Do high rates of vaccination make us safe? Let’s talk about herd immunity.

Most of us have probably heard of the “herd immunity” concept. It goes a little something like this: If 95% of the population become immune to a disease via vaccination, there will not be enough vulnerable individuals to allow the disease to spread, thus protecting the portion of the population (herd) who cannot be vaccinated (those who are too young or immunocompromised in some way).

Here is a nice little vaccine propaganda diagram explaining the concept of herd immunity visually, but leaving out the important bit of information about having no idea what individuals are highly susceptible to substantial vaccine injury:

This mantra is reinforced over and over and over. We hear it on TV. You read about it online. Medical journals publish papers about it. Newspapers write articles about it. Schools teach it. Now we are worked up into a frenzy over it and the debate is HOT on both sides because we’re talking about how the actions of others effect your well-being or the well-being of your children. People who choose not to vaccinate have become public enemy #1 because they are “threatening the nation’s herd immunity” and placing everyone’s health at risk. Honestly, people are getting down right nasty.

Here’s a nice little meme explaining to those who choose not to vaccinate how their sub intelligence level is endangering the planet:

This unfortunate attitude is rooted in the fact that we have all been indoctrinated to a large extent to believe that the science behind the benefit of vaccinations is settled. We assume since we have been given vaccines since the late 1800’s, doctors and scientists know exactly how this process works and exactly what the outcomes will be. I for one, thought on many occasions when I was younger how lucky I was to be born into a time when science had all this “stuff figured out” so that I didn’t have to suffer from horrific preventable illnesses. In my naivete, it never occurred to me that these mass vaccination programs were instituted prior to sufficient research- in more of a “let’s implement our educated hypothesis and see how it goes” scenario. The public has always been the under-informed guinea pig and continues to function in the same capacity today- though we are conditioned to ignore the everyday evidence of this that surfaces in the form of the massive number of reports of vaccine injury and vaccine failure. Those who are rudely awakened from the farce and begin to speak out against the status quo are ridiculed and invited to don a “tin foil” dunce cap. At this point, if you are questioning my statements regarding the “settled science” on vaccines, I hope you will read the extensive evidence I have documented in my article: 6 Things You Need to Know When Deciding Whether or Not to Vaccinate. Now, on to the topic at hand…

Does “herd immunity” exist? Absolutely!

The problem is, herd immunity through vaccination– does NOT exist. The theory of herd immunity through vaccination is based on the documented proof of the natural immunity that occurs after exposure to certain illnesses. “Safer” exposure through vaccination in place of actual exposure through natural infection, in theory, should impart the same level of immunity as the natural process affords. It’s a great theory. But have you ever heard the old saying, “If it sounds too good to be true, it probably is”? We receive a harmless vaccine, we never have to worry about getting a yucky disease. Countless lives are saved. The end. However, that’s not exactly how it has played out in the real world. Instead of “protecting the weaker members of the herd” we are merely “shifting around” the members of the herd susceptible to disease. But don’t expect to hear that in the mainstream. Let me explain.

First of all, where did we come up with the magic number of 95% vaccination as the requirement to achieve herd immunity? The idea was born in the 1930’s when Johns Hopkins University’s Arthur Hedrich discovered that after 55% of Baltimore’s population contracted measles (and subsequently became immune to measles) the rest of the population became protected. So, in November of 1966, the US Public Health Service announced a mass vaccination program aimed at vaccinating 55% of the population which would eradicate measles in the US by 1967.

The problem is- it didn’t work. Despite achieving the 55% vaccination rate, measles was not eradicated by 1967. (Our first clue that natural immunity is far superior to vaccine immunity.) So, they increased the required vaccination percentage to 70-75%. When that failed, the percentage was increased to 80%. Then 83%. Then 85%. Then 90% in 2001. Currently, we are at the number 95% and many studies are now calling for 100% required rates. (What was that about protecting those members of the herd that are not able to tolerate vaccination again?)

So was Hedrich wrong? Or is there a difference between the natural immunity derived from contracting diseases and the immunity derived from vaccinations?

Dr. Hedrich had observed that 95% of the children in cities had contracted measles by the time they reached the age of 15. Before the measles vaccine was introduced, measles outbreaks occurred cyclically every 2 to 3 years. So, 95% of the population was immune to measles by their 15th birthday. (Here’s the link to this research:

Scientists at this time worked on the assumption that one vaccine would result in lifetime immunity. And indeed for decades we have operated under the assumption that the infectious diseases that we are vaccinated against are all but eradicated. Almost no one gets them, ergo vaccines work. Right?

Actually, for over 70 years doctors assumed that vaccine immunity was lifelong. No one vaccinated during these years received booster shots. It wasn’t until much later that it was discovered that vaccine protection only lasts from 2 to 10 years. So, the first generations to be vaccinated in childhood likely had no immunity by the time they reached adulthood. Renowned neurosurgeon, Dr. Russell Blaylock writes, “If we listen to present-day wisdom, we are all at risk of resurgent massive epidemics should the vaccination rate fall below 95%. Yet, 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.” You can read Dr. Blaylock’s vaccine herd immunity article here:

Years later scientists discovered that the body is best able to defend itself due to ongoing re-exposure to pathogens. A study by A.A Navarini concluded, “The formal demonstration that both maternal antibodies and early exposure to infection are required for long term protection illustrated that constant re-infection cycles have an essential role in building a stable herd immunity.” (Here is the link to that study:

And voila! That’s how we ended up with vaccine boosters- in order to mimic natural re-exposure. But, this hasn’t exactly fixed the problem.

Navarini has also noted that vaccination creates a “quasi- sterile” environment that actually makes the population more vulnerable to disease outbreaks. “Attempts to eradicate measles virus or poliovirus eliminates antigen exposure of infants to these pathogens. Such quasi-sterile epidemiological situations may actually increase the risk of outbreaks.”

Indeed, today, several generations after these diseases were declared to be all but eradicated, we have multiple examples of outbreaks in 100% or near 100% vaccinated populations:

CDC documented case of measles outbreak in 100% vaccinated population:

Measles outbreak traced to fully vaccinated patient:


Chicken Pox:


Looks like Navarini is on to something…

This leaves us with the all important question: Why are we becoming more susceptible to these diseases?

Well, one of the primary differences between natural immunity and vaccine immunity is that vaccine induced immunity cannot be passed from mother to infant. Why? Because exposure through the mucous membrane is what contributes to the production of antibodies in the mammary gland. But injected vaccines bypass the mucous membranes all together and only blood antibodies are produced. So, even if the mother does have immunity through vaccination, she can’t pass it to her infant through breastfeeding like a naturally immune mother can. On the flip side of the coin however, if a mother has natural immunity, and her infant is exposed to measles- the infant will contract an asymptomatic infection (an infection with no symptoms) that will result in lifetime immunity to measles.

A study published by M. Papania in 1999 states, “Infants whose mothers were born after 1963 had a measles attack rate of 33%, compared to 12% for infants of older mothers…Infants whose mothers were born after 1963 are more susceptible to measles than are infants of older mothers. An increasing proportion of infants born in the United States may be susceptible to measles.” (Here is the link to the study:

In effect, while the measles vaccine reduced the expression of measles infections, it has had a detrimental effect when you recognize it has merely “swapped” the population groups susceptible to the disease. (Now infants, and non immune adults.) As Dr. Suzanne Humphries notes, “Infants used to be protected by maternal antibodies, adults were protected by routine exposure, and infected children came through the disease normally with long term immunity.” (FYI: measles never was highly dangerous in the US. It is only dangerous in malnourished populations. As a matter of fact 30% of measles infections went undetected because they were so mild. This is at a stark contrast with the vaccine, which has a higher incidence of serious injury in the US than the disease itself.)

An example my generation will identify with is chicken pox. When I was a kid, everyone got chicken pox at some point. Though certainly annoying, most cases of chicken pox are pretty benign and when you recover there is a 95% natural immunity rate. However, the advent of the mass varicella vaccination program has resulted in members of the “herd” being unable to pass natural immunity to each other. Now shingles is on the rise. Shingles is MUCH worse than chicken pox.

This National Institutes of Health release documents the failure of the varicella vaccination program (yet it is still recommended- go figure), “Varicella vaccination is less effective than the natural immunity that existed in prevaccine communities. Universal varicella vaccination has not proven to be cost-effective as increased HZ morbidity has disproportionately offset cost savings associated with reductions in varicella disease. Universal varicella vaccination has failed to provide long-term protection from VZV disease.”

Dr. Goldman of the above varicella study, notes in this separate document ( that the varicella vaccination program has had the effect of “shifting chickenpox to a more vulnerable adult population where chicken pox 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 chicken pox and shingles vaccines as well as the potential for increased risk of shingles for an estimated 30 to 50 years among adults.” In simple terms: we were better off before the vaccine.

Now, the theoretical vast good that vaccinations could do has been greatly diminished due to the fact that the vaccines in and of themselves are dangerous and in many cases carry a much higher risk of injury than the illnesses they are designed to prevent. The unexpected problem has been, however, that a far larger portion of the population are susceptible to adverse vaccine effects on a varying scale of severity. Vaccine injury encompasses a plethora of complications not currently recognized in their full scale which leads to massive under-reporting of vaccine side effects.

The medical and science fields (quietly) admit that a much larger portion of the population than originally expected are susceptible to vaccine injury. They also confirm that currently, there is no way to reliably determine who these individuals are. Of course this is not discussed in the mainstream, but here is the link “to the next golden age in vaccinology to be ushered in by the new science of vaccinomics”: . The very existence of this document speaks the truth that they are aware that vaccines cannot be safely administered in their current “one size fits all” form, but they won’t let us know that until they have the new and improved product ready to fill the void. The linked document is all about the up and coming “personalized” vaccines that they tell us will be safer. (Safer than our already extremely “safe” vaccines?) Here’s another quote from the article, “In addition, newly available data suggest that some vaccine-related adverse events may also be genetically determined and, therefore, predictable.”

To recap: Scientists developed vaccinations based on the natural herd immunity derived from pathogen exposure. The immunity derived from vaccines was theorized to be equal to natural immunity, yet superior in terms of risk of infection. For several generations this appeared to be the case. Due to new evidence, it became apparent that the vaccines had not been as effective as they thought. To cover the disparity, successively higher percentages of the population required for herd immunity to take effect have been imposed. New research was performed and booster shots were introduced to mimic the natural re-exposure process. In the meantime, more incidences of reported vaccine injury have led to the discovery that a much larger and unidentifiable portion of the population suffer adverse effects from vaccination in many cases equal to or much more severe than the adverse effects of the diseases they are vaccinated against. However, in order to maintain the high percentage of the population required to achieve herd immunity- these injuries are minimized and in many cases denied in order not to discourage the population from vaccination. All the while, they are working to usher in a “golden age” of vaccines that will be “personalized” to avoid an individual’s genetic predispositions toward certain vaccine injuries. Unexpected side effects of mass vaccination programs have manifested such as the “shifting” of susceptible populations (creating problems where they didn’t exist previously), absence of maternal immunity passed to infants, introduction of a “quasi-sterile” environment that is resulting in an increased susceptibility to diseases once considered “eradicated”. The latter is evidenced by the ever increasing reports of disease break outs in predominantly vaccinated populations as well as break outs in mixed populations. The medical and science communities answer by once again calling for higher vaccine rates and introducing new vaccines by the truckload.

Additional sources:

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:

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:

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:

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):

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 documents a pertussis outbreak in multiple schools in Alabama and notes concern that vaccinated children are contracting the disease:

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.” ( 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:

-TdaP vaccine insert:

-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. ( 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?







Cannabis: Gateway Drug or the Future of Medicine, Part 2

Last week in Part I of Cannabis: Gateway Drug or the Future of Medicine we discussed the largely untold history of Cannabis in the US and the fact that its medicinal properties have been recognized for thousands of years. But while the US government declared war on Cannabis and poured resources into other medicinal sources with easier profit potential, Israel’s Dr. Michoulam was discovering the amazing potential of Cannabis to revolutionize the future of medicine.

In the mid 90’s Dr. Michoulam discovered what is now called the endocannabinoid system in our bodies. This system, present in all humans and in many animals as well, holds the key to why Cannabis has the potential to be quite literally a miracle drug. Rick Pfrommer writes in his article, The Beginner’s Guide to the Endocannabinoid SystemThe Reason Our Bodies Easily Process Cannabis, “This system consists of a series of receptors that are configured only to accept cannabinoids, especially tetrahydrocannabinol (THC) and cannabidiol (CBD)…Dr. Mechoulam’s world-changing research discovered two main receptors, cannabinoid 1 (CB1) and cannabinoid 2 (CB2), that are keyed to both the endocannabinoids that our body naturally produces and phytocannabinoids (plant-based) like THC and CBD.”

Put in simple terms: Our bodies respond so well to Cannabinoids because our bodies already produce them naturally. We produce these endocannabinoids in the same way our bodies produce endorphins, and our bodies are equipped with special receptors made to recognize just them.



Of course the pharmaceutical industry is hard at work to make synthetic cannabinoids so that they can profit, but these synthetic cannabinoids (so far) have not been shown to work as efficiently as the natural ones.

So let’s cut to the chase. What can Cannabis do? Well, scientists have been able to isolate more than 60 cannabinoids in the Cannabis plant (there may well be upwards of 100 by some estimations) and they all have massive potential to heal or at least relieve the symptoms of a staggering spectrum of ailments.


Let’s take just THC for instance- it moderates pain. However, unlike many narcotics, the receptors that it binds to are not present in the part of the brain that regulate heart rate and respiration. This means that there is no lethal dosage threshold for THC! An individual could take as much as needed to control pain. Also, Cannabis and narcotics are what is called co-agonists. This means that when they are used in combination they each magnify the effect of the other, which would allow patients to get a greater effect from a lower dose of narcotic.

THC is also a highly effective anti-nausea and vomiting compound. In 1995, Dr. Michoulam performed a clinical trial with Professor Aya Avramov ( head of the dept. of pediatric oncology in Jerusalem). He had found that Cannabis lowers the horrific side effects of anti-cancer drugs. The trial was initially meant to be a double blind trial, meaning that some of the children would receive THC oil under their tongues for nausea and vomiting and some would only receive olive oil. Avramov would not know which oil each child received. However, Avramov called off the double blind trial after a week because the results were so dramatic that she knew exactly which children were receiving the THC and which were not. They changed the trial to an open study and treated all the children with THC. The results were a complete block of nausea and vomiting with such a small dosage that no psychoactive side effects of the THC (THC is the psychoactive compound of Cannabis) occurred. The study was published, but completely ignored by the medical community. Since this trial, Cannabis has also been found to be extremely effective in relieving pain related side effects of anti-cancer treatments and could replace 5 separate medications prescribed to cancer patients that are aimed at combating the side effects of the anti-cancer treatment.

Are you diabetic or know someone that is? Dr. David Allen, a retired cardiac surgeon who is now an endocannabinoid system researcher, has some shocking research results. In his studies, he has found that if an individual uses Cannabis for 20 years or more, they reduce their risk of diabetes by a whopping 66%. Dr. Allen then puts that in perspective by noting that currently, your doctor cannot prescribe anything that will even reduce the incidence of diabetes by 2%.

This article, Can Cannabis Treat Epileptic Seizures, for Scientific American notes that new scientific research provides evidence that CBD (a non-psychoactive compound of Cannabis) could be an effective treatment for the nearly 1/3 of patients who have a treatment resistant form of epilepsy. Testimonials like the one in the video below from a woman who was on 14 different prescriptions for her epileptic seizures yet still had an average of 12 seizures a day should not be ignored. She consumes butter with marijuana in it on toast daily and is now seizure free.

Prakash Nagarkatti, professor of pathology and microbiology at the University of South Carolina, and his team made a potentially world changing discovery when they found that a cannabinoid key could seek out cancerous cells in the immune system and literally instruct them to self destruct. Could Cannabis actually be a cancer cure? Who knows, but Professor Nagarkatti’s findings are amazing. His experimental drug was able to kill almost all cancer in test tubes. When tested on mice, 25-30% of mice rejected their cancerous tumors and were completely cured. The tumors in the remaining mice were decreased significantly. Nagarkatti has already begun clinical trials in leukemia patients.

This article, 5 Ways Cannabis Could Be Helping Alzheimer’s Patients, details very encouraging studies for this heartbreaking disease. THC has been found to slow the build up of plaques more effectively than any currently approved drugs. (Amyloid plaques are a characteristic pathological marker of Alzheimer’s.) Cannabis has also been found to be a powerful anti-inflammatory which would inhibit the formation of these plaques. Not only has CBD been found to prevent cell death which could delay the neurological degeneration that occurs in Alzheimer’s sufferers, but it also promotes cell growth- indicating a possible reversal of the neurological degeneration. Cannabis could also improve the overall quality of an Alzheimer’s patient’s life by treating some of the most notorious symptoms. Cannabis can stimulate appetite, control weight, improve motor function, and reduce agitation.

Cannabis may also be revolutionary for sufferers of autoimmune diseases such as Rheumatoid Arthritis, Celiac Disease, Fibromyalgia, Irritable Bowel Syndrome, and Type 2 Diabetes according to this article, 5 Autoimmune Disorders That Have Met Their Match. CBD has been shown to not only support the immune system, but to enable the immune system to recognize the difference between “normal anatomy and a foreign body”. CBD is known to regulate inflammation and immune cell activity. 50% of lab mice at Hebrew University with Rheumatoid Arthritis experienced an increase in joint health in response to CBD. A Care By Design survey reported that 100% of the fibromyalgia sufferers polled had reduced pain with CBD use for 30 days. For type 2 diabetes sufferers, CBD has been shown to improve metabolism and support insulin activity.

This article, No Bones About It: How Cannabis May Combat Bone Disease, highlights some fascinating findings when it comes to the endocannabinoid system and bone health. 2015 research from Tel Aviv University and Hebrew University found that CBD helps to heal broken bones! Using the cannabinoid recepters, researchers were able to trigger bone formation as well as strengthen the bridge that connects broken bones. This led to research focusing on the effects of CBD on osteoperosis and osteoarthritis. They found that there is strong evidence to indicate the endocannabinoid system can be used to prevent age related bone disease.

I could literally go on and on and on. Medical Cannabis has promising research for the treatment of Hepatitis C, Tourette’s, Hypertention, Sleep Apnea, Multiple Sclerosis, Parkinson’s, Gastrointestinal Disorders, Incontinence… Honestly, the list of what it CAN’T do may be shorter. When you take into consideration the fact that the bulk of this excitingly promising research revolves around only two compounds (THC and CBD) of the Cannabis plant and there are at minimum 60 compounds total- the medicinal potential is literally mind boggling. Add to this the fact that very few researchers are actually working with Cannabis at all because of the bureaucratic red tape involved with getting access to Cannabis (and now that they own a patent- a license from the government) due to the fact that it’s still illegal in most states. If medical Cannabis were legalized, many more brilliant scientific minds would be able to study this phenomenal plant. For the millions of people who stand to benefit from Cannabis, ignoring its well evidenced potential is nothing short of criminal. When it comes to the future of Cannabis, I guess you could say: where there’s smoke there’s fire.

Sources not linked in the above article: