Why Did the CDC Silence the Million Dollar Harvard Project Charged With Upgrading Our Vaccine Safety Surveillance System?

There are major problems with the vaccine adverse event reporting system (known as VAERS) which the CDC considers the “front line” of vaccine safety. VAERS was created in 1990 by the CDC and FDA as a means to collect and analyze adverse effects that are associated with vaccines. Unfortunately, the failings of VAERS are “kept from the consciousness” not only of the public, but also from the doctors, pediatricians, and nurses that the public rely on to provide reliable information as to the safety of vaccines. I say “kept from the consciousness” rather than “kept secret” because while these failings are publicly disclosed for all the world to see, they are for all intents and purposes BURIED in documents seldom searched out by the average member of the medical community, much less by the average individual. You could say that the information has been very effectively hidden in plain sight.

By far, the most dire failure of the VAERS system is the vast underreporting of vaccine adverse effects which leads to a dangerous false security in vaccine safety and an erroneous assumption that the benefits of vaccination far outweigh the risks.

Who DOES know about the deadly elephant in the room?

The CDC, the FDA, the Institutes of Medicine (IOM), and Congress to name a few. Oh, and an organization called Harvard Pilgrim Healthcare, Inc.- but we’ll get to them in a minute.

This is what the CDC says about the VAERS system, “Passive surveillance systems (e.g. VAERS) are subject to multiple limitations, including underreporting, reporting of temporal associations or unconfirmed diagnoses, and lack of denominator data and unbiased comparison groups. Because of these limitations, determining causal associations between vaccines and adverse events from VAERS reports is usually not possible.” (emphasis mine)

In 2000, the 6th Report by the Committee on Government Reform addressed the failings of VAERS in its address of the Vaccine Injury Compensation Program. The report states, “The quality of VAERS data has been questioned. Because reports are submitted from a variety of sources, some inexperienced in completing data forms for medical studies, many reports omit important data and contain obvious errors. Assessment is further complicated by the administration of multiple vaccines at the same time, following currently recommended vaccine schedules, because there may be no conclusive way to determine which vaccine or combination of vaccines caused the specific adverse event.”

The same Congressional report notes (on page 19), “Former FDA commissioner David A. Kessler has estimated that VAERS reports currently represent only a fraction of the serious adverse events.” (emphasis mine)

The Congressional report above listed 4 limitations that the IOM Committees noted, “1) Inadequate understanding of biologic mechanisms underlying adverse events; 2) Insufficient or inconsistent information from case reports and case series; 3) Inadequate size or length of follow- up of many population- based epidemiological studies; 4) Limitations of existing surveillance systems to provide persuasive evidence of causation; and 5) Few published epidemiological studies.” The report continues by noting that the “IOM warned that ‘if research capacity and accomplishments [are] not improved, future reviews of vaccine safety [will be] similarly handicapped.’”

The IOM has been telling the CDC for over 23 years that they have inadequate information (and none at all in some cases) to advise on the causal relationship between vaccines and adverse events for a majority of adverse events reported. In a 1994 report on vaccines and adverse events the IOM stated, “The lack of adequate data regarding many of the adverse events under study was of major concern to the committee…Although the committee was not charged with proposing specific research investigations, in the course of its review additional obvious needs for research and surveillance were identified, and those are briefly described here.” (emphasis mine) In 2011, the IOM conducted another study examining the scientific evidence in studies available for 158 vaccine adverse effects. Again, they concluded that they had inadequate information to come to a decision, “The vast majority of causality conclusions in the report are the evidence was inadequate to accept or reject a causal relationship.” (emphasis mine)

While one might expect a new program (new in 1990) to have a few bugs that need to be worked out, I would expect that when it comes to being able to ascertain vaccine safety, working out those bugs should be priority number one. Certainly today in 2017, a whopping 27 years later, the failure of the CDC to address this monumental danger to public health should be viewed with a skepticism much greater than mere suspicion.

That leads us to the interesting case of the CDC and Harvard Pilgrim Healthcare Inc.

The Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) gave Harvard Medical School a $1 million dollar grant to track VAERS reporting at Harvard Pilgrim Healthcare for 3 years and to create an automated reporting system which would revolutionize the VAERS reporting system- transforming it from “passive” to “active.”

This project was called Electronic Support for Public Heath- Vaccine Adverse Reporting System (ESP:VAERS). According to the grant final report, the scope of the project was, “To create a generalizable system to facilitate detection and clinician reporting of vaccine adverse events, in order to improve the safety of national vaccination programs.” To accomplish this the team used the electronic medical records at Harvard Pilgrim Healthcare, Inc, which is described as a “large multi-specialty practice.” Every patient that received a vaccine was automatically identified and followed for 30 days. Within that 30 days the individual’s diagnostic health codes, lab tests, and prescriptions were evaluated to recognize any potential adverse event. Another goal of the project was to evaluate the performance of the new automated system via a randomized trial and to compare this new data to the existing data collected by VAERS and Vaccine Safety Datalink.

Just the preliminary description of this program is head and shoulders above the current functioning of the passive VAERS system. In our current system, adverse events are to be spontaneously reported by parents or health care providers. Most parents aren’t even aware the VAERS system exists, much less aware that they are supposed to be reporting to it. Health care providers are “supposed” to report adverse events, but we have no idea of the efficiency level with which this is occurring, and more than a hunch that this reporting is grossly neglected for a variety of reasons. Furthermore, many vaccine adverse events are never reported because either the parent, patient, or doctor is completely unaware that a subsequent adverse event is in fact due to a vaccine. This new reporting system would remove all of these failures from the equation.

What were the results?

Data was collected from June 2006 to October of 2009 on a total of 715,000 patients. Of those 715,000 patients, 376,452 were given 1.4 million doses of 45 different vaccines. A total of 35,570 possible adverse reactions were identified, so 2.6% of vaccinations were followed by a possible adverse reaction.

Let’s just take a minute to reflect on that last sentence. Out of only 376,452 individuals that received a vaccine at this Harvard practice, the new automated system identified 35,570 possible adverse reactions in a three year period. How does that stack up to the number of adverse effects reported to VAERS? According to the CDC, only 30,000 adverse events are reported every year for the entire US population. This finding alone should have had the CDC saying:

I’ll quote the findings directly from the report, “Adverse events from drugs and vaccines are common, but underreported. […] Likewise, fewer than 1% of vaccine adverse events are reported. Low reporting rates preclude or slow the identification of ‘problem’ drugs and vaccines that endanger public health. New surveillance methods for drug and vaccine adverse effects are needed.”

Again, let’s stop and think about this revelation for a moment: fewer than 1% of vaccine adverse events are reported. The CDC’s entire vaccination propaganda campaign rests on their claim that side effects from vaccination are exceedingly rare (and predominantly minor). According to the CDC, in 2016 alone, VAERS received 59,117 vaccine adverse event reports. Among those reports were 432 deaths, 1,091 permanent disabilities, 4,132 hospitalizations, and 10,274 emergency room visits. What if these numbers actually represent less than 1% of the total as this report asserts? Simple multiplication would yield vaccine adverse events reports numbering 5,911,700!

Of course, at this point that figure is nothing but a guess. But, again, why do we HAVE To guess? Because in 27 years the CDC has failed to provide a post- licensure vaccine safety surveillance system that the IOM, FDA, physicians, and the public can have confidence in.

The report also states, “Barriers to reporting include a lack of clinician awareness, uncertainty about when and what to report, as well as the burdens of reporting: reporting is not part of the clinician’s usual workflow, takes time, and is duplicative.

So, WHY aren’t the reports currently being made to VAERS? According to the findings above, clinicians don’t know for sure what a vaccine adverse event is. This isn’t surprising at all considering what we learned from the 2011 IOM report above. There haven’t been enough studies performed for highly trained IOM scientists and physicians to even determine whether or not the majority of the currently suspected 158 adverse vaccine effects are indeed caused by vaccines. How could we possibly expect our average pediatricians or general practitioners to know what a team of IOM personnel have determined we have inadequate information to decide? In addition, this report basically finds that your clinician frankly doesn’t have the time to devote to proper VAERS reporting under the current inconvenient system.

You’d think that the CDC would be jumping for joy that this Harvard team just created a proactive, reliable, automated system that would improve the quality of our vaccination program by improving vaccine adverse event detection thereby increasing public confidence in post- licensure surveillance.

What was the CDC’s response?

Basically, the same response your average college student falls back on when they decide they are no longer interested in continuing a relationship- they cut all lines of communication. No more answering phone calls or emails. You heard me correctly, the United States of America Centers for Disease Control ghosted Harvard Pilgrim Healthcare, Inc. For those who are unaware, Google dictionary defines ghosting as, “the practice of ending a personal relationship by suddenly and without explanation withdrawing from all communication.” Personally, I would hope that I could hold an organization like the CDC to a higher standard, but…

After a one million dollar grant was paid and three years of research conducted on what appeared to be a very successful upgrade to the passive VAERS system, the team’s CDC contacts went MIA. The ESP:VAERS final report states, “Unfortunately, there was never an opportunity to perform system performance assessments because the necessary CDC contacts were no longer available and the CDC consultants responsible for receiving data were no longer responsive to our multiple requests to proceed with testing and evaluation.”

According to the final report, the only thing left for the CDC to do was link the VAERS system to the Harvard Pilgrim system in order to transmit the data. The team requested that the CDC do this, “However, real data transmissions of non-physician approved reports to the CDC was unable to commence, as by the end of this project, the CDC had yet to respond to multiple requests to partner for this activity.”

What do we, the public, take away from this debacle?

As I see it there are only two options.

  1. You give the CDC the benefit of the doubt, assume deep down they have the safety of the public at heart and chalk up their monumental waste of money, time, and a good idea to bureaucratic incompetence.
  2. You stop naively believing that the CDC cares ultimately about public safety and realize that the vaccine industry makes way too much money to allow public confidence in the safety of vaccines to be eroded by a surveillance system capable of giving the public a glimpse of the scope and magnitude of the adverse effects vaccines are actually responsible for.

To assist you in your decision making, I’ll leave you with a statistic from the ICAN (Informed Consent Action Network) request to the HHS to meet the obligations set forth by the 1986 National Childhood Vaccine Safety Act regarding the CDC’s role in the vaccine industry market, “When the CDC recommends a pediatric vaccine for universal use, it creates for that vaccine’s maker a liability free market of 78 million children typically required by law to receive the vaccine.” (emphasis mine)

Ethical Guidelines for Clinical Trials Prevent Many Vaccines From Being Adequately Tested For Safety

The CDC (Centers for Disease Control), the WHO (World Health Organization), the National Institutes of Health (NIH), and the FDA (Food and Drug Administration) are considered by most Americans to be the most credible, trusted sources of “unbiased” information regarding disease, medical treatment, and the safety of pharmaceuticals. Your doctor and the entire medical community base their decisions about your care on recommendations from these organizations, which are theoretically based on the studies brilliant, highly-qualified scientists perform for these organizations. These organizations publicly publish this information so that anyone who wishes to educate themselves can do so.

That is precisely what millions of Americans, including myself, are now doing when it comes to the subject of vaccine safety. Unfortunately we are finding that these “trusted” recommendations are not adding up with the information provided by their own sources and many times are blatantly at odds with this publicly published information. I’m going to clearly demonstrate that to you today.

The focus of this article is the following claim publicly stated by the CDC:

“Before vaccines are approved by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA), they are tested extensively by scientists to ensure they are effective and safe.”

How do scientists test vaccine safety?

There are 3 phases in prelicensure vaccine safety testing as described by the FDA. According to the FDA, “Clinical trials are conducted according to plans that FDA reviews to ensure the highest scientific and ethical standards. The results of the clinical trials are a part of FDA’s evaluation to assess the safety and effectiveness of each vaccine.” Herein lies the rub.

What are the highest scientific standards when it comes to determining safety?

According to the NIH, randomized double blind placebo control studies are the “gold standard.” The NIH goes on to state that, “RDBPC studies remain the most convincing research design in which randomly assigning the intervention can eliminate the influence of unknown or immeasurable confounding variables that may otherwise lead to biased and incorrect estimate of treatment effect.”

The problem is, most vaccine studies are not RDBPC due to the ethical standards that must be maintained.

The fact is most vaccine safety clinical trials do not and cannot use a placebo in the truest sense of the word. According to the CDC’s own glossary of terms, a placebo is, “a substance or treatment that has no effect on human beings.” In the case of vaccine testing, a true placebo would have to be an injectable substance that is completely inert, such as saline solution for example. However, that is NOT what is predominantly used in vaccine trials.

If they aren’t using true placebos, what are they using?

According to the 2013 WHO Expert Consultation on the Use of Placebos in Vaccine Trials, the following replacements are used in lieu of a true placebo:

    • “In place of a placebo, a vaccine against a disease that is not the focus of the trial is given to participants who do not receive the trial vaccine.”

Or, an “add-on” vaccine can be used:

    • “In this design, the trial vaccine or placebo product is mixed with an existing vaccine not studied in the trial, and the subjects are given either (a) the trial vaccine mixed with the existing unrelated vaccine or (b) the combination of a placebo and the existing unrelated vaccine.”

Yes, you read those correctly! These vaccines are not being tested for safety against substances that are known to be safe. They are tested against other vaccines which contain the same or similar toxic ingredients common to all vaccines. Some trials are performed using “add-on” vaccines as a placebo. In these cases, potentially everyone in the trial is injected with the actual vaccine being tested! It doesn’t take a rocket scientist to deduce that these methods are unacceptable when the goal is to ascertain safety.

The WHO freely admits this:

“A methodological disadvantage, however, is that trials using these types of placebos provide a less perfect control. It may be difficult or impossible to assess fully the safety and reactogenicity of the trial vaccine, although its efficacy can usually be assessed satisfactorily.” (emphasis mine)

(Reactogenicity is the ability of the vaccine to cause adverse reactions.)

“Methodological disadvantage!?” That’s the understatement of the century!

Let’s look at some very disturbing clinical trial data for a few of the vaccines the CDC recommends. Each vaccine is linked to its package insert so that you can read this information for yourselves:

Engerix B Hepatitis B vaccine (Recombinant) GlaxoSmithKline

“Ten double-blind studies involving 2,252 subjects showed no significant difference in the frequency or severity of adverse experiences between ENGERIX-B and plasma-derived vaccines…All subjects were monitored for 4 days post-administration.”

This study doesn’t prove that this vaccine is safe. Plasma derived vaccines were used in the control group instead of a placebo. It demonstrates that this vaccine doesn’t cause any more or any worse adverse effects than other vaccines cause- at least within the 4 day time frame the subjects were monitored.

This vaccine is given to babies on their very first day of life whether they are at risk for Hep B or not. Only babies born to Hep B positive mothers are at risk for Hep B. For millions of babies this vaccine is a completely unnecessary risk that provides them with absolutely zero benefit.

Infanrix (DTaP) GlaxoSmithKline

Table 4, on page 18 shows that Infanrix was not compared to a placebo, it was compared to the whole cell DTP vaccine.

According to WHO, acellular vaccines (like Infanrix) were introduced “to address the adverse reactions observed with whole cell vaccines…” This WHO report also notes that acellular vaccines have replaced whole cell vaccines in industrialized countries. However, due to the increased cost of acellular vaccines, the whole cell is still used in many developing countries. This vaccine is being tested against a control vaccine that we already know to be more dangerous than the type of vaccine being studied!

**Note figure 8.1 on page 18: “Pregnancy Category C Animal reproduction studies have not been conducted with INFANRIX. It is not known whether INFANRIX can cause fetal harm when administered to pregnant women or can affect reproduction capacity.

Despite this information listed in the product packaging, the CDC routinely recommends the DTaP vaccine to pregnant women. You can read about that on the CDC’s website in their article, Pregnant? Get Tdap in your 3rd trimester.

The CDC recommends either the BOOSTRIX vaccine or the Adacel vaccine (both DTaP) to pregnant women. While BOOSTRIX is rated one category safer than Adacel (Category B),the packaging still notes, “A developmental toxicity study has been performed in female rats at a dose approximately 40 times the human dose (on a mL/kg basis) and revealed no evidence of harm to the fetus due to BOOSTRIX. Animal fertility studies have not been conducted with BOOSTRIX. There are no adequate and well controlled studies in pregnant women. Because animal production studies are not always predictive of human response, BOOSTRIX should be given to a pregnant woman only if clearly needed.”

Still feeling safe? Still feeling like the CDC has your back?

GARDASIL- Merck

In 7 clinical trials (5 Amorphous Aluminum Hydroxyphosphate Sulfate [AAHS]- controlled, and 1 uncontrolled), 18,083 individuals were administered GARDASIL or AAHS control or saline placebo on the day of enrollment, and approximately 2 and 6 months thereafter, and safety was evaluated using vaccine report cards (VRC)- aided surveillance for 14 days after each injection of GARDASIL or AAHS control or saline placebo in these individuals.”

In these Gardasil trials, there actually WAS a control group which was given a true saline placebo. However there was another (much larger) control group given AAHS, which is the adjuvant in the Gardasil vaccine (the toxic portion that triggers immune response.) According to the insert, 15,706 subjects received Gardasil, 13,023 received AAHS and 594 received the placebo. However, they did not compare the three groups separately; they combined the AAHS and placebo group together and compared them to the Gardasil group. This means that the whole Gardasil vaccine was tested primarily against an injection containing its own toxic ingredients and determined to be “safe.”

Furthermore, 40 deaths occurred in the entire study which were broken down by cause. When you subtract the number of deaths that were due to car wrecks, overdoses/suicides and gunshot wounds, and compare the number of subjects who died: 18 subjects who were given either Gardasil or AAHS died and only 1 who had been given the placebo died.  Think about that! Subjects who received Gardasil or AAHS instead of placebo, died at a rate of 18 to 1!

Why Don’t Scientists Use Appropriate Placebos in Trials?

The “gold standard” in clinical trials cannot be implemented because the use of a placebo in many cases is unethical. The purpose of the 2013 WHO Expert Consultation on the Use of Placebos in Vaccine Trials was to detail the guidelines placed on the ethical use of placebos in vaccine trials. If using a traditional, inert placebo in the control group doesn’t “add any risk of serious or irreversible harm,” then clearly there is nothing unethical about using it. But what about when it does?

For example, according to WHO reports, in 2008 rotavirus was responsible for about 5% of all child deaths globally, with 90% of these deaths occurring in Africa and Asia. In a 2011-12 clinical trial in India for a new rotavirus vaccine, 2/3 of the infants received the test vaccine while 1/3 got a saline placebo injection. At the time, two approved oral rotavirus vaccines were already available. Not giving 1/3 of the Indian children in the trial a vaccine already known to be effective against rotavirus, constituted a human research violation that would not have been allowed in the US. Allowing preventable harm to occur in the name of research is unethical.

This means, for very legitimate ethical reasons, using true placebos according to the “gold standard” of clinical testing is not feasible. However, this in no way negates the fact that due to ethical constraints, it is impossible to accurately assess vaccine safety in many cases. It is also unethical to fail to provide this information to parents when discussing vaccine safety.

It crosses the line of unethical and meanders into the territory of illegal, when this information is intentionally censored from vaccine education sheets given to parents in the pediatrician’s office (as well as from conversations with your pediatrician) assuring that vaccines are “extensively tested for safety” knowing full well that safety and reactogenicity are “difficult or impossible to assess” by their own publicly published standards.

The next time someone tells you that vaccines have been proven safe in numerous extensive studies you can tell them that information is blatantly false, and the CDC, WHO, NIH, and FDA know it. Vaccines cannot be both adequately and ethically tested for safety.

6 Things You Need to Know When Deciding Whether or Not to Vaccinate

Before we begin, I’d like to stress that the intent of this article is not to condemn anyone regardless of whatever decision you make when weighing whether or not it is in your best interest to vaccinate your children or yourselves. Instead, it is my intention to arm you with more complete information with which to make your decision. Don’t take my word for it. I have linked every source (the majority of which are CDC, WHO, FDA, etc.) so that you can read and discern them for yourselves.

  1. The first thing you need to know is that regardless of what you have been told, the science on vaccines is not and never was settled.

A.Despite CDC claims, our current vaccine scheduling regimen has not been adequately tested. The CDC says, “Following the recommended immunization schedule protects infants and children by providing immunity early in life, before they are exposed to potentially life-threatening diseases.” The American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) endorses this statement. However, when the Institute of Medicine (IOM) investigated this claim in 2013 in response to parental concern over the vaccination schedule they were able to identify less than 40 scientific studies published since 2003 and noted, “First, the concept of the immunization “schedule” is not well developed in the scientific literature…Key elements of the immunization schedule- for example, the number, frequency, timing, order, and age at the time of administration of vaccines- have not been systematically examined in research studies.” (Institute of Medicine. The Childhood Immunization Schedule and Safety: Stakeholder Concerns, Scientific Evidence, and Future Studies. The National Academies Press 2013.)

B. Despite CDC claims, combining multiple vaccines in one visit has not been proven to be safe. “Although CDC recommends polio, hepatitis B, diphtheria, tetanus, pertussis, rotavirus, flu B, and pneumococcal vaccines for two, four, and six month old infants, this combination of eight vaccines administered during a single physician visit was never tested for safety in clinical trials. This is at odds with a CDC report that found that mixed exposures to chemical substances and other stress factors, including prescribed pharmaceuticals, may produce ‘increased or unexpected deleterious health effects.” (Combining Childhood Vaccines at One Visit Is Not Safe, Neil Z. Miller)

C. The CDC recommended the TdaP vaccine to pregnant women prior to licensure of the vaccine,and does not even know for sure if the vaccine will protect newborns from pertussis as they claim: “In prelicensure evaluations, the safety of administering a booster dose of Tdap to pregnant women was not studied…The effectiveness and optimal consideration of maternal antipertussis antibodies in newborns are not yet known, but high levels of antibodies in the first weeks of life after birth likely confer protection and might prevent pertussis or modify disease severity.” (emphasis mine).(CDC. Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report, October 21, 2011) Incidentally, the FDA classifies TdaP a class C pregnancy drug which is defined as drugs in which “Animal reproduction studies have shown an adverse effect on fetus and there are no adequate and well-controlled studies in humans, but potential benefits may warrant use of drug in pregnant women despite potential risks.” (FDA Pregnancy Categories)

– Don’t miss this quote from the CDC in the above 10/21/11 report, “Because information on the use of Tdap in pregnant women was lacking, both manufacturers of Tdap established pregnancy registries to collect information and pregnancy outcomes from pregnant women vaccinated with Tdap. Data on the safety of administering Tdap to pregnant women are now available.” (emphasis is mine). The CDC tells you in black and white that they recommended a vaccine to you in which information was lacking though you were not informed that they did not have complete information.

– Rephrased: Uninformed women were used as guinea pigs in an undeclared trial.

– The very same scenario is occurring right now with respect to the  Gardasil vaccine that the CDC currently recommends.

D. Heavy Metals used in Vaccines have not been found to be safe. Use of mercury in vaccines has been greatly decreased, however the use of aluminum has not decreased. A study in Pediatrics, which is the official journal of the American Academy of Pediatrics states, “Aluminum is now being implicated as interfering with a variety of cellular and metabolic processes in the nervous system and other tissue.” Another group of researchers note, “Despite almost 90 years of widespread use of aluminum adjuvants, medical science’s understanding about their mechanisms of action is still remarkably poor. There is also a concerning scarcity of data on toxicology and pharmacokinetics of these compounds.” (Current Medicinal Chemistry, Volume 18, Number 17)

– Rephrased: They have been using aluminum and other heavy metals in vaccines for 90 years, yet do not know exactly how they affect your body. Concerns have now been raised that aluminum may very well be interfering with your nervous system.

E. Finally, regarding “settled science”, many pro-vaccine advocates cite lack of peer reviewed research in response to anti- vaccine data. For your further research, I have included a website containing links to several published vaccine safety studies citing major concerns: http://www.vaccines.net/newpage11.htm

2. Speaking of vaccine research, you need to know that massive conflicts of interest exist in this industry which must be weighted when examining the findings of these studies. Many people consider CDC or FDA findings to be unbiased and that couldn’t be further from the truth.

A. The CDC was authorized to accept funding in the form of industry“gifts” in 1983. “Despite the agency’s disclaimer, the CDC does receive millions of dollars in industry gifts and funding, both directly and indirectly, and several recent CDC actions and recommendations have raised questions about the science it cites, the clinical guidelines it promotes, and the money it is taking.” (British Medical Journal BMJ 2015;350:h2362)

B. 1992 legislation (Prescription Drug User Fee Act) mandated that pharmaceutical companies directly pay the FDA to review their applications for drug approvals. Healthcare consulting firm Avalere Health found that pharmaceutical companies have contributed $7.67 billion to the FDA since 1992. (Avalere Healthcare Press Release)

-This act was passed because the FDA didn’t have enough researchers to review the number of new pharmaceuticals being submitted resulting in extensive lags in drug approvals. However, now we have created a conflict of interest in which the FDA accepts money from pharmaceutical companies and drugs are fast tracked to market. While the government denies the process could be corrupt, this claim defies both logic and history.

-An article appearing in the Journal of Law, Medicine, and Ethics edited by Marc Rodwin and supported by the Edmond J. Safra Center for Ethics states, “The authorization of user fees in 1992 has turned drug companies into the FDA’s prime clients, deepening regulatory and cultural capture of the agency. Industry has demanded shorter average review times and with less time to thoroughly review evidence, increased hospitalizations and deaths have resulted.

– Frankly, this revelation is a no brainer. You can’t even sit down to watch a 30 minute sitcom without seeing advertisements for class action lawsuits aimed at various pharmaceuticals which have injured or killed people. These were all approved by the FDA prior to prescription, and all were accompanied by peer reviewed research.

C. The pharmaceutical and health industries combined were the 3rd largest contributors in our last presidential election with Hillary Clinton benefiting the most, followed by Ted Cruz in 2nd place. This doesn’t include donations made by corporations. For example, Pfizer alone spent $10 million lobbying Congress last year. (Big Pharma’s Big Donations to 2016 Presidential Candidates, CNN)

D. Why don’t we see very many studies that are critical of vaccine safety? A British Medical Journal study concludes, “Jefferson’s analysis confirms that drug company’s marketing vaccines have a major influence on what gets published and is said about vaccines in medical journals. It is no wonder that there are almost no published studies in the medical literature that call into question vaccine safety.”

E. Many of the vaccine studies claiming vaccine safety that we do see are not forthcoming with their inherent bias. Many of these studies (not all) are actually funded by vaccine manufacturers and the pharmaceutical industry. For example, this must see study by Dr. Brian Hooker of the Alliance for Natural Health USA reveals the study flaws and various significant conflicts of interest in some of the premier studies refuting a connection between the MMR vaccine and autism/neurological disorders: http://www.anh-usa.org/vaccine-science-is-not-settled-a-critical-review-of-the-literature/

3. In 1986, the government passed the National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act which protects vaccine manufacturers from vaccine injury lawsuits. Under this legislation the Vaccine Injury Compensation Program (VICP) was created. It was created as an alternative to civil court lawsuit, giving partial liability protection to vaccine manufacturers, pediatricians, and other vaccine providers from civil liability for injuries and deaths caused by federally recommended childhood vaccines. (American Bar Association) In February of 2011, the US Supreme Court ruled in Bruesewitz vs Wyeth LLC, to grant the pharmaceutical industry total immunity from lawsuits even if they could have made a vaccine less harmful, because (per court docs) vaccines are “unavoidably unsafe”.

-Rephrased: If you or your child have suffered from a vaccine injury you have no legal recourse against vaccine manufacturers or the physician who recommended the vaccine. Instead you must file a petition with the US Court of Federal Claims where beaurocrats will decide if your claim should be submitted to the VICP which will determine if you deserve compensation. The Supreme Court doesn’t feel that vaccine manufacturers should be held responsible for dangerous vaccines even if the vaccine could have been made less dangerous because it is already impossible to make a vaccine that isn’t dangerous due to the fact that the ingredients required to be included in vaccines at this point are dangerous in and of themselves.

-The Health Resources and Services Association (HRSA) is required to release the amount of damages paid as settlements through the VICP. Current disclosures from the HRSA Data and Statistics report states that to date the VICP has paid out $3.6 billion in settlements for vaccine injury.

4. Vaccine injury is NOT just autism. Many studies are linking vaccines to Asperger’s, ADHD, autoimmune disorders, and food and digestive allergies. These are quickly becoming epidemics recognized by the CDC while they claim that they have no idea at this point what environmental factors are contributing to this trend. So far, no correlation is being considered based on the massive increase in childhood vaccinations (In 1983, there were 10 recommended vaccines by the age of 6 given in 24 doses, 7 injections, and 4 oral vs the 2016 schedule of 74 doses by age 17, 53 injections, and 3 oral.) Right now, hundreds more vaccines are in the pipeline to be added to future vaccination schedules.

A.  According to this CDC study in Medical News Today, “the prevalence and incidence of autoimmune diseases, such as lupus, celiac disease, and type I diabetes is on the rise and researchers at the CDC are unsure why…Earlier studies have shown that genetics and environmental factors cause autoimmune disease…With the rapid increase in autoimmune diseases, it clearly suggests that environmental factors are at play due to the significant increase in these diseases. Genes do not change in such a short period of time.” (emphasis mine)

B. According to this CDC report in Food Allergy Research and Education, “the prevalence of food allergy in children increased by 50% between 1997 and 2011…Between 1997 and 2008, the prevalence of peanut or tree nut allergy appears to have more than tripled in US children…Childhood hospitalizations for food allergy tripled between the late 1990’s and the mid-2000’s… Compared to children who don’t have food allergy, children with food allergy are two to four times as likely to have other allergic conditions, such as asthma or eczema…1 in 13 children now have food allergies… There is no cure for food allergy.”

C. This website lists multiple published studies linking vaccines to some of the most common rapidly increasing conditions: https://www.fourteenstudies.org/ourstudies.html

5. There are multiple published studies documenting vaccine failure though they are not widely reported in the mainstream media.

A. This page from GreenMedinfo lists 31 published studies of vaccine failure ranging from the 80’s to today (measles, mumps, polio, tetanus, chicken pox, and flu): http://www.greenmedinfo.com/keyword/vaccine-failure

B. This article from Scientific American documents the 2016 mumps spike across the US. The CDC is quoted as reporting, “Vaccine coverage rates in the worst affected states of Arkansas, Illinois, and Iowa is generally high. All have two dose coverage rates around 90% or better” Janell Routh, a medical officer at the CDC makes three notable admissions: 1. “We know generally that mumps cases wax and wane over the years.” 2. “We don’t know the level of antibody required to stop a case of mumps in a person, so that question of knowing if a vaccine works less well over time is something we’re still working to investigate.” 3. We know the mumps vaccine is only 88% effective after 2 doses, so that means a certain portion of vaccinated people are still vulnerable.”

-Rephrased: Routh might as well have said due to the fact that mumps outbreaks are cyclical in nature on their own, and the fact that we are unsure of the levels of antibodies needed to protect a person from mumps, and that we know at least 12% of the population doesn’t respond to the vaccine at all, and that we don’t know how long vaccines are even effective after administered- we really can’t gauge the actual effectiveness of the mumps vaccine in eradicating mumps. (Instead, however, the CDC is recommending that we get a third MMR vaccine.)

C. Currently the CDC recommends that anyone who will come in contact with an infant receive the pertussis vaccine (you’ve probably seen commercials on TV urging you be vaccinated for pertussis for this reason- I’ve seen several), due to a strategy that is referred to as “cocooning”. The theory is that since newborns can’t receive the pertussis vaccine (cannot be given until 3 months old), if everyone who comes into contact with the infant is vaccinated the infant will not contract pertussis. The problem is this strategy has been proven ineffective- yet the US still recommends it. As a matter of fact the ACIP (panel of immunization experts that advise the CDC) acknowledges this (documented by the CDC in this morbidity report), “ACIP concluded that cocooning alone is an insufficient strategy to prevent pertussis morbidity and mortality in newborn infants.” Australia discontinued their pertussis “cocooning” program in 2012, yet the US continues despite knowledge that it is ineffective.

-This article from local Alabama news source al.com documents a pertussis outbreak in multiple schools in Alabama and notes concern that vaccinated children are contracting the disease: http://www.al.com/news/montgomery/index.ssf/2017/05/pertussis_outbreak_confirmed_i.html

D. The CDC routinely admits that the flu vaccine has a low effectiveness rate that varies from year to year. According to this year’s CDC flu morbidity report the vaccine was 48% effective, however in the 2014-15 season the CDC reported that it was only 23% effective. Remember, you will not know how effective any particular year’s vaccine is until after the season is over. The CDC admitted in this seasons report, that the Flu Mist was not recommended at all due to ineffectiveness.

-Contrast this information with the fact that, “As of October 3, 2016, there had been 2,954 claims filed to VICP for injuries and deaths following the Influenza vaccine, including 109 deaths and 2,845 serious injuries.” (http://www.nvic.org/Vaccines-and-Diseases/Influenza.aspx) Despite this knowledge, flu vaccines are advertised ad nauseum and recommended by doctors consistently. You literally can’t check out at CVS without being offered one.

6. The dangers of the diseases we are vaccinating against are sensationalized to a degree, while adverse vaccine effects are vastly under reported to the VICP and VICP results are not readily broadcast to the public.

A. First you should know that when the World Health Organization (WHO) states mortality statistics regarding infectious diseases- they apply global statistics.

-Why does this matter? Take measles for example: The WHO says 122,000 people die globally from measles. The WHO also states that, “Severe measles is more likely among poorly nourished young children, especially those with insufficient vitamin A, or whose immune systems have been weakened by HIV/AIDS or other diseases…As high as 10% of measles cases result in death among populations with high levels of malnutrition and a lack of adequate health care…More than 95% of measles deaths occur in countries with low per capita incomes and weak health infrastructures…Overcrowding in residential camps greatly increases the risk of infection.”

-Rephrased: Even in third world countries where children are severely malnourished, have weakened immune systems, very little access to health care, live in crowded and unsanitary conditions in which disease thrives- only 10% of children die from measles. 95% of the 122,000 measles deaths occur in these third world countries.

B. The complications of the diseases we vaccinate against vary widely. Mumps, measles,diphtheria, and polio absolutely have some very serious complications that can occur including death. Whereas rubella is virtually harmless to children. However, the CDC documents the percentage of occurrence of serious complications due to these diseases and most are surprisingly low. You can check out the various stats for the diseases at the links I have provided (be sure to note that global statistics are given in many instances as we noted earlier in the article):

Measles: Stats from CDC

Mumps: Stats from WHO

Rubella: Stats from WHO (Note: Children vaccinated are NOT protected into adulthood, so this vaccine offers no protection to unborn babies.)

Pertussis: Stats from CDC

Diphtheria: Stats from CDC

Tetanus: Contracting tetanus as an infant is highly unlikely since it is not passed person to person and anaerobic.

C. Note that all of the serious complications that rarely arise in the above diseases are also listed as rarely occurring side effects of the vaccines against them PLUS additional serious complications NOT related to the diseases on their own.

-MMR vaccine insert: http://www.merck.com/product/usa/pi_circulars/m/mmr_ii/mmr_ii_pi.pdf

-TdaP vaccine insert: https://www.fda.gov/downloads/biologicsbloodvaccines/vaccines/approvedproducts/ucm124514.pdf

-Note: TdaP includes risk of developing Guillan-Barre Syndrome, in which your immune system attacks your nervous system. This article in Mercola states, “In the United States, over half of the 2,480 compensation awards made under the National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act, which total more than $2 billion dollars, have involved brain inflammation and encephalopathy resulting in permanent brain damage associated with whole cell and acellular pertussis vaccine in DPT and DtaP shots.” (Note the figures are lower because the latest information I could find was from 2012 reports.)

D. Since 1990 there have been 6,058 serious adverse events reported to VAERS including 842 serious injuries and 140 deaths. There have been over 200,000 adverse effects reported (not necessarily serious). This is not a sufficient indicator of the adverse events however due to the fact that less than 10% of adverse effects are reported to VAERS. (http://www.nvic.org/reportreaction.aspx) Less than 10% are reported yet VICP has paid $3.6 billion since its inception!! Think about that.

-Why aren’t adverse effects being reported? Well, had you ever heard of VAERS before you read this article? I had never heard of it before I began the research for this article, and the fact is the majority of people aren’t aware of it. In my personal experience with the MMR vaccine, one of my 3 children broke out in a measles rash one day after being vaccinated. When I reported this to the pediatrician, he denied that the rash was in any way related to the vaccine received the day before. Begs the question how many reactions that parents report to pediatricians, that pediatricians do not report to VAERS.

Here is what becomes apparent upon research: The scientific community, medical community, and our government are aware that vaccines cause adverse effects (in varying degrees) in a significant portion of the vaccinated population. However, they do not know why. It could be due to individual, undetectable sensitivities to any number of the ingredients in vaccines. They do not know and have no way of discerning at this point who is vulnerable and to what degree (minor or severe or anywhere in between) reaction anyone may have to any given vaccination. The government has taken steps to provide vaccine manufactures as well as doctors protection from liability due to any vaccine injury you may incur.

I’ll end with this quote from an article in Forbes encouraging parents to be introspective regarding “anti vaccination alarmists”, “Who told you to be afraid? Trace the path straight to the toxic root of your fear. Then ask yourself: How do the people telling you to panic stand to benefit from those who buy what they’re selling?” Knowing what you know now, I hope you will indeed ask yourself: Who stands to profit?