation to vaccines. In addition to the fact
that infectious disease mortality rates dropped by over 90% before the vaccines were ever
introduced, Scarlet Fever and Typhoid Fever had no widespread vaccination campaign and yet they
diminished at the same rate (or better) than the diseases that did have vaccines. How do we know
that all of the infectious diseases would not do the same without the presence of vaccines? As you
can see in some of the charts, vaccines sometimes actually made things worse.
The above graph reflects data from Australian public health records.
Vaccines Are Not What Eradicated Disease

The data in these charts clearly show us that vaccines are not the reason these diseases subsided. If
anything, the data coincide with better living conditions, sanitation awareness, refrigeration, nutrition
and the implementation of indoor plumbing in the early to mid 1900’s. Vaccines were introduced long
after the downward trends of diseases were firmly established. This should be no surprise to us
because we see this same trend in developing countries. They are simply going through what we
went through 50 or 100 years ago. Most of the deadly cases of infectious disease are in countries
which lack the modern living standards attained in the US over the past 100 years. Unfortunately,
rather than helping underdeveloped countries to build better infrastructures, with improved nutrition
and clean water, the world’s health agencies are shipping vaccines to them. In some cases, vaccines
used overseas are reported to have caused great damage.
A Closer Look at the History Behind Polio
The video above was posted in 2013 and is a presentation by Dr. Suzanne Humphries on the
eradication of polio and the role of the polio vaccine. Dr. Humphries explains how several specific
factors are actually responsible for the decline of polio. Dr. Humphries has co-written a book on this
topic, Dissolving Illusions: Disease, Vaccines, and The Forgotten History, in which she
comprehensively explores these factors in great detail.
Dr. Humphries, among others, describes the history of polio as a drastically different story than what
we’ve commonly understood. Far from the perception of polio as a dangerous, virulent and deadly
disease, the reality is that polio is an enterovirus, which means that it lives in the human gut. CDC
estimates that 95% of those who become infected with polio experience no symptoms at all. About 4-
8% have minor, flu-like symptoms. Less than 1% of polio cases result in permanent paralysis of the
limbs, usually the legs. Only 5-10% of this less than 1% die when polio paralyzes the respiratory
muscles. Dr. Humphries asks: “What other vaccine-targeted illness do you know of that is
asymptomatic in 95% of people infected?”
It turns out that spikes on historical polio graphs actually reflect some other things that were going on
at those times which resulted in the epidemic diagnoses (sometimes incorrectly) of polio.
The 1916 Spike

Dr. Humphries makes a case for the following as factors influencing the epidemic-level upticks we
see in polio throughout recent US history.
1916 was the year of the largest and most devastating polio epidemic in US history. There were
23,000 cases and 5,000 deaths. Deaths should be 5-10% of 1% of those infected, but it was almost
25% with this epidemic. Dr. H.V. Wyatt published about this phenomenon in 2011. In 1916, there was
a unique polio virus being refined just three miles from the epicenter of the epidemic in New York
City. It was called the MV strain and scientists were trying to produce the most virulent strain of polio
possible. Polio epidemics occur from late summer to early fall. This spike was unusual because it
occurred in the spring. Wyatt makes a compelling argument that this epidemic started from exposure
to this MV strain polio.
The 1950’s Spike
08 Jul 1945, Jones Beach State Park, Wantagh, Long Island, New York State, USA — Beachgoers are sprayed with DDT as a
new machine for distributing the insecticide is tested for the first time. — Image by © Bettmann/CORBIS
The next spike in polio occurred in the 1950’s and Dr. Humphries discusses changes in the causes,
treatment and susceptibility factors as well as the definition of polio.
Breast feeding: The 1930s and ’40s saw a steep rise in formula feeding. Babies who were
breastfed, and who received no other form of nourishment, did not get polio. When you added fruit or
cow’s milk to the diet, the benefits vanished and these children were susceptible to polio. Dr.
Humphries thinks there are 4 reasons for this: 1. Lack of maternal disease protection babies get from
breast milk, 2. Toxicity and inferiority of formula, which can never be a good substitute for breast milk,
3. DDT used in cows was present in milk and 4. Formula is an immuno-suppressant. Breast milk is a
living organism that contains stem cells and probiotics and it inactivates pathogens and protects
babies.
Dr Humphries suggests that what took polio from being a relatively harmless inhabitant of the normal
gut, to a terrifying disease for some, can be described by the idea of synergy. Synergy refers to
added circumstances that, alone or in combination, interact with a virus to make it more virulent. Here
are some of the synergistic factors that have been clearly linked to the diagnosis of polio, particularly
during the US epidemics of the 1950’s:
Intramuscular injections can cause provocation polio. Breakage of tissue and blood vessels
allows access of the virus, when it is already in the bloodstream, to access the peripheral
nerves and get into the central nervous system, causing paralysis.
Tonsillectomies can also cause a type of provocation polio. Tonsillectomies became very
popular during the 1950’s. Tonsils serve as gate keepers of lung and intestinal immunity,
protecting us from things we breathe or swallow. Removing tonsils gives toxins direct access
to the brain stem and rest of the body, instead of being trapped in the throat and intestinal
lymphatic zones. Historically, polio was much more prevalent in those who had their tonsils
removed.
White sugar is another factor that was available in abundance during the polio epidemics of
the 1950’s. White sugar was processed with bleach, chemicals, disinfectants and quick lime.
In 1948, there was an outbreak of polio in North Carolina. Dr. Benjamin Sandler did an
experiment in sugar consumption. He widely broadcast his theory that reducing sugar
consumption would reduce the chance that polio would result in paralysis. People listened and,
in 1949, the state saw a 90% decrease in poliomyelitis.
DDT: Humphries shares a slide that graphs polio incidence and pesticide production in the US
between 1940 and 1970. The line graphing polio incidence follows exactly the same trajectory
as the production of pesticides. DDT was marketed as being safe and effective, even for use
around babies. There is footage from the 1950’s that documents, in horrifying detail, the
common practice of dousing children with DDT. Eventually, it was discovered that DDT induces
symptoms that are indistinguishable from poliomyelitis. DDT enhances the release and
multiplication of the polio virus. Other pesticides in wide use were also shown to increase the
multiplication rate of the polio virus.
Arsenic was also considered safe and especially good for children and was widely used at the
height of the 1950’s polio epidemics. It was used in common household items as well as
medications, such as ‘Tryparsamide’, manufactured by Merck in the 1930’s. It was used to
treat syphilis, often in a series of 100 injections. Arsenic poisoning has been shown to cause
symptoms in cows which look just like polio. Cows don’t get polio.
Polio was redefined when the Salk vaccine was marketed and began being sold. Before
1954, two doctor exams, 48 hours apart, were required to diagnose paralytic polio. That means
that a person could have had paralysis for 24 hours and even if that person made a full
recovery (as would almost always be the case), that person would have been counted among
those diagnosed with paralytic polio. After the Salk vaccine was introduced, the requirement for
diagnosis was changed to two doctor exams, 60 days apart. Obviously, this made it appear
that there was a decline in polio that coincided with the introduction of the polio vaccine. It’s no
wonder everyone thought the vaccine was responsible. Another definition happened to occur
as the Salk vaccine was rolled out. This time it was the definition of an epidemic. Before 1954,
a polio epidemic was defined as 20 diagnosed cases out of 100,000 people, but the definition
was almost doubled, requiring 35 diagnosed cases out of 100,000 people before it could be
called an epidemic. Of course, again, you can see why it looked like the Salk vaccine saved us
all from polio.
The Salk Vaccine

Dr. Humphries describes a fatal flaw in Salk’s polio vaccine: the formaldehyde was not sufficient to
kill the polio virus. A Swedish virology expert warned the powers that be that this was the case but
he was ignored, as are skeptics today. Salk’s vaccine virus was actually impossible to sufficiently
inactivate with formaldehyde. Some bottles of the vaccine passed all safety tests but when sampled
from the bottles 3 months later, they were full of live virus.
The Cutter Incident occurred in 1955. It refers to an incident whereby at least 220,000 people were
infected with polio after receiving a vaccine with live virus of a virulent strain of polio. Ten were killed,
164 were severely paralyzed, 70,000 experienced muscle weakness and millions were likely exposed
to polio as a result. An estimated 40,000 cases of abortive polio (milder version) resulted from the
mistake. The reason this happened was because of the fatal flaw mentioned above. In order to
reduce the amount of live virus, the vaccine virus had to be watered down drastically.
The Salk polio vaccine that was celebrated as ending polio was actually an ineffective vaccine. It
was either a live virus that infected people with polio or it was so watered down, that it didn’t stimulate
the immune system to provide protection from polio. When the Salk vaccine was replaced after a few
years with the Sabin oral polio vaccine, protocol dictated that children who had received the Salk
vaccine get 3 doses of the new one. This fact shows that the pharmaceutical company, those in
charge of public health and the medical community knew about the fatal flaw with the Salk vaccine.
Instead of admitting the mistake, they covered it up and silenced those who spoke out about it,
according to Humphries.
Polio Re-defined
This set the stage for where we find ourselves today. We’re accustomed to constantly changing
vaccine protocols. We don’t ask why or what changed. Parents are conditioned not to question
vaccines. Humphries calls this ‘officially sanctioned history’.
What used to be diagnosed as polio is now called ‘transverse myelitis’ and those who used to be in
an iron lung are now on respirators. There are 30,000 cases of this every year.
“Acute Flaccid Paralysis (AFP) is just another name for what would have been called polio in 1955,
and the term is used to describe a sudden onset of paralysis. It is the most common sign of acute
polio, and used for surveillance during polio outbreaks. AFP is also associated with a number of other
pathogenic agents including enteroviruses, echoviruses, and adenoviruses, among others. But in
1955, there was no attempt to detect anything other than polio in cases of AFP. Once the vaccine
was mass marketed, the game changed, according to Dr. Humphries. Polio didn’t disappear, they just
call it AFP or one of many other names: Transverse Myelitis, Guillain-Barré syndrome, enteroviral
encephalopathy, traumatic neuritis, Reye’s syndrome and aseptic meningitis, to name a few.
AFP (acute flaccid paralysis) appears to have developed from a vaccine polio virus. In developing
countries like India, data show that the wild virus is declining while vaccine strains of polio have
recombined and strengthened. The epidemics experienced in some countries currently are in direct
correlation to those children vaccinated for polio. Children in India have been shown to be more than
twice as likely to die from the virus version of polio as from the wild version.
Here are some excerpts from the article by Dr. Suzanne Humphries, Smoke, Mirrors and the
“Disappearance” of Polio:
Unbeknownst to most doctors, the polio-vaccine history involves a massive public health service
makeover during an era when a live, deadly strain of poliovirus infected the Salk polio vaccines, and
paralyzed hundreds of children and their contacts. These were the vaccines that were supposedly
responsible for the decline in polio from 1955 to 1961! But there is a more sinister reason for the
“decline” in polio during those years; in 1955, a very creative re-definition of poliovirus infections was
invented, to “cover” the fact that many cases of ”polio” paralysis had no poliovirus in their systems at
all. While this protected the reputation of the Salk vaccine, it muddied the waters of history in a big
way.
Even during the peak epidemics, unifactorial poliovirus infection, resulting in long-term paralysis, was
a low-incidence disease that was falsely represented as a rampant and violent crippler by Basil
O’Connor’s “March Of Dimes” advertising campaigns. At the same time as Basil O’Connor was
pulling in 45 million dollars a year to fund the Salk vaccine development, scientists started to realize
that other viruses like Coxsackie, echo and enteroviruses, could also cause polio. They also
discussed the fact that lead, arsenic, DDT, and other commonly-used neurotoxins, could identically
mimic the lesions of polio. During the great epidemics in the United States, the pathology called polio
was reversed by alternative medical doctors who attested to great success, using detoxification
procedures available at the time – yet they were categorically ignored.
Now it is admitted in the medical literature that other viruses can cause polio, yet few people on the
street have any idea.
Prior to 1954, the following undoubtedly hid behind the name “poliomyelitis”: Transverse Myelitis, viral
or “aseptic” meningitis, Guillain-Barre Syndrome (GBS)- (what Franklin Delano Roosevelt had),
Chinese Paralytic syndrome, Chronic Fatigue Syndrome, epidemic cholera, cholera morbus, spinal
meningitis, spinal apoplexy, inhibitory palsy, intermittent fever, famine fever, worm fever, bilious
remittent fever, ergotism, post-polio syndrome, acute flaccid paralysis(AFP).
Before you believe that polio has been eradicated, have a look at this graph of AFP and Polio. If you
are wondering why there is no data prior to 1996, go to the WHO website for AFP and you will see
that there is no data prior to 1996, and note that AFP conitnues to rise in 2011.
When people ask me where all the children on iron lungs are, I would answer that they should ask Dr.
Douglas Kerr from Johns Hopkins, who stated on pg. xv in the Forward to Donna Jackson
Nakazawa’s book “The Autoimmune Epidemic”…
“Infants as young as five months old can get Transverse Myelitis, and some are left permanently
paralyzed and dependent upon a ventilator to breathe… my colleagues at the Johns Hopkins
Hospital and I hear about or treat hundreds of new cases every year.”
Does the public have any idea that there are hundreds of cases of something that would once have
been called polio, and some of those children will be dependent on a modern version of the iron
lung? No. Parents today think that the Salk vaccine eliminated any need for ventilators, because the
pictures of all these children on iron lungs are no longer paraded in front of people in order to create
fear. Besides which, today’s “iron lungs” don’t look like a prototype submarine. They are barely
recognizable as today’s “ventilators.”
The polio vaccine had the fastest licensing in FDA history. It was approved for commercial production
after only a two-hour deliberation amongst the Licensing Committee, in a pressured environment.
These scientists witnessed a vaccine that was escorted to market, before academic and community
doctors had a chance to read any published reports on the safety studies, and before the results of
the big polio vaccine trial made it into any medical journal. If these scientists had had more say, it is
likely that the “Cutter” disaster and the “Wyeth problem,” both events that led to crippling or death of
vaccine recipients just weeks following the hurried vaccine licensing – could have been averted.
Dr. Humphries quotes the following testimony that was part of the opening brief of a lawsuit involving
Cutter labs and it references how the vaccine was actually brought to market.
“Previously it [the vaccine] had been distributed as an experimental product, not a licensed product…
the committee was asked to come to a decision very quickly…there was discussion of the report that
Dr Francis had given, but we were not in a position to discuss it very intensively because we had not
seen the report prior to this morning and the report was distributed to us after the presentation…we
were pressured in the sense that we were told that speed was essential, and when we came up
toward the 5:00 time, some of us felt we would like to discuss this matter more. We were told that to
discuss the matter further it would have to go into the following week, and we would have to go to
Washington or Bethesda and most of the members were unwilling to do so. We were in effect
pressured into an earlier decision than we ordinarily would have made. …It was part of the pressure
of events, put it that way.”
And that is only the beginning of the polio story, the likes of which currently serve as the foundation of
modern belief in vaccination, even by those who may have doubts regarding current vaccine policy.
What About Smallpox?

Smallpox is another disease that has been historically misrepresented and a lot of the facts have
been conveniently forgotten. Here is an excerpt from a November, 2005 article by Lynn Borne from
the Weston Price Organization, addressing the role of vaccines in eradicating disease:
While we have all been taught that vaccination ended the world’s many deadly epidemics, an honest
and careful review of original historical medical sources, publications and statistics from the past two
hundred years reveals that infectious diseases declined 90 percent before mass vaccination was
ever introduced.
Experts attribute the cessation of epidemic diseases not to mass vaccination, but to a major
sanitation reform movement that swept Europe during the 1800s. These reforms included moving
human waste out of streets via plumbing systems; regularly cleaning streets and stables of horse
manure and human waste; improving roads so that meats, vegetables and raw milk could be
distributed in cities while still fresh; and upgrading water distribution systems to prevent bacterial
contamination.
All the old terror diseases of plague, black death and cholera responded to these reforms, and
epidemics declined throughout the 1800s, long before the advent of vaccination. Even the CDC
reported in 1999 that infectious diseases declined in the past century due to improvements in
sanitation, water and hygiene. Vaccination against whooping cough, diphtheria, measles and polio all
occurred only at the very end of the life cycle of each epidemic, exposing the fallacy of the claim that
vaccination ended epidemics.
The only exception to this decline in epidemic disease is smallpox, which, contrary to all we
have been taught, actually increased with the advent of mandatory vaccination and decreased
only after an organized uprising by parents and doctors forced European governments to end
their mandatory vaccination programs. Even though the World Health Organization claims
credit for the eradication of smallpox worldwide through vaccination, the fact is that smallpox
declined in countries around the world whether the population had been vaccinated or not.
As Dr. Glen Dittman said in 1986:
“It is pathetic and ludicrous to say we vanquished smallpox with

vaccines, when only 10 percent of the population were ever
vaccinated.”
Leicester
Towards the end of the 19th century, the town of Leicester had one of the highest small pox
vaccination rates in England. Despite this, Leicester became the site of a hideous small pox epidemic
in 1871. The death rate skyrocketed, far beyond what was experienced in London, where
vaccination rates were much lower and sanitation conditions much worse. The public started
catching on to a connection between the vaccinations and the epidemic and began refusing
vaccinations in droves. By 1890 vaccination rates in Leicester were down from 95% to 5%. Once
they made a decision to stop vaccinations, they saw a direct improvement in their small pox
numbers. Eventually they were able to bring the disease under control without using vaccines. Dr.
Humphries goes into detail about this in her book, Dissolving Illusions: Disease, Vaccines and the
Forgotten History.
Yale Professor Talks About Sanitary Movement

This Yale History lecture offers a thorough discussion on the topic of sanitation and its historical role
in eradicating disease.
Let’s ask some simple questions. What hard proof do we have that vaccines are effective? Knowing
what we now know about vaccine efficacy, how can we be sure that vaccines offer protection from
disease? We have countless examples telling us they do not. What credible clinical data do we have
that vaccines even work at all? The science behind vaccine efficacy is far from conclusive and is
extremely dependent on interpretation. What if all these vaccinated people were never at particular
risk of catching the disease in the first place?
Maybe it’s not safe to assume that a decrease in epidemics equals vaccine success. We now know
that those who are vaccinated will shed the disease. What role does shedding play in some of the
outbreaks we are hearing about lately? When it comes to irrefutable proof, vaccine science is actually
more like a religion, requiring us to place our blind faith in pharmaceutical companies and the medical
establishment to have our best interests at heart.
Wealth Equals Health
More Wealth Equals Better Health

In the video above, Hans Rosling takes a unique historical perspective which shows the direct
correlation between the wealth of a country and improved overall health. With wealth comes a better
standard of living through things like electricity, refrigeration, better nutrition, better sanitation, food
distribution, etc. Most people cannot relate to the poverty and poor conditions that were prevalent
100 years ago but such conditions were a significant factor in these infectious disease epidemics.
Summary
It’s difficult for most people to believe that vaccines did not play a major role in the eradication of
infectious diseases in the 20th century but the data simply does not support that theory. We are led to
believe that it is an open and shut case, but it clearly is not. As we can see from taking a look at the
whole body of information available, it seems clear that the opposite is true. In fact, it is a real stretch
that people make the argument, in light of the data. It seems the further removed we are from
historical events, the easier it is for history to be revised in favor of the powerful interests that stand to
benefit from the revisions.
10/9/2019 The Conclusive Evidence Linking Vaccines and Autism - Vision Launch
The Conclusive Evidence Linking Vaccines and Autism

visionlaunch.com/the-conclusive-evidence-linking-vaccines-and-autism
Image Source: healthimpactnews.com
Vaccines and Autism
visionlaunch.com/the-conclusive-evidence-linking-vaccines-and-autism/ 1/15
The vaccine autism argument can be confusing when debating the facts, because from our research,
there are several different factors at play when it comes to autism, not just the mercury based
compound, Thimerosal. The reason for the ambiguity is because our health officials tell us that they
have removed Thimerosal from vaccines and we still see autism cases on the rise, so it cannot be
the Thimerosal (or vaccines) causing autism.
They also present the public with several dubious studies in which we are told concludes that there is
no evidence linking the two. Case closed. No further testing needed. Which is one of the problems
we see in our health officials’ approach to autism. We have an autism epidemic in this country where
more than 1 out of every 50 children is being diagnosed. Unfortunately, vaccine manufacturers and
health officials are more interested in excluding vaccines as the cause than trying to find a remedy to
stop this national tragedy.
To put the rise in autism in the proper perspective, very few, if any of the infectious diseases that our
children are being vaccinated for, come even close to a 1 in 50 prevalence rate. While they are
certainly not as bad as an autism diagnosis, they are called “outbreaks” and “epidemics.” The real
epidemic we are witnessing is the catastrophic rise in autistic children in our country. It’s not
childhood infectious diseases that pose the biggest threat to our children, and our health officials
know this.
This rise in autism is not due to better diagnoses like we aretold, either. If that were the case, we
would see scores of 50 and 60 year old people with autism in our population. How many people over
50 years old do you know with autism? Certainly not 1 in 50, or even 1 in 5,000, for that matter. The
truth is, the spike in autism is a recent phenomenon and has become a real threat to our society. If
left unaddressed, we can expect millions of people in our country to not only become non-productive
members of our community, but to be unable to care for their own basic needs. In part 9 of this article
we take a comprehensive look at the many links between vaccines and autism, as well as our health
officials’ attempts to cover up the evidence.
Autism: Not on the Agenda

When we look at the evidence, it is clear that our health officials know more than they are telling us.
Judging by recent developments involving fraud, data trashing and cover-ups, it appears that they
actually know a lot more. Unfortunately, vaccine manufacturers and health officials are fully engaged
in agendas that center on self-protection and profit-making. By necessity, they are deeply committed
to maintaining the message that vaccines are safe and effective. It would be in direct conflict with
these agendas to try to identify causes or find remedies for the autism epidemic we face. This sad
truth is in striking contrast to the image they each project — namely, that public health organizations
are truly concerned with public health and that pharmaceutical companies are in the business of
health care. Neither could be further from the truth.
Autism Epidemic
We have an autism epidemic in this country, with a prevalence rate of 2.24%. This means that 1 in
every 45 children is diagnosed with ASD (Autism Spectrum Disorder). To put an ASD diagnosis in
perspective, consider some of the childhood diseases vaccines are designed to prevent like chicken
pox, measles, polio, pertussis or mumps. In first world conditions, children have an overwhelmingly
good chance of recovering fully from any one of these illnesses and, in so doing, their immune
systems become strengthened. When your child is diagnosed with measles, for example, it is not a
life sentence. You don’t go home and figure out how to rearrange your lives forever. While it is
unpleasant and frightening, it is also typically a mild illness of limited duration. If your child is
diagnosed with any of the childhood illnesses we vaccinate for, the prognosis is vastly better than for
those receiving a diagnosis of ASD. There is no cure, per se, for autism and children do not generally
recover from it.
When we look at the first chart below we see that the rise in autism has increased in lockstep with the
timeline of CDC’s increasing vaccine schedule, shown in the second chart. Since the 1970’s the
recommended vaccine schedule in the U.S. has increased by more than 400%. Over the past 40
years, there has been no uptick, no epidemic and no new knowledge uncovered to warrant such a
drastic increase in vaccines in order to protect public health.
Please note that 2009 is the last year reflected on the graph below. If you add the numbers from the
last 6 years, you would see the blue line continue its steep upward trajectory, reflecting an autism
epidemic. The CDC conducted a national health interview and, based on data from 2011-2014, CDC
reports that the incidence of ASD is actually 1 in 45 children, or 2.24%. This information is taken
directly from the CDC National Health Reports Statistics Bulletin 87, published in November,
2015.
Autism’s Parabolic Rise
Spike in the CDC Vaccine Schedule

While the graph below illustrates the history of a remarkable increase in vaccines, keep in mind that
there are almost 300 new vaccines in the development pipeline. Imagine how this graph will look in
a few short years, if left unchecked.
How Can Officials Be So Quick To Rule Out Vaccines?

What is the effect of combining dozens of vaccine ingredients in our children’s developing immune
systems in such a concentrated time-frame? Answer: we don’t know. This may seem shocking to
most people, but after almost 30 years of an increasingly aggressive vaccine schedule and scores of
children developing autism and many other health issues, our health officials have not done studies
of the combined effect of even 3 vaccines, let alone 8-13 that they can receive in one visit. All the
studies about vaccines are only based on receiving one vaccine at a time.
How can our health officials say that vaccines do not cause autism in the absence of the fundamental
knowledge needed to make such a statement? They can’t! It’s not possible. Without performing
studies on the combined effects of multiple vaccines at once, it is impossible to rule out vaccines as
a possible cause for autism or any other diseases our children have developed over the last few
decades. And anyone who says that vaccines don’t cause autism cannot be considered as credible,
plain and simple. As you will see from the evidence presented in this part, our officials know there is a
link between vaccines and autism but they are doing everything in their power to hide the facts.
CDC Stance on Vaccines and Autism

You have heard it over and over: our public health officials are taking a blatantly anti-scientific stance
on the topic. They don’t care to elaborate much beyond citing the ‘overwhelming number of studies’
showing that vaccines don’t cause autism. In perhaps their most defensive stance to date, our public
health officials tell us the case is closed and no further testing is needed. Vaccines do not cause
autism, it has been decided. What true scientists would ever say that their findings are definitive and
that no further research is warranted? The very nature of science is to gather information on an
ongoing basis and to allow new findings to influence and redefine what we thought we knew. The
CDC, the FDA, the WHO all tell us: ‘case closed’. Really? Taking a suspiciously unquestionable
perspective, CDC tells us not only that vaccines don’t cause autism but that there is not even a
connection. Such a distinct and concerted effort to shut down the conversation would make it appear
that perhaps much more is at stake than scientific truth.
Vaccine and Autism Talking Points

There are a number of talking points on the un-publishable public health agenda regarding vaccines
and autism, which are recited over and over by our media and by the multitudes of those on the
payrolls of the pharmaceutical industry, including our public health officials. The talking points are
listed below, along with a refutation of each of them.
‘Autism isn’t really on the rise: we are just getting better at diagnosing it.’
False. One of the arguments you might hear from public health officials is that the huge rise in ASD
is due to better diagnosis. Once data from the Vaccine Safety Datalink (VSD) was finally released by
the US Department of Health and Human Services, however, this argument was found to be
invalid. Think about how many people you know over 50 who have autism. Our guess is none. The
truth is that the spike in autism is a recent phenomenon and has become a real threat to our society.
If left unaddressed, what can we expect from the next generations of adults? What about their
children? In part 9 of this article we take a comprehensive look at the many links between vaccines
and autism, as well as our health officials’ collective determination to end the conversation.
‘Mercury was removed from all childhood vaccines over a decade ago.’
False. We are told by people like Dr. Richard Pan, co-author of the SB277 bill that Thimerosal is not
in childhood vaccines but that is not true. Thimerosal was not eliminated from all childhood
vaccines. In 1999, the the American Academy of Pediatrics recommended removing Thimerosal from
vaccines routinely given to infants. Instead of removing all existing vaccines that contained
Thimerosal, which drug makers said they could do and have new batches in short order, the CDC
opted to let the existing stock run out before ordering new ones, which took two to three years. CDC
reports that in 2001, “(e)xcept for influenza (flu), thimerosal is removed from or reduced in all
vaccines routinely recommended for children 6 years of age and under manufactured for the U.S.
market.”
Thimerosal Never Left
To this day, the influenza vaccine still has toxic amounts of mercury, in the form of Thimerosal and the
flu shot is most definitely on the CDC Childhood Vaccine Schedule. Around the time that Thimerosal-
laden vaccine stock was being used up from the other vaccines, the influenza vaccine was being
recommended for use in infants and pregnant women. In spite of the fact that the influenza vaccine
has not ever been shown to be safe for either group. Also, as Thimerosal was phased out of some
vaccines, increasing and equal amounts of aluminum were replacing the mercury. More on
aluminum in vaccines later in this part.
‘If mercury were that dangerous, we’d all be dead from eating tuna.’
False. Actually, this is a clever retort but fairly devoid of any real meaning. The truth is that the fish
we consume has far, far less mercury than a single flu vaccine (see graphic below) and yet our health
officials warn moms to be to avoid eating too much fish when pregnant. Vaccines contain
methylmercury while ethylmercury is the type found in fish. A 2013 study points out the absurdity of
public health officials’s stance on mercury: “Although ethylmercury (eHg) is considered a hazardous
substance that is to be avoided even at small levels when consumed in foods such as seafood and
rice (in Asia), the World Health Organization considers small doses of Thimerosal safe regardless of
multiple/repetitive exposures to vaccines that are predominantly taken during pregnancy or infancy.”
The study goes on to find that the two types of mercury appear to have similar dangers and that, in
combination, they have a ‘distinct toxokinetic profile’, which is particularly dangerous. Another critical
point is that when consumed in food, our bodies have processes for limiting absorption and excreting
a portion of heavy metals like the mercury found in Thimerosal. This is not true for injected mercury,
which may leave the bloodstream but reside in the brain and tissues throughout the body. Blood
samples, therefore, will likely not tell the whole story about mercury exposure. Unused/expired
vaccines that contain Thimerosal are considered hazardous waste and must be disposed of
according to specific safety guidelines due their mercury content.
‘There is no link between vaccines and autism.‘
False. When our health officials make such a definitive statement, we expect that they have lots of
irrefutable evidence to back it up. CDC actually says that when used in vaccines, Thimerosal is no
longer a toxin, but actually just becomes a preservative. Their boldness in this statement alludes
to conclusive evidence (and some kind of strange alchemy) which, unfortunately, has translated into
unmerited public confidence in the message and the messenger. When our public health officials say
something with such certainty, we expect to find an abundance of supporting evidence for their claim.
Let’s delve deeper, considering that evidence firsthand.
Here is the 2011 report cited by CDC as evidence that “… with rare exceptions, these
vaccines are very safe.” This report is the result of a committee looking at existing studies and
epidemiological data to try to determine if evidence supports a causal relationship between
particular vaccines and particular adverse events. Their conclusion was that, for 135
relationships they looked at, (the majority of cases) “… the evidence was inadequate to accept
or reject a causal relationship.” The committee was, however, able to conclude that
“… evidence favors rejection of five vaccine-adverse event relationships, including MMR
vaccine and autism.” Far from definitive, far from the best they could do, it is clear that our
public health officials rely on the fact that we’re not all scientists. This report bears no
resemblance to real scientific research when it comes to publication standards, methodology,
transparency or bias. Although the committee could conclude absolutely nothing regarding the
majority of the adverse side effect-vaccine pairs they considered, they were somehow still able
to conclude: “Overall, the committee concludes that few health problems are caused by or
clearly associated with vaccines.” How could they possibly conclude this based on their
inability to conclude so little about so much? It’s like magic.
The second source cited by CDC regarding the nonexistent link between vaccines and autism
is their own 2013 study. This study involved a regressive analysis of amount of antigens
children were exposed to at one time and over different periods of time early in life, via
vaccines, and the incidence of autism. The study found that there was no connection.
Unfortunately, the study was not designed to test for the singular or cumulative effects of
mercury or aluminum and their role in causing autism. No one is alleging that the antigen
(virus) is causing autism. It’s the heavy metal adjuvants that are most concerning and this
study didn’t address these at all. If you’d like to read more about the many problems with this
research, you can check out this critique by Brian S. Hooker, Ph.D., P.E, who found that this
study was “… based on data from 2010 and is basically a rehash of a “fraudulent” study
published then.” Of course, if CDC were truly interested in answering this question, they
certainly know how to design research accordingly.
Overall, CDC cites 9 studies, which they say support their assertion that vaccines do not
cause autism. You can access each of these studies on the internet and review them for
yourself and you can also read this paper, titled Methodological Issues and Evidence of
Malfeasance in Research Purporting to Show Thimerosal in Vaccines Is Safe, in which
the CDC’s evidence is thoroughly reviewed and deemed lacking at best, and corrupt at worst.
One study CDC have historically referenced to support their assertion about the safety of
vaccines is the ‘Danish Autism Study‘, co-authored by Dr. Poul Thorsen. Thorsen authored or
co-authored numerous other studies for CDC over the years. In April, 2011, Dr. Thorsen was
indicted by a federal grand jury on 13 counts of wire fraud and 9 counts of money laundering. It
appears that Thorsen embezzled around $2 million of CDC (taxpayer) grant money. His Danish
Autism Study has recently been shown to be invalid and has long been criticized as fraudulent.
Conclusive Links Between Vaccines and Autism

Despite what the media and our healthcare officials constantly tell us, the fact of the matter is, we
have conclusive evidence that links vaccines and autism, but it cannot be admitted by anyone in any
official capacity. If this connection is admitted, it will open a Pandora’s box, signaling a cascade effect
whereby more and more people decline vaccines and demand safety research before granting their
consent. It will set a precedent. If the general public knows there is a link between vaccines and
autism, vaccine uptake will drop precipitously, litigation will dramatically increase and the vaccine
mandate itself will be in serious jeopardy. Not to mention the profound effect it will have on the
pharmaceutical industry. This is why it must be viciously defended at all costs.
All one would need to do is look at the Hannah Poling case or the Bailey Banks case in which the
government conceded that vaccines were, in fact, the reason for their children’s autism like
symptoms (or autism). They parse their words carefully in their decisions and press releases, but
that’s essentially their rulings. The Poling and Banks cases are not unique. Here is an article titled
“Vaccine Court Awards Millions to Two Children With Autism” which addresses these cases
which were compensated for “autism like symptoms.” The Vaccine Injury Compensation Program has
since been very careful about how they define autism for the exact reason I stated above, to avoid
setting precedent.
Other Cases That Link Vaccines and Autism

But there are a lot more than just four cases. Now we hear terms like ‘encephalitis’ (brain swelling)
and “vaccine induced encephalopathy” (brain disease) because the autism term is just too
emotionally and politically charged. In the end, these are all forms of brain injuries to varying
degrees. In fact it is common knowledge to those close to NVICP that if you are seeking
compensation for your vaccine-injured child, you had better not mention the word autism, or you will
never ever get a hearing.
A May, 2011 study published in the Pace Environmental Law Review concluded that the Vaccine
Injury Compensation Program (VICP) compensated 83 cases in which the court acknowledged
vaccine induced encephalopathy and seizure disorders that included autism or autism-like
symptoms. Here are 30 scientific studies that show vaccines can cause autism from the whale.to
site.
U.S. Health Officials Are Well Aware of the Link
Dr. Thomas Verstraeten – CDC Epidemiologist

In June, 2000, a secret meeting was convened at Simpsonwood Conference & Retreat Center in
Norcross, Georgia, near CDC headquarters. In attendance were CDC, FDA and WHO scientists and
consultants, as well as those representing pharmaceutical companies. Participants were warned that
the information under review was ’embargoed’, meaning that no papers were allowed to leave the
room and copying documents was prohibited. The meeting was titled “Scientific Review of Vaccine
Safety Datalink Information.”
The meeting was scheduled in response to a CDC epidemiologist’s findings six months earlier, which
showed conclusive evidence of a link between vaccines and autism. The CDC epidemiologist was Dr.
Thomas Verstraeten and he was the lead researcher tasked with determining the link between
neurodevelopmental disorders and the mercury-based Thimerosal in vaccines. After analyzing the
massive CDC database, Vaccine Safety Datalink, (VSD) Dr. Verstraeten found a clear correlation
between vaccines and neurodevelopmental disorders, including autism. (We cite this unpublished
study later in this article.)
We have found statistically significant relationships between exposure [to

mercury in vaccines] and outcomes. At two months of age, developmental
delay; exposure at three months, tic; at six months, attention deficit
disorder. Exposure at one, three and six months, language and speech
delays — the entire category of neurodevelopmental delays.
-Dr. Thomas Verstraeten
It was only through many FOIA requests (freedom of information act) that the public was able to
discover what went on at the Simpsonwood Conference. Putchildrenfirst.org has compiled
extensive information on the events leading up to this meeting which includes the transcript of the
meeting itself as well as much of the internal communications among the people directly involved.
When we look at the internal correspondence leading up to the meeting, it’s clear that they are far
more concerned about concealing the vaccines-autism link that about the children who were injured.
Dr. Coleen Boyle, who was the Assistant Director for Science at the CDC, sent an email to Dr. Frank
Destefano from the CDC asking if he considered excluding the data with highest risk age group for
autism from the study. As Dr. Healy points out in part one of this article, this is called data mis-coding
and although it is scientific misconduct, it is a common practice used to manipulate a study’s findings
to show favorable results.
As a result of Dr. Verstraeten’s findings, the AAP (American Academy of Pediatrics) and Public
Health Service put out a joint statement asking for the elimination of Thimerosal from vaccines,
among a list of additional necessary actions. Here is what they stated in the joint release:
The key actions being taken are:

1. A formal request to manufacturers for a clear commitment and a plan to eliminate or
reduce as expeditiously as possible the mercury content of their vaccines.
2. A review of pertinent data in a public workshop.
3. Expedited FDA review of manufacturers’ supplements to their product license

applications to eliminate or reduce the mercury content of a vaccine.
4. Provide information to clinicians and public health professionals to enable them to

communicate effectively with parents and consumer groups.
5. Monitoring immunization practices, future immunization coverage, and vaccine-

preventable disease levels.
6. Studies to better understand the risks and benefits of this safety assessment.
The Simpsonwood Conference

After the joint release from the AAP and PHS, CDC went into damage control mode and
commissioned the Simpsonwood Conference. It seems clear that the meeting was convened in an
effort to devise a game plan for how to deal with Dr. Verstraeten’s findings. As we see from WHO’s
Dr. John Clements’ quote below, the fundamental reason for the meeting was to determine how to
spin this information to the public. Here is an excellent article written about the conference by Dr.
Russell Blaylock.
Some Quotes From the Simpsonwood Conference:
“the number of dose related relationships [between mercury and autism]

are linear and statistically significant. You can play with this all you want.
They are linear. They are statistically significant.”
– Dr. William Weil, American Academy of Pediatrics. Simpsonwood, GA, June 7, 2000
“But there is now the point at which the research results have to be
handled, and even if this committee decides that there is no association
and that information gets out, the work has been done and through the
freedom of information that will be taken by others and will be used in
other ways beyond the control of this group.”
“And I am very concerned about that as I suspect that it is already too late
to do anything regardless of any professional body and what they say…My
mandate as I sit here in this group is to make sure at the end of the day
that 100,000,000 are immunized with DTP, Hepatitis B and if possible Hib,
this year, next year and for many years to come, and that will have to be
with Thimerosal containing vaccines unless a miracle occurs and an
alternative is found quickly and is tried and found to be safe.”
– Dr. John Clements, World Health Organization, Simpsonwood, GA, June 7, 2000
“Forgive this personal comment, but I got called out at eight o’clock for an
emergency call and my daughter-in-law delivered a son by c-section. Our
first male in the line of the next generation and I do not want that grandson
to get a Thimerosal containing vaccine until we know better what is going
on. It will probably take a long time.”
” In the meantime, and I know there are probably implications for this
internationally, but in the meanwhile I think I want that grandson to only be
given Thimerosal-free vaccines.”
– Dr. Robert Johnson, Immunologist, Simpsonwood, GA, June 7, 2000
CDC Whitewash
These doctors are clearly troubled about Dr.Verstraeten’s findings and in their own words, each of
them acknowledges that there is a link between vaccines and autism. After all this, what do you think
happened to the study’s conclusion? It took Dr. Verstraeten three years to publish the findings from
his research but, true to form regarding CDC treatment of non-conforming research, they suppressed
it. The final published study was a whitewash, removing or minimizing all autism-vaccine links.
Here is how Safe Minds described the CDC’s handling of this:
“The CDC’s approach to analysis of the VSD database demonstrates a

pervasive pattern of bias and conscious manipulation of samples,
statistics and findings to produce a negative finding regarding the dangers
of thimerosal exposure to children.”
“Despite significant problems with study design and data quality and
contrary to public statements by the CDC, the VSD analyses of autism,
NDDs and speech delay provide support for a causal relationship between
thimerosal exposure and childhood developmental disorders.”
“Comparisons at a population level across HMOs suggest that compliance

with the recommended vaccine schedule of thimerosal exposure was
associated with high rates of neurological disorders and developmental
delay.”
Even with the CDC’s “conscious manipulation” of the study’s findings, the evidence was so
overwhelming that the link between vaccines and autism could not go undetected.
To see how the CDC removed vaccines’ association to autism click here.
The CDC Does It Again
Dr. William Thompson, CDC Whistle-blower

Dr. William Thompson, a senior epidemiologist employed by the CDC, has admitted that he and his
co-authors destroyed data at the behest of his superiors at CDC, which conclusively links Merck’s
MMR vaccine to an over 300% rise in autism for African-American males under age 3. The only
reason we know about this is that Dr. Thompson was secretly recorded confessing to the deed.
Fortunately, Dr. Thompson saved all the original hard copies of the study claiming he knew it would
be a crime to destroy the data, just in case of a DOJ inquiry. These documents (100,000 of them)
have been handed over to congress and a select few news outlets. The conclusion of this study was
obviously a problem for the CDC scientist from the beginning, as evidenced by his letter (shown
below) to the then head of the CDC, Dr. Julie Gerberding.
It’s all there. This is the lowest point in my career, that I went along
with that paper. I have great shame now when I meet families of kids
with autism, because I have been part of the problem.
-Dr. William Thompson
What Happened to the Study Co-Authors?

It is important to note that CDC came out with a statement essentially admitting that they omitted
the data referred to by Dr. Thompson. So what happened to Dr. Thompson’s co-authors and his
superiors at CDC? His co-authors were promoted within CDC and Dr. Julie Gerberding, head of CDC
at the time, went on to head up the Merck vaccine division, where she has held almost $5 million
of stock and where she enjoys a substantial pay increase. Quid pro quo?
Merck: Suppressing Vaccine Data

Here we have a Merck employee who reported to his superiors his research showing that Thimerosal
did not even work as an anti-microbial component and feared that Merck could be poisoning infants
who received vaccines containing Thimerosal. His research was passed on as high as scientists at
the vice presidential level. He was told not to publish his findings. Here is a PDF file of a draft of a
letter sent to the Chief Investigative Counsel, Lauren Fuller.
The Autism – Aluminum Link

Mercury, in the form of Thimerosal, remains a deeply concerning adjuvant in relation to autism, but it
is not the only culprit. Aluminum is also a heavy metal and pharmaceutical companies
use increasing and equal amounts of aluminum to replace the toxic mercury based
Thimerosal. Lest you get the impression that aluminum is a kinder or gentler adjuvant, you should
know that like mercury, aluminum is also a known neurotoxin. It has been proven to cause
devastating brain and central nervous system damage in mice in recent studies.
Current ideology is suggesting a more complex connection between vaccines and autism than a
simple causal relationship. True enough, Thimerosal, aluminum and any number of vaccine additives
are cause for serious concern in and of themselves, but researchers are now talking about a more
nuanced, dynamic interaction than what was historically suspected.
Below is a short, 8 minute video of an interview with Stephanie Seneff, PhD. She is a senior research
scientist at the MIT Computer Science and Artificial Intelligence Laboratory. She is not a medical
doctor and this may be precisely why she has been so free to explore and research the question of
autism as it relates to environmental toxins, including aluminum in vaccines. Not trained or funded by
the pharmaceutical or chemical industries, she is not beholden to them. Obviously inquisitive and
brilliant, Dr. Seneff has a world-class skill set with which to tackle some obvious questions about the
cause of the autism epidemic we face. Listen as she explains her theory regarding the role of vaccine
adjuvants, and aluminum in particular, in causing autism.
Dr. Seneff also talks about the synergistic effects vaccines have when combined with the compound
glyphosate. Glyphosate is found in the pesticides used throughout our agriculture industry,
particularly with genetically modified foods. Dr. Seneff has found an additional correlation between
the combination of the chemicals in vaccines and glyphosate.
The Replacement Of Thimerosal With Aluminum

After the controversy in the late 1990’s and early 2000’s regarding Thimerosal in vaccines, instead of
removing it from vaccines like the AAP recommended, the CDC opted to let the stock run out. What
is seldom talked about is that when the CDC phased out the vaccines containing mercury,
pharmaceutical companies replaced it with increasing amounts of an equally deadly and toxic
substance called aluminum sulfate. There are researchers who have studied the amount of aluminum
in combined vaccination doses who say that it is even more dangerous than Thimerosal. Health
officials will tell you that we ingest a certain amount of aluminum through our environment, but there’s
a big difference between ingesting and injecting. Dr. Chris Shaw conducted research on the effects of
injected aluminum in lab mice.
Dr. Chris Shaw

Dr. Chris Shaw conducted a study on aluminum’s effects in a biological organism by mimicking the
vaccine schedule using lab mice. After the mice were injected with the aluminum, they were studied.
The mice showed deteriorating motor skills as well as cognitive damage soon after being injected.
When the animals brains were studied they showed massive damage to motor neurons.
To make matters worse, with the aggressive vaccine schedule we are now adhering to, mercury and
aluminum are often combined along with a whole host of other chemical vaccine ingredients. We
have no idea and no research about how all of these vaccines and additives are interacting with each
other.
The University of Pittsburgh Study: There is a study (one of the very few of its kind) from the
University of Pittsburgh that was presented in 2008. The research involved injecting monkeys with
the same vaccine schedule children received from 1994-1999. The vaccinated monkeys developed
autism like reactions. The control group of un-vaccinated monkeys displayed no such symptoms. The
principal researcher, Laura Hewitson, has been scrutinized for not revealing that her own child is
vaccine injured and that she filed a claim with the VICP. This has been characterized as an
irreconcilable conflict of interest and has been the subject of a robust attempt to discredit her and this
research. To my knowledge, there have been no attempts to replicate her findings but many attempts
to bury the story. Dr. Hewitson’s case is an example of a stunningly effective astroturf campaign that
made a big story appear to be irrelevant in the public eye. She is a prime example of what happens
when your research findings are out of alignment with the powers that be.
When Did Autism Start?
This short video explains the first 11 cases of autism in the 1930’s and traces their relationship to the
commercial use of mercury, via Thimerosal.
Thimerosal was added to vaccines in 1931. The very first case of autism in the U.S. was
diagnosed in the mid 1930’s by Dr. Leo Kanner. When Thimerosal was tested back in the 1930’s it
killed animals in very small doses. Even so, they still added it to a number of medical products,
including vaccines.
Now that we know the the dangerous effects of Thimerosal, it’s no

coincidence that soon after Eli Lilly invented and patented this new
mercury compound called Thimerosal and added it to vaccines, as well as
various other medical products, that we see the very first case of autism in
this country.
Most people are unaware of the fact that there have been no studies on the safety of Thimerosal
since the original ones done almost 80 years ago. Does it seem right that we are injecting ourselves
and our children with a known neurotoxin, classified as a hazardous material, which hasn’t been
safety tested since the 1930’s? What about the fact that the only existing safety tests on Thimerosal
showed it to be lethal? The following is an excerpt from the Mercury in Medicine Report, by Indiana
Representative Dan Burton in 2003:
Manufacturers of vaccines and Thimerosal …. have never conducted

adequate testing on the safety of Thimerosal. The FDA has never required
manufacturers to conduct adequate safety testing on Thimerosal and
ethylmercury compounds.
If you want to learn more about the history of autism and its relation to Thimerosal, there is an
excellent slideshowmade by Focus Autism that illustrates the relationship between the two. I have
only included a few slides, but I would recommend that you review the whole slideshow, which can
be viewed here.
More Studies That Show Thimerosal-Autism Link

Boyd Haley is Professor Emeritus of Chemistry at University of Kentucky and a strong and
knowledgeable voice about the dangers of mercury.
According to Neil Z. Miller, in his 2016 book Miler’s Review of Critical Vaccine Studies, there are at
least 180 studies showing that Thimerosal is harmful. Below are just a few of these studies, with
quotes from the findings in red.
This 2015 critical review concludes:
The culmination of the research that examines the effects of Thimerosal in

humans indicates that it is a poison at minute levels with a plethora of
deleterious consequences, even at the levels currently administered in
vaccines.
This 2012 study looks at parallels between mercury intoxication and the brain pathology of
autism. The study found no fewer than 20 striking parallels between the two.
The evidence suggests that mercury may be either causal or contributory

in the brain pathology in ASD, possibly working synergistically with other
toxic compounds or pathogens to produce the brain pathology observed
in those diagnosed with an ASD.
The findings of this study from 2010 foreshadowed the results CDC covered up regarding the
increased risk of autism for non-white boys who received Thimerosal-containing vaccines.
Findings suggest that U.S. male neonates vaccinated with the hepatitis B
vaccine prior to 1999 (from vaccination record) had a threefold higher risk
for parental report of autism diagnosis compared to boys not vaccinated
as neonates during that same time period. Nonwhite boys bore a greater
risk.
**This unpublished study conducted by CDC in 2000:
This analysis suggests that high exposure to ethyl mercury from

thimerosal-containing vaccines in the first month of life increases the risk
of subsequent development of neurologic development impairment.
**This exact same study was published almost four years later, but the findings had changed. The
findings were changed to reflect the opposite of the initial findings, although the data was the same.
How many parents will tell us “it happened right after the vaccines”
before we can acknowledge that it is no coincidence?
Summary
As the overwhelming evidence clearly shows, there are many links between vaccines and autism but
as we mentioned earlier, it cannot be admitted by our health officials for the reasons we stated. The
medical establishment, media, and pharmaceutical companies have spent too much time and energy
trying to convince us otherwise and an admission now would only prove that vaccine skeptics were
correct all along and that is a Rubicon they just cannot cross. This is a very unfortunate situation that
we are at the point where our health officials have blatantly lied to us when they know the truth about
autism and vaccines. What this also shows us is that our health officials are willing to put the safety of
children at risk in order to carry out their own agendas, so we will have to excuse vaccine skeptics if
they do not trust the recommendations of these agencies.
It is quite ironic because Dr. Andrew Wakefield’s research pointed to the same conclusions as all this
evidence linking vaccines and autism, yet he was viciously attacked for it. Looks like he was right all
along. Maybe that’s why his co-author was completely exonerated on all the charges that were
brought in conjunction with their study.
10/9/2019 Why Are We Not Hearing The Whole Story About Vaccines? - Vision Launch
Why Are We Not Hearing The Whole Story About Vaccines?

visionlaunch.com/why-are-we-not-hearing-the-whole-story-about-vaccines
Image Source: stock-clip.com
A Comprehensive Review of Vaccines — Part 10 of 12

If you’ve read this article starting with Part 1, you may be asking yourself: why have I not seen or
heard this information on the news or in the paper? This is not trivial information and there’s lots of
evidence to support a skeptical view of vaccines. We have the editors of the most prestigious medical
journals telling us in no uncertain terms that the data in these journals cannot be trusted. We have
expert researchers like Dr. Healy and Dr. Jefferson walking us through actual cases exposing in great
detail, exactly how research is being manipulated to favor pharmaceutical products, including
vaccines. There’s even more reason to be skeptical of vaccine manufacturers themselves. Why isn’t
this information making headlines? Why aren’t our doctors informing us of the true risks of vaccines,
as shown by the tracking system and vaccine court? In part 10 we show you why this information is
not being covered by traditional media sources.
David Versus Goliath
visionlaunch.com/why-are-we-not-hearing-the-whole-story-about-vaccines/ 1/9
Let’s take a look at the two opposing sides of this debate. One side is a trillion dollar industry that
generates enormous profits through the sale of prescription drugs and vaccines, while the other side
gains nothing from their stance besides health, safety and discovering the truth. The motivation for
vaccine skeptics, by and large, is just to maintain a right to choose whether they and their children
are vaccinated. Parents want to be able to discern the true costs and benefits of each vaccine and to
share information about vaccines that is not readily accessible.
There is an information war going on in the world of medicine and the pharmaceutical companies
have more money and resources at their disposal than ever before. It makes David and Goliath look
like a fair fight. The pharmaceutical industry has spent hundreds of billions of dollars in marketing in
the last decade. With that type of money, you can create your own reality. The pharmaceutical
industry probably has more money budgeted for office supplies than the vaccines skeptics have in
their budget to get their message out. The vaccine skeptic movement is predominantly grass roots,
while the pharmaceutical industry can afford to create an army of loyalists using large financial
incentives as well as clever and very effective marketing tools such as astroturfing.
As we saw in the first 4 parts of this series, once you have influenced the doctors, medical journals,
medical schools, policy makers, legislatures and regulatory agencies, the hard part is done. When an
industry has total cooperation from the medical industry and billions of dollars to spend on marketing,
it’s safe to say that they have complete control of their message. And that is exactly what we see
happening in the pharmaceutical industry. Pharmaceutical companies have permeated every form of
media in existence, with a multi-pronged, multi-level, sophisticated strategy that places them in the
position of dictating exactly what gets reported and how it gets reported.
$27 Billion on Marketing Alone

In 2012, the pharmaceutical industry spent more than $27 billion on marketing, which make them
high level VIP clients to any media outlet with which they do business. Advertising agencies dream of
clients as well heeled as the typical large pharmaceutical company and will jump through rings of fire
to keep them satisfied. The television networks also count on pharmaceutical money to keep their
companies profitable. The pharmaceutical industry is an economy in and of itself and a lot of people
and organizations have come to depend on that revenue to stay afloat. The last thing these people
want to do is bite the hand that feeds them, because not only will they lose that income, but also
because the pharmaceutical industry can be an extremely dangerous adversary. Many people’s
professional careers have been ruined just for being on the wrong side of the issue. Dr. Wakefield is
a perfect example of this, as are many other doctors and people who publicly come out against their
products.
Traditional Media is Not a Viable Source of Information

This article references only a portion of a vast sea of information that is surfacing about the safety
and efficacy of vaccines. Even so, just the information we’ve covered here sounds like it would be
breaking news. It would certainly seem worthy of a story, a mention, some investigative journalism.
What gives?
Traditional media outlets have a huge stake in keeping their biggest advertisers happy. Just count the
number of prescription drug commercials you might see while watching television on a given night.
Pay particular attention to the news ads. Pharmaceutical companies have enormous marketing
budgets and they spend huge sums of money for television ads, particularly during the news. It is
estimated that 30-40% of ad revenue for most networks comes from pharmaceutical companies. It
would be extremely bad for business to run news stories that conflict with the agenda of your biggest
advertiser. Don’t think for a second that their editors don’t pay close attention to unfavorable stories
about their largest clients. The evening news is brought to you every night by the pharmaceutical
industry.
The truth is, the media is one of the drug companies’ most important and effective tools. You may
have noticed that news anchors on different channels use the same exact language to report on
issues related to public health. Likewise, you may have noticed a propensity for sensationalizing
stories related to an outbreak, for example, whereby relatively isolated incidents receive
disproportionate coverage. Thus, the seed of fear is planted and suddenly, viewers share a growing
concern about a perceived impending global epidemic. In turn, vaccine uptake increases, along with
public fear. Fear is the ace up the sleeve of drug companies. No matter how terrible their behavior
and no matter how utterly they fail to prove the safety of their products, drug companies offer us the
perception of protection.
A study published in the Oct 1, 2008 issue of the Journal of the American Medical Association found
that “News articles reporting on medication studies often fail to report pharmaceutical company
funding and frequently refer to medications by their brand names despite newspaper editors’
contention that this is not the case.” This finding alludes to the tip of the iceberg regarding the
relationship between the pharmaceutical industry and mainstream media.
Robert F. Kennedy, Jr., is an activist, attorney and nephew of the late President. He is pro-vaccine.
He is also pro-informed consent, pro-transparency and pro-reform regarding what’s in our vaccines.
Notably, he is also very outspoken about the cozy relationship between large network media and the
pharmaceutical industry. In a May, 2015, interview with former Minnesota governor Jesse Ventura,
he said: “I ate breakfast last week with the president of a network news division and he told me that
during non-election years, 70% of the advertising revenues for his news division come from
pharmaceutical ads. And if you go on TV any night and watch the network news, you’ll see they
become just a vehicle for selling pharmaceuticals. He also told me that he would fire a host who
brought onto his station a guest who lost him a pharmaceutical account.”
“I ate breakfast last week with the president of a network news

division and he told me that during non-election years, 70% of the
advertising revenues for his news division come from
pharmaceutical ads.
– Robert F. Kennedy Jr.
In the same interview, Mr. Kennedy quoted Sharyl Attkisson, Emmy award winning investigative
journalist and author of the New York Times bestseller Stonewalled, as saying that the vaccine
debate is the ‘most censored controversy of the century’. Mr. Kennedy noted that there is not a
newspaper in the country who would publish his editorial on the topic of vaccines and the
pharmaceutical industry.
The truth is that, if it ever truly lived, investigative journalism is dead. There are only a handful of real
investigative journalists. We live in a time with so much information and so very little actionable
knowledge.
You Cannot Do A Little Vaccine Research

Most people will do a cursory search on vaccines and come to the conclusion that they are safe and
effective. It’s only when you put in a few hundred hours of detective-like research that you can begin
to pierce the carefully created facade to see the level of deception that is taking place regarding
pharmaceutical products. To get an objective perspective on this complex topic you must be able to
research beyond traditional information sources. The internet can be an excellent source of
information, but it is important to be discerning. The internet, in particular, if rife with disinformation
sponsored by the drug industry and made to appear as if the source is outraged citizens or scholarly
scientists. There are also a lot of unreliable sources on both sides of the debate who make it
necessary to be smart and cautious about your sources.
Researching vaccines is not fun either. Not only does it take an enormous amount of time and
energy, but the further the research takes you, the more your eyes are opened to some ugly truths
about the pharmaceutical and medical industry that most people would rather not learn, myself
included. Not to mention, it can be difficult to even know where to begin when researching
vaccines. That is why another purpose of this article is to provide a starting point with as much
credible information as possible, all in one place, for people who are interested in learning the other
side of the story about vaccines.
Vaccine Research is Tricky

Pharmaceutical companies are spending billions of dollars on traditional marketing, as well as online
marketing. They surreptitiously use skeptic or science themed blogs as well as ‘astroturf’ groups to
discredit people coming forward with information that conflicts with their agenda. The drug
manufacturers’ marketing campaign permeates all forms of media. They design fake networks
highlighting all the key questions and search terms someone would use when researching facts
about their products.
Sharyl Attkisson is an Emmy award winning investigative journalist and author of the New York Times
bestselling book called Stonewalled. Attkisson explains how special interests, including
pharmaceutical companies, use clever tricks to create false public sentiment. She gave this TEDx
University of Nevada talk in February, 2015 titled Astroturf and manipulation of media
messages. Attkisson reveals how characterizing vaccine skeptics as ‘quacks’, ‘cranks’ and ‘nuts’ is
an effective tool that causes us to dismiss critical information.
Sharyl Attkisson explains that there is an agenda that determines what we see on the news as well
as what doesn’t get reported. She describes a carefully constructed narrative by unseen special
interests, designed to manipulate your opinion – a ‘Truman Show-esque’ alternate reality, all
around you. Attkisson goes on to explain that “incredibly powerful propaganda and publicity forces
mean we sometimes get little of the truth.” She notes that these special interests have so much time
and money that, not only can they afford to spin the news in favorable ways, but that they can also
hide the fact that they are behind it.
Attkisson explains that ‘astroturf’ methods are now more important to special interests than lobbying
Congress. She explains astroturf:
… special interests disguise themselves and publish blogs, start Facebook

and Twitter accounts, publish ads, letters to the editor or simply post
comments online to try to fool you into thinking an independent or
grassroots movement is speaking.
Industries use astroturf to make you think that there is strong support for or against an agenda when
there’s really not. The goal of astroturf methods is to get you to line up your opinion with what you
perceive to be the opinion of most others. (See conformity bias, below.)
She notes that astroturfers create controversy about those who disagree with them and “attack news
organizations that publish stories they don’t like, whistleblowers who tell the truth, politicians who
dare to ask the tough questions and journalists who have the audacity to report on all of it.”
Wikipedia is an “astroturf’s dream come true”, according to Attkisson, who notes that, counter to its
claim, not just anyone can edit it. In fact, she says, anonymous Wikipedia editors “control, co-opt,
skew, reverse and delete information on behalf of special interests.” She cited a medical study that
found that Wikipedia contradicted scientific medical research 90% of the time.
Attkisson points out some of the people and things that are bought with special interest money:
• Google search engine results ranking

• Bloggers, social media account holders
• Wikipedia editors
• Nonprofits organizations
• Doctors
• Advisory board members
• Regulatory board members
• Professional writers
• Continuing education for doctors
• Research
• Online commentators
Attkisson offer some pointers about how to recognize astroturf:
• Inflammatory language like ‘crank’, ‘quack’, ‘nutty’, ‘lies’, ‘paranoid’, ‘pseudo’ and ‘conspiracy’
• Characterizing something as ‘myth’ and then claiming to ‘debunk’ it (charged language)
• ‘Controversializing’ or attacking the people, personalities and organizations surrounding an issue,
rather than addressing the facts
• Reserving public skepticism for those who question authority; those who expose wrongdoing, rather
than the wrongdoers
According to Attkisson, we are living in an “an increasingly artificial, paid-for reality.”
Astroturf is Effective
Here’s a real life example. You are a bright, well educated person. Your friend mentions that there
are no published double blind placebo-controlled clinical trials showing that vaccines are safe. You
took enough science classes to know that this kind of research would be the standard required for
something so important. You briefly question your friend’s connection with reality, because of course,
that cannot be true! You realize that the quickest way to refute this is to do a quick internet search.
Here’s one of the first results that pops up in a google search. This site looks credible and the author
is well credentialed – a cell biologist. Her tone is matter of fact and there’s no reference to ‘quacks’ or
‘anti vaxxer nuts’. She tells you just what you expected to hear: “There have been double-blind,
placebo-controlled trials on vaccines – proving that they are safe and effective (see list at the end of
this answer).” That’s a relief.
Wow. Ok. She even cites the research! There’s a table at the end of the article that lists 7 studies.
Well, it doesn’t actually list them, but it tells you where they were conducted, ie: U.S., Argentina,
Phillipines, etc. The chart doesn’t list any specific vaccines that were tested, except for the flu
vaccine. You’re clicking on them but they’re not linked to anything. There is no information about
who conducted the research, their methodology, or how to see the studies for yourself. Wait. They’re
listed more fully down below. The author has picked 7 studies, while there are currently 14 types of
vaccines on the CDC childhood vaccination schedule. You scroll to the comments and you don’t
feel so sure any more – this is going to require some digging to get at the truth. Do you just bookmark
it for another day? Who has time to sift through these studies to know exactly what they mean or how
they were conducted?
If you had some time, you might discover that the author writes for a number of publications and on a
number of topics. She writes articles in favor of genetic engineering, pesticides, GMOs,
neonicotinoids, and mercury in vaccines, among other things. She calls food grown with pesticides
“conventional food” and she calls vaccines “immunization”. Zoom info says that she works as a lab
specialist at Hoffmann-La Roche, which is to say, the U.S. prescription drug unit of the Roche Group.
She’s on the payroll of a company who spent $5,677,320.00 on lobbying in 2015.
Because of it’s low-key tone and the appearance that it actually cites research, the above example
can dupe even the well-educated scientific consumer who doesn’t have time to sift through the
research. It doesn’t try too hard and maintains a civil tone and this is appealing to academics and
researchers.
Here’s another common example of astroturf. This example typifies drug company advertising
campaigns targeting ‘every man’. Not unlike a few of the media outlets enjoyed by this demographic,
the voice behind this brand is snarky, sarcastic, outraged, scapegoating and fed up. The author
frames vaccine skeptics’ agenda as one of ‘hate’ and describes them as a ‘cult’ whose behavior is
‘atrocious’. He baits the reader to become outraged along with him, at the ‘fake debate’ of those who
question vaccine safety and effectiveness and the research behind them. He likens vaccine skeptics
to Hitler, somehow, and says they tell ‘lies’. Perhaps not surprisingly, this blog also ‘debunks myths’
about the harm of GMOs, the link between pesticides and autism and the benefits of organic food.
Sound familiar?
There is no shortage of astroturf on the internet regarding vaccine safety and efficacy. In fact, these
kinds of articles often pop up early in search results because they pay for that privilege. It’s not cheap
to pay for this kind of billing, in case you still had any ideas about these being independent, individual
bloggers as they claim.
Here’s another example of ‘every man’s’ astroturf. Voices for Vaccines appears to be a grass roots
organization by and for parents in support of vaccines. Here is a recent article that explains who is
actually behind this organization and where they get their support. Here is another article that
explains, in excruciating detail, the convolutions of their relationship to those who stand to make a
nice profit from the group’s efforts. Whatever an individual parent member might think, the
pharmaceutical industry and those who do their bidding, understand who is steering the ship.
Why are We So Compliant?

It’s clear that pharmaceutical companies have a significant influence in setting the public health
agenda. They have co-opted people in key positions who steer the process and control the message
that impacts product sales, including vaccines. Typically only topics for academic discussion, there
are several social, cultural and psychological phenomena which are always at work in the
background, which keep us from the truth. These phenomena are well understood by the
pharmaceutical industry and are being used to good effect in the campaign for vaccines. The goal is
to subtly convert the public into allies. To the extent that we remain blind to these factors, we risk
becoming unwittingly complicit in the drug company agenda and, thereby, we transform into our own
worst enemies. To the extent that we feel compelled to staunchly align with those who scapegoat
vaccine skeptics, we are the most effective part of the most successful marketing campaign in
history.
Cognitive dissonance: The uncomfortable feeling we have when there is a discrepancy between
what we already believe to be true and new information or interpretation. When we learn something
new which contradicts what we have always believed, we are likely to avoid it. This is a psychological
phenomenon that is well researched and for which we have many examples.
This means that if, for example, I’m a parent who has worked hard to do the right thing for my child,
having them vaccinated according to the schedule recommended by my pediatrician and the CDC,
then I am less likely to entertain any new information that tells me that those vaccines could harm my
child. The more children I have and the more vaccines they’ve had, the harder I will subconsciously
work to avoid new information that contradicts the safe and effective message. It’s not something I do
on purpose, it’s a psychological mechanism that protects me. If I really like and trust my doctor, or if
I’ve worked as a pharma company sales rep, or if I’m part of the medical establishment, all of these
would only increase my cognitive dissonance and thereby, my resistance to conflicting information.
The Hippocratic Oath of physicians, whereby they promise to first, do no harm, helps us understand
the almost intolerable level of dissonance they might experience if they were to consider data
showing that vaccines are neither universally safe, nor effective. This phenomenon helps explain
why your doctor shuts down when you bring up certain research or ask particular questions. You can
imagine hundreds more possible scenarios that will help explain why new data and information
sometimes falls on deaf ears of otherwise intelligent and kind people.
Conformity bias: This refers to the human propensity to go with the crowd, to be in agreement with
our group, even when they’re wrong. It’s more comfortable to go with the flow. If I’m part of
mainstream American culture, my group believes that good parents vaccinate early, often and
completely. To do otherwise would be bucking a trend. It feels uncomfortable to be an outsider.
Parenting is hard and we all need support from other parents. This support is much easier to come
by when I’m on the same page as my friends, my pediatrician, the CDC, FDA and every media
message we hear about vaccines. The recent hype about herd immunity has only served to heighten
this ‘go along to get along’ mindset. Even if I do not want to go along with the crowd, I most certainly
do not want to identify with the ‘anti-vaxxers’ who, I’m told, threaten the safety of us all.
Systemic Bias: The built-in tendency of a process to support particular outcomes. We live in a
capitalist culture and the profit motive rules. Our sources for vaccine information spring either directly
from a business or are funded by a business, whose primary goal is to thrive financially. The
pharmaceutical industry funds, either directly or indirectly, most vaccine research. They also fund the
journals that print the studies, the media that advertises their products and reports on research
findings as well as the doctors who dole out vaccines. They even fund the agencies charged with
regulating them! Even if I were being exceptionally generous and presumed no intent to mislead, I’d
still have to admit that this looks like a farcical example of finding out the truth.
Cultural hegemony: Refers to what happens when powerful people or groups use their influence to
shape what we perceive as true, to the extent that it is eventually perceived to be common sense.
Often, what is in the best interests of the most powerful is not in the best interests of the masses.
Some people think it’s just common sense that vaccines are safe and effective. Cultural hegemony is
always at work in the background; it isn’t something we usually recognize or talk about. It’s an
academic idea that explains how those who amass the most financial power, thereby wield the
greatest power in shaping reality. That reality will always be one that boosts their bottom line.
Summary
For all intents and purposes, information about pharmaceutical drugs and vaccines has been
completely compromised. From clinical trials to the medical journals and media that reports on them,
it seems that these powerful corporations have left nothing to chance. They have literally
indoctrinated a nation into believing that anyone who even asks questions about their product is a
quack. But increasing numbers of people are waking up to this fake reality they have created.
Younger generations do not consume traditional media sources and these companies will find new
ways to try and influence them. Either way, there is new information coming out every day that
contradicts the official story and it’s becoming more difficult for them to control the message. Too
many people are waking up to the fact that what we are being told is not true.
10/9/2019 What Are Independent Researchers Telling Us About Vaccines? - Vision Launch
What Are Independent Researchers Telling Us About Vaccines?

visionlaunch.com/independent-researchers-telling-us-vaccines
Image Source: research.unsw.edu.au
Independent Researchers
As we learned in the first parts of this article, the clinical peer reviewed data has been compromised
and the whole medical system is bought and paid for, which means that we need to look for other
sources of information. Fortunately, there are many credible doctors who have put in the time and
effort researching vaccines who are not heard through traditional media sources. It is important to
note that most of these doctors were pro-vaccine before they started their research and had
administered many vaccines to their patients. Once they started to research vaccines, they were very
surprised to learn that what they were taught was simply at odds with the hard data. In part 11 of this
article we will focus on these independent researchers and hear what they have to say.
What Is Conformity Bias?
visionlaunch.com/independent-researchers-telling-us-vaccines/ 1/10
Conformity bias, in the simplest terms, is the adult version of peer pressure. Most of us tend to act
from a herd mentality, where we look to others to take our cue to evaluate our own behavior. In my
opinion, many of the medical doctors with pro-vaccination stances are caught in a conformity bias.
For if they really researched the data behind vaccines, which very few ever do, they would at the very
least become more neutral in the debate.
Why Other Perspectives Are So Valuable

Vaccine proponents tell us that we must rely on consensus science to form our conclusions, even
though that has been shown to be unreliable. They tell vaccines skeptics, “don’t listen to this or that
doctor” or “that person does not have the proper expertise to comment on vaccines” even though
these doctors have had direct experience with vaccine-injured children and adults. That type of
thinking only roots us deeper in the old paradigm and does not allow us to make a quantum leap in
understanding new, more efficient ways forward.
In any field of study, people tend to get caught up in the rules and limitations of the existing paradigm.
Many times it is the person with no built-in bias or preconceived notions who ends up creating
meaningful innovation. That is what the term “think outside the box” is meant to imply. Approach the
problem with a new perspective that is different than the one others are relying solely upon, and
cannot imagine beyond consensus (the box).
One of the ways we evolve in our understanding of the nature of our reality, is that new ideas usually
come from that lone heretic who is not afraid to question some of the more dogmatic theories that
support the existing paradigm. History is replete with such examples.
In almost every case, those first early adapters and open minded people who dare to question the
existing paradigm are met with strong resistance from the people who have the most invested in
keeping the old paradigm in place. It is only natural for those earning a living to want to protect all
they have built and rely on – we have seen it countless times. I’m sure the horse and buggy industry
was not happy to see Henry Ford’s new ideas.
It is only when the new information can no longer be ignored that the masses accept the new
changes. But powerful industries can prop up the old paradigm for quite a while if they can control the
flow of information.
Throughout history there are many products that the science and our health officials told us were
safe. It was not until the few contrary voices started to question these products and more time on the
market did we really learn about their true health detriments. Some were on the market for as many
as 50 years before the FDA recalled, like Darvon & Darvocet. Here are some more well known
products we once viewed as safe and effective: tobacco, lead paint, DDT, Agent Orange, Bextra,
Quaaludes and Vioxx. Here is a list of products that were recalled by the FDA. As we can see, just
because the FDA say’s something is safe it does not mean we can put our blind faith behind it. And
as we learned in part 3 of this series regarding U.S. health agencies, we should be even more
careful about what we blindly trust.
Dr. Lawrence Palevsky

Dr. Palevsky is a board certified pediatrician. After doing his own extensive research on the medical
data we are presented, he now uses a more holistic approach to care, which includes nutritional
science, environmental medicine, chiropractic, osteopathy, and other natural healing modalities in his
pediatric office in New York. He is one of the leading advocates of a more conservative approach to
using vaccines. Dr. Palevsky did a fellowship at Bellevue Hospital in NYC.
He noticed in the early 90’s that vaccines were being used on a population (newborns) that had little
to no risk of the disease for which they were being vaccinated (Hep B). In the late 90’s he became
concerned about the mercury in vaccines, and realized that he learned next to nothing in medical
school on this topic. He notes in the interview that current research only compares vaccinated to
vaccinated children.
True placebo groups are not used because the conventional medical system says it’s unethical to fail
to vaccinate any child. Studies typically only follow vaccinated children 1-4 weeks post injection.
Vaccine research compares symptoms of children who received the vaccines in their studies to those
of children in the general population, who have also been vaccinated. There are no vaccine studies
comparing vaccinated to unvaccinated children.
This flawed research design means that studies aren’t designed to discover the true safety or efficacy
of a given vaccine. The fact that vaccines have been administered for so long does not prove safety,
Dr. Palevsky notes, and there is no research about long term effects, side effects or interactions.
Dr. Mercola, who interviews Dr. Palevsky in the above video, encourages everyone to be skeptical
and to investigate and evaluate the topic with a critical mind. This admonition is directed at doctors, in
particular.
On doctors who are ‘firing’ patients who decline vaccines: these patients are considered to be
heretics. Dr. Palevsky noted that it “reeks of a tremendous amount of coercion and paternalism.” He
said that parents are often ahead of their physician on the knowledge base — not reading garbage
on the internet— but finding and reading information out there that is outside of what their physicians
are reading. He notes a need among the medical community for greater humility.
It’s hard to admit you’re wrong, especially if you’re a physician, and especially so if you’ve been
wrong about something that could be harmful to your patients. When it becomes a dogmatic issue,
wherein there is no room for disagreement, and when parents who decline vaccines are viewed as
heretics by those who ascribe, then we have a problem.
Dr. Palevsky notes that it is a myth that vaccines eliminate disease-causing organisms in those who
are vaccinated. “These adherents are the same people who said that the world is flat.” Science is
growing and what we thought we knew is not valid. The role of physicians has become a ‘with us or
against us’ type of role. Most pediatricians are committed and compassionate people and it is very
hard for them to imagine that they might have been wrong about vaccines or that they may have
done something that unintentionally hurt a patient.
The teaching of physicians is not going to start with their education; it has to start with a groundswell
of parents who implore them to delve deeper because they read the literature. A critical mass of
educated advocates will signal the turning point for the transition of more enlightened medical
practice. Parents don’t have to accept physicians who don’t listen. Lawmakers parrot the medical
perspective, the lobbyists’ mantra, that vaccines are safe and effective.
There are a tremendous number of studies that are showing that vaccines may not be safe or
effective. Dr. Palevsky noted that “it feels like there is a concerted effort to stop a dialogue, to
completely disallow any disagreement, to not allow for public discussion or discourse and you either
do it my way or you go.” He asks: “What kind of relationship is that? “
The power of parents connecting with parents, looking at the scientific evidence, will result in the
necessary critical mass. You can do this through the Vaccine Information Center. NVICAdvocacy.org
will help parents stay abreast of what’s happening in their states regarding informed consent. Parents
are the drivers for release of information. Physicians are paternalistic and coercive on both sides of
the argument and neither recognizes the rights of parents to make informed choices for their children.
The middle ground is that parents weigh the risks and benefits of each vaccine.
Some of the things we vaccinate for are actually helpful to the immune systems of children, triggering
developmental growth spurts post recovery. This is basic information regarding the field of virology.
The purpose of viruses is that they actually help protect the host, cleaning out waste and providing
for optimal cellular functioning. There are ways to support children through childhood illnesses in first
world countries where conditions are viable for optimal healing.
Measles vaccine was introduced in 1963, ostensibly to curtail the incidence of a dangerous type of
encephalitis that can occur following measles. Dr. Palevsky discovered, from reviewing CDC data
firsthand, that this encephalitis occurred in only .0061%, of those who had had measles. In 2012, at
the time of this interview, Dr. Palevsky noted that 1 in 88 children had autism and there was a 1.14%
encephalitis rate in children in general, which represents a roughly 500-fold increase. There are
studies which demonstrate a link between autism and brain inflammation, which is encephalitis. It is
unknown what role vaccines plays in this change, but it is clearly worthy of investigation. Literature
shows that diseases do not result in adverse effects which are propagandized widely. Polio rarely
results in paralysis, for example. Most people don’t know what polio looks like in first world
conditions. Highlighting worst case scenarios that result from childhood illness is a great propaganda
tool.
Dr. Palevsky indicates that he sees a clear cut case of vaccine injury an average of twice per week in
his 2 days/week practice. Palevsky notes that, despite this high number, we still don’t understand
vaccine effects and injuries well enough to help children who have been injured.
Dr. Palevsky is concerned that there are a lot of questions about vaccines for which we have no
answers. Chief among these questions is uncertainty and lack of data regarding the relative
absorption of vaccine materials across the blood brain barrier. This barrier is supposed to protect the
brain and nervous system from toxins. What materials in vaccines get into the brain? We haven’t
studied it. No materials should get into the brain. What is the impact? As of today, we don’t know.
One in six children today in the US who have some form of neurodevelopmental disorder, according
to Dr. Palevsky and based on this fact, he suggests “we have to wonder what’s happening”.
Dr. Christopher Shaw
This is an excerpt from the findings of a 2011 study conducted by Lucija Tomljenovic and Christopher
A. Shaw, Ph.D. Dr. Shaw is an acknowledged expert on animal models of neurological disease,
especially the ALS-Parkinsonism dementia complex. Dr. Shaw is Professor of Ophthalmology,
Medical Faculty, University of British Columbia where he holds cross appointments to the Department
of Physiology and Experimental Medicine, and author of over 100 peer reviewed publications, over
130 scientific abstracts, and editor or author of 4 books on topics in neuroscience.
Dr. Shaw did a study on the effects of aluminum in mice and the results were troubling. The mice
were injected with the same type of aluminum used in vaccines (aluminum hydroxide) and the
vaccine schedule was mimicked. To the researcher’s surprise, they found a rapid deterioration in the
mice’s behavioral skills as well as motor skills and cognitive function. When autopsies were
performed on the mice the researchers found massive damage to neurons in the brain.
Aluminum has replaced mercury in many vaccines. Used as an adjuvant, aluminum boosts your
body’s immune response to the antigen, which means that the drug company can use less of the
active ingredient and this makes production of the vaccine less expensive. Aluminum is in many
vaccines, and can currently be found in the following ones: Hep A, DTaP, Pneumococcal, Hep B, Hib
and the HPV vaccines.
Aluminum is an experimentally demonstrated neurotoxin and the most commonly used vaccine
adjuvant. 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. “In our opinion, the
possibility that vaccine benefits may have been overrated and the risk of potential adverse effects
underestimated, has not been rigorously evaluated in the medical and scientific community.”
Dr. Lucija Tomljenovic

Dr. Lucija Tomljenovic is an early career postdoctoral fellow. She was awarded a PhD in 2009 in
Biochemistry from the Comparative Genomics Centre at James Cook University in Townsville,
Australia. In 2010, she joined the Neural Dynamics Research Group at the University of British
Columbia (Chris Shaw’s lab) and is currently researching the neurotoxic effects of aluminum vaccine
adjuvants. Tomljenovic has recently become an Associate Editor of the Journal of Alzheimer’s
Disease. She values open-minded discussions on controversial topics and the pursuit of truth in
research endeavors, wherever they may lead.
Dr. Sherri Tenpenny

Dr. Tenpenny is probably one of the most knowledgeable people in the world on the topic of vaccines.
Dr. Tenpenny has put almost 20,000 hours into vaccine research and has published thousands of
articles on the subject. In my opinion, Dr. Tenpenny has to be considered one of the foremost experts
on vaccination today. Dr. Tenpenny’s website is an excellent source for REAL vaccine research. The
above video is an interview of Dr. Tenpenny by Henrik Palmgren of Red Ice Radio.
Dr. Suzanne Humphries

Dr. Suzanne Humphries is a nephrologist (kidney specialist) who started out as a conventional
doctor. It was only after her hospital was mandating vaccinations for all of her patients that she began
to look into the subject. Dr. Humphries started to see a correlation between vaccines and kidney
failure with her patients. When Dr. Humphries questioned the practice of vaccinating every one of her
patients (some very ill) upon admission into the hospital she was told that the adverse reactions she
was witnessing could not be a result of the vaccines.
From that point on, Dr. Humphries has spent her time extensively researching vaccines. Dr.
Humphries’ evidence and conclusions are quite different than the medical and pharmaceutical
industry’s version.
Dr. Nancy Banks

Dr. Banks is a graduate of Hunter College and Harvard Medical School. She is an activist, speaker
and author. She speaks here about the choice to use toxins in vaccines and inject them directly into
the bloodstream and characterizes the practice as dangerous and, perhaps, even evil. She notes that
doctors study a particular type of medicine in school because this is the type that is sanctioned by the
powers that be. Dr. Banks’ perspective is that our doctors are trained to do a job, versus educated to
think for themselves and she notes the dangers that await those in the medical profession who
digress from the prevailing paradigm of allopathic medicine. Finally, she speaks on the danger of all
vaccines and, from her perspective as an OB/GYN, characterizes the HPV vaccine as totally useless
and harmful.
Dr. Russell Blaylock

Dr. Blaylock is a board certified neurosurgeon, author and lecturer. He attended the LSU School of
Medicine in New Orleans and completed his general surgical internship and neurosurgical residency
at the Medical University of South Carolina in Charleston, South Carolina. During his residency he
ran the neurology program for one year and did a fellowship in neurosurgery after his residency. For
the past 25 years he has practiced neurosurgery in addition to having a nutritional practice. He
recently retired from both practices to devote himself full-time to nutritional studies and research. Dr.
Blaylock is interviewed by Mike Adams of Natural News.
“It has never been shown that [Gardasil] prevents cervical cancer,” explains Dr. Blaylock to Adams,
noting that Merck’s widely-aired “One Less” television and internet campaign, which insinuates that
Gardasil prevents cervical cancer in young girls, is a complete fraud. “They don’t even have scientific
evidence of any kind to back up the assertion that this vaccine prevents cervical cancer.” —Dr.
Russell Blaylock
As a neurosurgeon, Dr. Blaylock has a lot to say about how vaccines affect brain development, too.
Dr. John Bergman

Dr. Bergman was propelled into Chiropractic by a severe auto accident, with 2 broken legs and a
fractured skull and sternum, along with several organ injuries. With great need and a passion for
healing and regenerating, Dr. Bergman began studying the body’s recovery process. Dr. Bergman
obtained his degree in Doctor of Chiropractic at Cleveland Chiropractic College in Los Angeles
(CCCLA), California. Dr. Bergman is teaching at CCCLA: Human Anatomy, Physiology,

Biomechanics, and 4 Chiropractic techniques: Full Spine Specific (Palmer Method), Thompson,
Diversified, and Extremity Adjusting.
It’s clear from his many presentations that Dr. Bergman is an avid researcher when it comes to
vaccines. Dr. Bergman points out that we hear over and over that vaccines are safe and yet, that is
not what the body of evidence suggests. Dr. Lauri Markowitz from the Centers for Disease Control
tells us that the CDC has “no identified safety concerns at this time”, yet VAERS reported the
occurrence of almost 27,000 adverse events related to vaccines. VAERS openly admits that it only
records a fraction of the events (between 1-10%) so these figures would have to be considered to be
very conservative.
Dr. Peter Gøtzsche

Dr. Peter Gøtzsche is a Danish medical researcher and founder of the Cochrane Collaboration Group
in Denmark. Dr. Gøtzsche bluntly tells us that much of what the drug industry does, fulfills the criteria
in U.S. law to be categorized as organized crime. Pharmaceutical companies have corrupted nearly
every aspect of the healthcare system, including our politicians, who have been very effective in
advancing their agenda.
He also tells us that it is not popular to tell the truth in healthcare and he has made a lot of enemies
for doing so. Despite of all the name-calling and harassment he received, his critics were never able
to successfully discredit his body of work. I address pharmaceutical criminal offenses and fines in
part two of this article.
Who Is Dr. Andrew Wakefield?

Dr. Andrew Wakefield is an academic gastroenterologist from the UK who, in 1998, co-authored a
study which suggested a possible link between the MMR vaccine and autism. The study was
published in 1999 in the Lancet medical journal. BBC characterizes the study as being “like many
academic papers – cautious, saying the findings based on a study of 12 children did not prove for
certain that there was an association.” Even so, the study created a great deal of interest and caught
the attention of parents and the medical community, alike. The BBC dubbed the controversy that
ensued “one of the most contentious health stories of this generation.” The paper was subsequently
retracted by the Lancet following a finding by the General Medical Council that Wakefield had acted
‘”dishonestly and irresponsibly”’ in doing his research.
In 2004, the Sunday Times newspaper “…. highlighted what it said was a series of conflicts of
interest and unethical research practices. At this point the GMC became involved, leading to the
hearings which started in July 2007.” The author or the Sunday Times articles was Brian Deer.
Three doctors in total faced professional misconduct charges – Dr. Wakefield and two former
colleagues, Professor John Walker-Smith and Professor Simon Murch.” The BBC characterizes the
hearings that ensued as “one of the longest and most complex in the history of the GMC” and noted
that they were “not focused on whether the research was right or wrong. Instead, they have been
aimed at establishing whether the research was carried out in the correct way.”
The most extravagant of those who would discredit Dr. Wakefield and his research say: “Wakefield
had been secretly payrolled to create evidence against the shot and, while planning extraordinary
business schemes meant to profit from the scare, he had concealed, misreported and changed
information about the children to rig the results published in the journal.”
Interestingly, the person who filed the original complaint against Dr. Wakefield was Brian Deer, the
investigative journalist who was commissioned by the British Medical Association to write the article
to discredit Wakefield. Evidence might suggest that Deer created the story so that he could then
report on the story. BMJ, which ran the article, admits that it receives most of it’s funding from ads for
pharmaceutical companies. B.J. Handley describes the relationship: “Brian Deer, a journalist hired
by a pharmaceutical front group, a group that specialized in reporting doctors to the GMC, was the
only person in all of Britain interested in filing a complaint about Wakefield’s study with the GMC, and
he didn’t even do so until 6 years after Wakefield’s work had been published in The Lancet.”
Dr. Andrew Wakefield describes his situation as being one of a traditional, mainstream physician
going against policy and threatening profit, with the end result being that his career was ‘flushed
down the toilet’. He notes that “medicine begins and ends with the patient’s narrative” and that his
now controversial paper was never intended to test a hypothesis about an MMR vaccine and autism
link, but was a simple description of patient report and findings which suggests avenues for further
research.
It should be noted that Dr. Wakefield’s co-author, Professor John Walker-Smith, was exonerated of
professional misconduct and reinstated after he won on appeal.
Here is an article titled “Co-Author of Lancet MMR-Autism Study Exonerated on All Charges of
Professional Misconduct.”
Dr. John Walker-Smith, considered the father of pediatric gastroenterology, has today been restored
to his much-deserved reputation of high esteem. His appeal of the U.K. General Medical Council’s
2010 decision to remove his license for serious professional misconduct has been quashed in its
entirety. This decision raises questions about the validity of the 2010 GMC proceeding in general.
The GMC proceeding was a multi-year, multi-million dollar prosecution against Drs. Wakefield,
Walker-Smith, and Murch. It related to a controversial 1998 study published in The Lancet suggesting
a possible link between autism, the measles-mumps-rubella vaccine and bowel disease. Based on
the GMC prosecution, both Drs. Walker-Smith and Wakefield lost their licenses to practice and the
Lancet article was officially retracted. The GMC alleged that the physician-authors had failed to
obtain necessary ethical clearances and that they had subjected the twelve children in the study to
unnecessary medical procedures.
Justice Mitting, reviewing Dr. Walker-Smith’s appeal in the High Court of Justice, Queen’s Bench
Division, Administrative Court, found that the GMC’s conclusions were “based on inadequate and
superficial reasoning” and that “the finding of serious professional misconduct and the sanction of
erasure are both quashed.”
Dr. Walker-Smith’s professional insurance coverage paid for his appeal; Dr. Wakefield’s insurance
carrier would not.
Dr. Wakefield has recently filed a defamation lawsuit in Texas against the British Medical Journal, Dr.
Fiona Godlee, Editor-in-Chief, and journalist Brian Deer, who instigated the GMC prosecution. His
lawsuit alleges that the defendants knowingly or recklessly engaged in fraudulent misrepresentations
about 1998 Lancet study. While far from decisive, the Mitting ruling bodes well for Dr. Wakefield’s
defamation action.
Justice Mitting’s impartial judicial decision marks a turning point in a long campaign to discredit 1998
Lancet article and Dr. Andrew Wakefield in particular. To date, international media have failed to
probe the GMC’s ruling or to explore the many connections between Brian Deer, the Rupert Murdoch
media empire, Glaxo Smith Kline, the British Medical Journal and numerous other medical bodies.
“Finally, we are getting to the bottom of what happened at the GMC,” said Mary Holland, Esq.,
EBCALA managing director, “This victory for Dr. Walker-Smith is a triumph for all those who care
about people with autism and bowel disease. I hope this decision leads to investigating the true
causes of this global epidemic.”
I mentioned Dr. Wakefield for a reason which we will discuss in part 12 (conclusion) of the article.
Summary
When we listen to doctors who are without financial ties to the drug industry, we hear a very different
story than the one that is constantly repeated by our health officials and the media. These doctors
have not only put thousands of hours of research into vaccines but they have come forth despite
knowing that their reputations would be viciously attacked for going against the system. In many
cases, these doctors are on the front line and have direct experience with children that have had
adverse reactions to vaccinations. Unlike most doctors who are taught to ignore adverse reactions to
vaccinations and to make no connection, these doctors tell us that in their experience there is a
connection to vaccines and adverse reactions in many cases.
Part 10 Why Don’t We Hear The Whole Story About Vaccines?
Part 12 Vaccines: The Greater Good or Greater Greed? – Conclusion
10/9/2019 Vaccines - The Greater Good or the Greater Greed – Conclusion - Vision Launch
Vaccines – The Greater Good or the Greater Greed –

Conclusion
visionlaunch.com/vaccines-the-greater-good-or-the-greater-greed-conclusion
A Comprehensive Look at Vaccines: Part 12 of 12 – Conclusion

We have addressed some heady information in the previous 11 parts of this article so I wanted to
have a moment of levity while keeping on point. John Oliver is HBO’s version of John Stewart or
Steven Colbert. He did a segment on the pharmaceutical industry and it’s obvious that his producers
did their research because everything he says is factually spot on in this segment, and John Oliver
will enlighten you in a lighthearted way.
What has happened in the last 30 years that has made us so afraid of these diseases in the U.S.?
Why has the vaccine schedule increased so dramatically? The only significant event in the last 30
years that we could find through our research was the passing of the National Childhood Vaccine
Injury Act in 1986. This gave way to the Vaccine Injury Compensation Program (VICP) which
completely absolves pharmaceutical companies from any legal responsibility for vaccine safety and
shifts the burden for compensation payments to the American taxpayers.
Was this legal immunity the catalyst for the incredible increase in the vaccine schedule? We could
not find any other significant event in the U.S. that would call for such a dramatic increase in the
vaccine schedule. After seeing all the evidence and the behavior of those in this industry, would it be
hard to imagine that after the National Childhood Injury Act pharmaceutical companies saw an
opportunity for growth with no liability in the vaccine field, and that by influencing CDC to keep
visionlaunch.com/vaccines-the-greater-good-or-the-greater-greed-conclusion/ 1/11
increasing the vaccine schedule, they could accelerate that growth? Could that be why the schedule
has gone up almost 400% in 30 years and continues to rise to this day? In early 2016, two more
vaccines were added to the adult schedule and two more to the pediatric schedule. And we’ve just
recently learned that the government will start a new program that will track unvaccinated adults.
It seems like the ultimate goal to get as many people to take as many vaccines as possible.
A Look at The Numbers

In 1990 the cost for vaccinating one child according to the CDC schedule was only $70 and in 2012,
it was estimated at $1700. When we see the rapacious behavior of the pharmaceutical companies,
what are we more likely to believe? That these companies are concerned about our health or that
they are trying to grow their market share at any cost? As we saw in part two of this series, there is
overwhelming evidence showing that pharmaceutical companies are certainly not concerned with our
health. As we saw in part 4 and part 9 of this series, our health officials are beholden to
pharmaceutical companies and are more interested in covering up crucial safety data than in warning
us or finding a remedy. When we look at all the evidence we can only conclude the latter. In 2015 the
cost of vaccinating one child according to the CDC schedule had risen to an estimated $2200 per
person. This adds up to a lot of extra revenue in a world with an exploding population like we have.
Why Vaccine Skeptics Feel the Way They Do

Vaccine skeptics usually do not arrive at their conclusions overnight and in fact, most were pro-
vaccine at the start. It is a process in which the further you research the topic, the more you learn
how weak the evidence is supporting vaccines. Lets take a look and recap some of the important
highlights that we saw in the first 11 parts of this series.
There is overwhelming evidence of the following:

Published studies have been severely compromised and do not provide an acceptable
level of informed consent. They cannot be trusted to form reliable conclusions
Vaccines are dangerous for certain people – even life threatening
We have no idea of what the medium to long term effects of vaccines are because of the
significant lack of testing
There are many examples of conclusive evidence linking vaccines and autism –
neurological disorders
There are many examples of health officials covering up the link between vaccine and
autism – neurological disorders
Vaccines do not perform as we are told and, in many cases, they’ve been shown to be
not effective at all
Vaccine induced herd immunity is not a viable hypothesis, but more likely a marketing
ploy to increase vaccine uptake
The risks of not vaccinating are far lower than we have been led to believe
Vaccines did not save us from infectious diseases in the 20th century
Pharmaceutical companies cannot be trusted to, and do not, protect the welfare of their
customers
Pharmaceutical industry’s priority is to gain market share and expand profits, not health
care
Vaccine regulatory agencies have been corrupted and cannot be trusted to provide us
with proper informed consent
Leading policymakers and politicians who promote vaccines have all

been sponsored by pharmaceutical companies in some form or another and some even
profit from vaccine uptake
Traditional media sources do not tell the whole story about vaccines
Vaccine manufacturing is outsourced to India, China and many other parts of the world
where there is lower manufacturing standards and even less regulatory oversight than
in the U.S.
Pharmaceutical companies and health officials are purposely avoiding, and will
continue to avoid, performing and vaccinated versus unvaccinated population studies
because if they do, the truth will come out about vaccines deficiencies
After reviewing the information, can we really blame parents for being apprehensive or
skeptical about vaccines?
Conclusion:
Caveat Emptor: let the buyer beware: the principle that the seller of a product cannot be held
responsible for its quality unless it is guaranteed in a warranty. As we know, there is certainly no
warranty for vaccines, so caveat emptor it is.
We Must Sacrifice Our Children For the Good of the Whole

On one hand we are told that vaccines are extremely safe but when vaccine proponents are
confronted with indisputable data from VAERS or the Vaccine Injury Compensation Program, we are
then told that for the greater good we all must vaccinate, even if some people are permanently
injured or die in the process. It’s the “you can’t make an omelet without breaking a few eggs”
argument. I think most Americans are pretty reasonable and are willing to go along with legitimate
programs for the good of the whole, but when those programs are based on lies and deception and
can hurt, maim or kill their children, it is only natural for people to be hesitant. Especially when risks
of these diseases are highly exaggerated in most cases, and are not life threatening in and of
themselves to people who live in the U.S.
Conflicts of Interests
There are people in positions of power pushing an aggressive vaccine policy who are, in one way or
another, financially connected with pharma and that creates a clear conflict of interest. We have
experts telling us what our doctors can’t, which is that the evidence used to persuade us is not
reliable and that independent research tells a completely different story. We have cases documented
in our court system proving that these companies put profit over children’s health, over and over
again. Most parents will go along for the greater good but not for the greater greed of a trillion-dollar
industry who has demonstrated without question, that our health is not their first priority.
It is obvious to any critical thinker that we have a serious problem with our health care system on
many levels. When two former and one current editor of the 3 most prestigious medical journals in
the world come out publicly and say that we cannot trust published studies or doctors to provide us
with accurate health data, it cannot be ignored. Then we have Dr. David Healy walk us through a real
clinical trial and how it was manipulated to make the drug look safe and effective when it was not.
These medical journals are supposed to be the scientific database upon which all of our health
decisions are based, yet we’re told by their editors that it cannot be used to form reliable conclusions.
Then we have industry insiders corroborating these editors’ information over and over so it’s safe to
assume that the system has been thoroughly corrupted. The well of medical information has been
poisoned and our informed consent has been quietly taken from us. Unfortunately, now we have a
whole medical industry working off of bad information and false assumptions. Modern healthcare has
departed from its intended purpose of making people well and entered the realm of politics and
economics.
Dr. Wakefield
Let’s ask ourselves a question: who is spreading misinformation on vaccines, Dr. Wakefield or the
medical establishment? We are told by vaccine proponents, the medical establishment and the
media that we must disqualify all of Dr. Andrew Wakefield’s research on the grounds of financial and
medical conflicts of interest, but if we are truly being intellectually honest with ourselves, using that
same standard, we must disqualify the information presented to us by the medical establishment for
the same reasons. Conflicts of interests are rampant in the pharmaceutical and medical industry and
both have committed far worse offenses than Dr. Wakefield’s one study did, if any at all. I wonder if
the results of Dr. Wakefield’s study favored the drug maker’s product instead of conflicting with it, if
there would be such an aggressive attack on him and his colleagues. In the end, after all the
personal and professional attacks, it turned out that Dr. Wakefield’s study only confirmed what the
CDC’s own data showed to be true. It is also worth noting that the British Court threw out the
conviction against Dr. Wakefields co-author on his study, professor John Walker Smith and
completely exonerated him of all charges. The only reason Dr. Wakefield was not exonerated is
because his insurance did not cover litigation costs like professor Smiths did.
Vaccine Proponents Angry at Skeptics

Many proponents are now lashing out in anger at vaccine skeptics and some are even calling for
their imprisonment, but their anger is misdirected. If anything, proponents of vaccinations should be
angry at the people who are perpetrating these deceptive tactics and ruining public trust on this
issue. Pharmaceutical companies and the medical industry have been caught red handed lying and
hiding important safety data again and again, to the point that they are simply untrustworthy. If these
companies invested half the resources they spend on gaming the system into improving their product
using actual science, they would have some ground to stand on. Trust is very important, especially
when that company is admittedly putting people’s lives at risk. At the very least, this information is
extremely troubling and should make any objective thinking person not only question the safety and
efficacy of vaccinations, but all pharmaceutical drugs. In order for us to solve the health challenges
we face, we must first fully understand the truth, and we cannot do that with unreliable information.
Vaccine Skeptics Are Not Anti-Science

Vaccine skeptics are called ‘anti-science’, but what we are witnessing here is not science and this is
not how scientific research works. Scientific research should enlighten us and increase our
understanding of medicine, not deceive us and obfuscate the issues. Our decisions can only be as
good as the data we use to make them.
We are told that vaccines are a victim of their own success and because we have not had a serious
outbreak, that is why people are declining them. I strongly disagree with that assessment. What is
really happening here, and it’s quite ironic too, is that more people are starting to research vaccines
and the companies behind them and pharmaceutical companies are in large part responsible for
lower vaccination rates due to their own dubious behavior.
Pharmaceutical companies have shown that they will put profit over their customers’ health again and
again. They have no problem promoting drugs they knew were tainted with A.I.D.S or pills that were
known to cause heart attacks to hundreds of thousands of people. They have been fined for illegal
and unethical actions, committing medical fraud, hiding unfavorable data and off label marketing to
children and yet, they blame the public at large for not being “smart enough” to get their vaccines.
What happened to the Hippocratic Oath of “First, Do No Harm”?

The truth is that pharmaceutical companies and the medical establishment have some real public
perception challenges to overcome. Their conscious choice to put their own interests over the health
of our nation has been well documented for anyone who cares to look for it. People are starting to
realize that health care in the U.S. is all about business and has very little to do with healthcare.
Never Cure Anything

Let’s ask ourselves a simple question: when was the last time that a pharmaceutical company
created a cure for anything? I’m not talking about a drug that treats a symptom that you have to take
for the rest of your life, but a real cure. Are they even interested in finding a cure, or are they more
interested in acquiring and developing lifetime customers? If they did find the cure to diseases, would
they even release it to the public? Finding a cure is directly at odds with their business model, and as
we can see, these companies’ first priority is not to improve our health, but to make as large a profit
as possible. Curing people would only diminish their customer base.
This is proven by the current state of our society’s health. We have the sickest population we have
ever had and while it would be unfair to blame it all on the pharmaceutical companies, they certainly
do play a large role.
Times Are Changing

There is a growing movement underway, and people are learning that the human body is a natural
energetic system that does not require synthetic compounds and dangerous chemicals for optimum
health. We are seeing cases that show the body is a self-healing organism once it’s free of all toxins.
Sure, some of these pharmaceutical drugs temporarily treat symptoms, but they never address the
underlying malady and certainly do not improve our overall health.
There are so many side effects from most pharmaceutical drugs that, in many cases, they’re worse
than the ailment itself. I am not against modern medicine and I do see a need for certain
pharmaceutical drugs, but taking a synthetic pill for every single ailment we face, many of them for
made up syndromes to increase market share, just does not make sense.
Where do lifestyle change and diet fit into medical practice? Why are our doctors taught so very little
about nutrition? The problem with a nutrition approach to treatment is that the pharmaceutical
companies and the medical industry have not figured out a way to patent and monetize that
treatment yet.
A Pill or Shot for Every Ailment

Many decades ago we were told that in the future there would be a pill to cure any ailment and that
has been the path we have taken in medicine in all the years since, but are we using an antiquated
plan of attack? Haven’t we learned anything in the last 60 years? Knowing what we now know about
the human body, do we really think that a chemical/drug based approach to every malady is the right
way to proceed? We have one of the sickest societies, with a whole host of autoimmune diseases.
Shouldn’t we try a different approach? Pharmaceutical companies want to get as many people taking
their drugs as often as possible and that’s not because they are trying to improve our health.
It may be a good idea for Pharma to revisit its business model or it may not survive these changes
we are going through. We have large brands focused on health like Whole Foods and Trader Joe’s
gaining increasing market share. Look at McDonald’s, one of the largest companies in the world.
They are closing thousands of stores for the first time in their history due, in large part, to a growing
public awareness of their ingredients. Now McDonald’s is forced to revisit how they do business and
their practices never even approached some of the behavior of pharma.
This Is Bigger Than Just Vaccines

This is not just a vaccine issue but an overall health crisis in our country. We have the sickest
children in the world and now we are over-medicating them earlier and more often for a whole host of
autoimmune diseases. We treat our children for any little ailment for which we can assign a name. Do
we want them to go through life as over-medicated zombies? Maybe we should look at our
antiquated school system or their environment instead of prescribing medication for every little
human quirk. And who is assigning the names? What is their interest in prescribing more and more
drugs to our children?
Dr. Joseph Mercola wrote an excellent article regarding the over-medication of our children that
every parent should read.
Allopathic Medicine Will Not Last Another 100 years like this
The truth is, we have really only been using allopathic medicine for the last 100 years and if today’s
results are any indication of the success of our medical system, we need to take a fresh new look at
what we are doing. Our current system is clearly not working. I want to repeat, pharmaceutical
companies cannot take the full blame for all of our problems. I’m sure there are many reasons for the
state in which we find ourselves — lifestyle choices, diet, and our overall environment play a large
role in the quality of our health. In further defense of the doctors and pharmaceutical companies,
there are many people who are reluctant to make lifestyle changes and would rather take a pill. This
is fine, and will probably always be the case with some of the population, but we should not design
our healthcare system around that mentality, especially when so many people are waking up to the
fact that true health is not achieved through drugs.
Let’s Ask Some Important Questions: WHY?
Why have pharmaceutical companies spent so much time, effort and

money to game the system like they have?
Why have pharmaceutical companies gone through so much trouble to infiltrate the medical system,
medical schools, medical journals, and anything related to healthcare? There are many ways to try
and answer this question but the fundamental reason is plain to see.
A: They don’t even believe in their own products.
Why else would they try to manipulate their own information? So if even the companies who
manufacture pharmaceutical drugs don’t believe in their own products, why should vaccine skeptics
believe in them?
Why are our health agencies covering up crucial safety data and hiding it
from the American people?
Autism is a terrible affliction which is destroying families across the nation yet our officials continue to
deny any link and cover up life and death data from the American people.
A: Because pharmaceutical companies have bought off every integral part of the system.
Why No Vaccinated vs. Vaccinated Tests?
Let’s ask ourselves another simple question: Vaccines have been around for many decades now, so
why have there been no studies on vaccinated children vs unvaccinated? The excuse that the
medical establishment tells us is that it is unethical to do a test like that because they do not want
anyone to go unvaccinated. Here is where that argument makes no sense. There are plenty of
people who do not get vaccinated whether it be for religious, philosophical or other reasons who
could participate in any long term or shorter term study. So why won’t our health officials and the
pharmaceutical companies end the controversy by performing a test with the two groups? What are
they afraid of finding?
How good can a product be if the company has to buy everyone’s influence, commit illegal practices,
promote vaccines using fear and force it on us? And let’s be honest, this is only a product, just
because it’s disguised as medicine does not always make it good for us. Many of these medicines
have detrimental side effects that are worse than the original ailment itself.
Again, I am not against some of the wonders that new medical procedures and new medicines
produce, but please, test them thoroughly and in a proper manner, and don’t manipulate the findings.
People are not guinea pigs.
What I find confusing is why the pharmaceutical companies do not put more money and resources
behind building a better product, as opposed to buying influence and obfuscating the facts behind
their products? Why not recognize the growing public mistrust and implement measures to build trust
and transparency? The executives of these companies are not stupid people, and more likely are
highly intelligent overachievers. You do not become the executive of a global billion-dollar company
by accident. So what are we missing here? There are many theories floating around that we have not
addressed in this article, but the evidence certainly lends credit to the idea that something darker and
more insidious is going on with vaccines.
We Cannot Blame Parents for Mistrusting The Whole Vaccine Agenda

In light of just the information presented in the previous 11 parts this article, are we really that
surprised that more and more people are forgoing vaccination? With all of this fraud, deception,
conflicting evidence, and the many thousands of injured children, it would not be difficult to make the
case that the parents who are skeptical about vaccines are actually the responsible ones. Vaccine
skeptics have done their due diligence by conducting thorough research. We encourage people to do
due diligence on every other area of life, particularly when a company does not guarantee their
product – buyer beware, caveat emptor, right? Not when it comes to vaccines. We are not allowed to
research them because people are deemed not smart enough. People are not even allowed to
question vaccines without being labeled anti-vaxx. Most of these parents have done an enormous
amount of due diligence regarding the health and safety of their children and have decided it is too
risky. I bet most people do more research on their next vacation spot, iPhone or car purchase than
they do with vaccinations. But not vaccine skeptics.
It became clear to us after our own research why vaccine research is so heavily discouraged. Lets
put it this way: if we convened in a court of law and put both sides of the vaccines information up for
review and verdict, 9 times out of 10, an honest judge or jury would come back with not guilty verdict
for the vaccine skeptic. There is simply too much credible evidence that directly contradicts the
official story.
Moving Forward
We are at a critical point for reflection here and if we choose to stay in the dark, we have to count
ourselves among the complicit, too. We remain ignorant at our own cost and it is a high one at that. If
we keep consenting to more and more vaccines, we have a dark future ahead of us regarding our
health. There are more than 250 vaccines in development and next, they will try to mandate
everyone in America to take multiple vaccines. The vaccine schedule has more than tripled in the last
few decades, what will the next thirty years bring?
The loudest voice, the voice heard most often and voice of the authority seems like a truism after a
while. The voice always tells us that vaccines are safe and effective and for far too long, that is where
the conversation has stopped.
The media would like to turn us against each other by making this a black and white issue: either
you’re in favor of vaccines or you’re against them, but I can assure you there are many shades of
gray to this one. Don’t let them do that, because the only things that will suffer are our kids and the
truth. Let’s put our differences aside and unite for a common goal (the health and well-being of all of
our children) and learn the true facts behind vaccine safety and efficacy.
What an effective tool is the divide and conquer tactic. As long as both sides of the vaccine debate
have no meaningful dialogue, the truth will remain obscured. To the extent that we allow ourselves to
perceive those on the other side of the argument as our enemy, as someone to band together
against, we will remain unenlightened. Let’s not fall into the divide and conquer paradigm and be so
busy fighting with each other that the real issue at hand goes unnoticed. We are smarter than that.
Let’s come together for our common interest.
Did You Know?

• There has never been a study on the long term effects of vaccines (a typical vaccine study
lasts 4-6 weeks
• There has never been a safety study on the short term or long term safety of combined
doses given to children on a single doctor visit
• There has never been a study on the safety of vaccinating pregnant women, yet it is widely
promoted
• The United States has the highest vaccination rate and the highest infant mortality rate in
developed countries
• The United States is the largest user of pharmaceutical drugs, yet has the sickest population
• The Department of Health and Human Services owns patents to vaccines and profit from
their sale
• The Vaccine Injury Compensation Program has made payments to families that connect the
MMR vaccine to autism
• An independent study (one of the only of its kind) from the University of Pittsburg injected
monkeys with the same vaccine schedule children received from 1994-1999 and the
vaccinated monkeys developed autism-like reactions. The control group of unvaccinated
monkeys displayed no such symptoms.
• When the controversial mercury based ingredient thimerosal was phased out from vaccines
it was never removed from the flu vaccine, one of the most commonly distributed vaccines of
all.
• When thimerosal was phased out from other vaccines, the drug manufacturers replaced it
with increasing and equal amounts of aluminum
• An independent study that mimicked the childhood vaccination schedule with aluminum in
mice showed aluminum inflicted massive damage to neurons in the brain.
Editors Disclosure
We want to reiterate, we are not a vaccine experts, doctor or medical experts in any way, and we do
not give medical advice. we are not here to tell you whether to vaccinate. You have to do your own
research and do what feels right for you. We are also not on a mission to ban vaccines. For those
who want to use them, that is their choice.
What we do advocate is to keep our medical freedoms intact. Allowing any government agency to
decide what goes in our bodies, especially when they cannot adequately prove their case, is not
freedom.
We represent a self-funded independent research group and our only agenda is to seek the truth. We
do not take contributions from big pharma or anti pharma, if there is such a thing. We may
subsequently release books on all topics we research in an effort to defer our costs. Our research is
focused on presenting the other side of controversial issues, which is not available through traditional
media sources.
We are publishing our research on the Vision Launch site because we want to get this work out in
front of a broader audience than if we published on a website which is brand new.
We have used information that is readily available to the public and added many links for people to
do further research on the issue. Let’s come together and have a spirited debate on the actual
material at hand. We have certainly presented enough in this 12 part series to keep us all busy for a
while. We think that would be to everyone’s benefit and a productive way to move forward.
Sources & Credits: Centers for Disease Control, (CDC) Food and Drug Administration, (FDA) World
Health Organization, (WHO) Vaccine Adverse Events Database, (VAERS) the National Vaccine Injury
Compensation Program, (VICP) The British Medical Journal, The New England Journal of Medicine,
The Lancet Journal of Medicine, The Journal of the American Medical Association, (JAMA) The
American Academy of Pediatrics, (AAP) cochrane.org, cochranelibrary.com, nvic.org, chop.edu,
pubmed.com, globalresearch.ca, westonaprice.org, drpalevsky.com, mercola.com, drtenpenny.com,
drsuzanne.net, russellblaylockmd.com, naturalnews.com, putchildrenfirst.org, whale.to,
thinktwice.com, healthnutnews.com, sanevax.org, sharylattkisson.com, truthinmedia.com, rxisk.org,
therefusers.com, edgytruth.com, vactruth.com, greenmedinfo.com vaccinechoicecanada.com,
vaccinationcouncil.org, vaccineimpact.com, ageofautism.com, CGP Grey, The Vaccine Resistance
Movement, Dr. Sherri Tenpenny, Dr. Suzanne Humphries, Dr. Russell Blaylock, Dr. Joseph Mercola,
Dr. Lawrence Palevsky, Dr. Lucija Tomljenovic, Dr. Nancy Banks, Dr. Peter Gøtzsche, Dr. Chris Shaw,
Dr. Marcia Angell, Dr. Richard Smith, Dr. Richard Horton, Dr. David Healy, Dr. Tom Jefferson, Dr.
Raymond Obomsawin, Dr. John Bergman, Sharyl Attkisson, Ben Swann, Neil Z. Miller, Sally Fallon
Morell, Mike Adams, Leslie Manookian, Barbera Loe Fisher, Erin Elizabeth, Focus Autism and Vision
Launch Development Group.

A Comprehensive Review of Vaccines - Parts 1 Through 12

Transféré par

Informations du document

Copyright

Formats disponibles

Partager ce document

Partager ou intégrer le document

Options de partage

Avez-vous trouvé ce document utile ?

Ce contenu est-il inapproprié ?

Droits d'auteur :

Formats disponibles

A Comprehensive Review of Vaccines - Parts 1 Through 12

Transféré par

Droits d'auteur :

Formats disponibles

A Comprehensive Review of Vaccines – 12 Part

Series of Vaccines – Links to all 12 Articles

Part 2: A Closer Look at Pharmaceutical Companies

Part 3: Vaccine Policymakers and Conflicts of Interest

Part 5: Are Vaccines Safe & Effective?

Part 9: The Conclusive Evidence Linking Vaccines and Autism

Part 10: Why Don’t We Hear The Whole Story About Vaccines?

Part 11: What Are Independent Experts Telling Us About Vaccines?

Part 12: Vaccines: The Greater Good or Greater Greed? – Conclusion

Why Are So Many People Choosing Not to Vaccinate?

Speed The Shift February 8, 2016

A Comprehensive Review of Vaccines – Part 1 of 12

What is With All These Vaccine Skeptics?

“Intelligence: Not because you think you know everything without

The Debate is Far From Over

Don’t Be Too Quick to Judge Vaccine Skeptics

It’s a town founded on science, and the scientific evidence is

Here is a study conducted by Kaiser Permanente, mapping the ‘undervaccinated’ in California.

“Clusters of non-vaccinated children appear most often in affluent areas,

How Many Vaccine Skeptics Are In Congress?

It’s About Trust

Where Do Doctors Learn About Vaccines?

How Accurate Are the Medical Journals?

FDA Oversight and the Problem with Trust

Falsification or submission of false information [22 trials, 39%]

A few key things to remember when looking at these findings:

1. These infractions occurred in research that became published clinical trials,

Major Academic Publisher Finds Fraud in 10 of Its Journals

“Peer review is supposed to be the pride of the rigorous academic

The New England Journal of Medicine

Dr. Marcia Angell — Former Executive Editor of the New England

Dr. Angell’s statement is shocking:

“It is simply no longer possible to believe much of the clinical

What About Other Medical Journals?

The British Medical Journal

Dr. Richard Smith

“Peer review is a failure and, ironically, it’s more faith-based than

The Lancet Medical Journal

Dr. Richard Horton – Current Editor in Chief of The Lancet Medical

Quoting from Dr. Horton’s editorial:

“The case against science is straightforward: much of the scientific

“Journals have devolved into information-laundering

The Manipulation of Clinical Trials

Dr. David Healy

From the Rxisk.org site:

“….most data on prescription drugs is owned by the multinational

Paroxetine: A Case Study

Dr. Tom Jefferson

Why is Information So Important?

This is Part 1 in the 12 part series: A Comprehensive Review of Vaccines

Part 1: Why Are So Many People Choosing Not To Vaccinate?

Part 2: A Closer Look at Pharmaceutical Companies

Part 3: Vaccine Policymakers and Conflicts of Interest

Part 5: Are Vaccines Safe & Effective?

Part 9: The Conclusive Evidence Linking Vaccines and Autism

Part 11: What Are Independent Experts Telling Us About Vaccines?

Part 12: Vaccines: The Greater Good or Greater Greed? – Conclusion

A Closer Look at Pharmaceutical Companies

Speed The Shift February 8, 2016

A Comprehensive Review of Vaccines: Part 2 of 12

Do Pharmaceutical Companies Deserve Our Trust?

Pharmaceutical Legal History

Pfizer — September 2009

GlaxoSmithKline — July 2012