Some vaccines have been worth it (measles) while others have not.
The pediatrician really really wanted my children to get the rotavirus vaccine. I said no. That vax was recalled later due to causing bowel obstructions.
The pediatrician wanted the HPV vaccine for my kids. Again, I said no. It causes far too much damage.
The point is, I had to do my research on everything the doc wanted to inject into my kids. Thankfully I had the option to say no and to change the schedule of shots to what I thought was best for my children; not just follow the herd because we were a captured audience.
That said, because of the last 2 years, I question EVERY SINGLE VACCINE NOW. Every. Single. One.
I appreciate your intellectual honesty, and that is regardless of whether we even agree on the premise. Intellectual honesty is critical, and it's important that you are not scared to speak your mind regardless of whether your audience agrees or not!
I would like to ask you another question from the angle I have been thinking about it lately: We in the modern culture are completely conditioned to believe that getting sick is bad, period. But what if getting sick with various things as a kid and surviving those things is an important part of human development? For example, when I was growing up, I had measles (twice,, I believe, even though one is supposed to have it only once). It was considered normal to have it. And what if human body learns an abundance of things by overcoming a disease in a natural way, as opposed to just one trick when overcoming a vaccine-induced attack?
On my end, where I am at right now, I feel that the principle of intelligent training by "somewhat controlled expose to crap," be it physical or emotional, is a concept that has been useful to human beings for probably millions of years. However, I am not sure at this point in time if "vaccines" were ever done right. It may be very well possible to do them right but it doesn't look like they have ever been right, due to general arrogance, lack of an understanding of a bigger picture, and commercial interests.
This feels extraordinarily condescending because most people actually start out as pro-vaccine. It's simply accepted that they are a net boon to society. If you want to be universally reviled or derided, become anti-vax. Not a maxx-vaxxer.
So yes, let's stop playing "edgelord."
A big problem is that there is a lot of game-theoretical stuff going on here. The population-level risk of dying from many vaccines is actually on par or greater than your risk of dying of the disease at transmission rates for the past 50 or so years, if you live in a western country. So naturally, if transmission is exceedingly low, even when there are notable outbreaks, many people will still gravitate to the anti-vax position because of their cost/benefit calculation.
The idea that death or encephalopathy from vaccines is really low and lower than the risk of getting the disease is true for many diseases besides flu. But the problem is that when the transmission of those diseases becomes so low, the vaccine risk becomes greater. This is the entire reason that the US switched from the whole cell pertussis vaccine to the conjugate. The vaccine used now doesn't stimulate immunity as robustly, but it's also less dangerous. It's also the reason the US stopped using live poliovirus vaccine. This isn't a conspiracy theory -- you can look it up in any microbiology textbook.
That said, there's ample reason to believe the efficacy of many preventative vaccines is oversold, and the links provided in your prior post by myself and other various readers are indicative of it.
The efficacy also isn't static over time. The MMR and pertussis vaccines are both much less effective than they were decades ago.
Measles outbreaks would need to be huge to achieve the death rate that the measles vaccine achieves on a yearly basis. Last time I checked, on average, the measles vaccine kills 10 people per year. When is the last time someone died of measles in the US? That's why freaking out about measles feels like hysteria to many of us because this has been a clearly moving target over the decades to use very isolated cases to create fear.
People are going to make different decisions based on different data and their own risk-benefit analyses. That's what living in a free society looks like. If we get a bunch of outbreaks and people start dying of various infectious diseases that were previously gone, then people may go back to vaccinating (maybe).
People generally learn through the school of hard knocks. They are not intuitive types who learn through data analysis and complex persuasive arguments.
It is awfully hard to assess the risks of vaccines when the last year has shown me that the medical profession, public health professionals, research doctors, journalists, government, science journals will all actively suppress information.
You can't make a risk assessment when people are destroying their data because it was too scary to publish. I can't cite the data they trashed. No one can.
How many other studies just don't happen because of the fear of what the results might be? So you can point me to the respectable articles in the proper journals and I wonder what I'm -not- seeing.
That is what the covid pandemic has taught me. I would have and did accept the argument that some vaccines are worthwhile when I believed that there were more honest researchers and less institutional dogmatic conformity.
Yes your scary measles picture is scary-- just like the monkeypox photos we are bombarded with every day. It is also a cheap tactic.
At this point, I'd be willing to take the risk of measles coming back over the risk of trusting the medical establishment to be honest about their research.
Earning back trust is a hill they will have to climb for many years.
As for this substack article, I can go literally anywhere else on the internet to see vaccine cheerleading and scary illness pictures to motivate me to get the next new thing injected. Why should I come here for it? Plus the added snark about what type of people can sustain "discussion and goodwill" when you are throwing around scary illness pictures is especially rude.
How do you think the parents of children who suffered sudden and drastic declines in health or died shortly after a routine vaccination appointment feel about the underhanded accusation that they may not be the "sort of people [who can] sustain discussion and goodwill despite disagreement?"
You do some truly excellent analysis here, but I stopped reading this piece as soon as I saw you write that measles is a nasty disease. No it's not. It is incredibly benign for otherwise healthy, well-nourished children It is a serious problem for the malnourished, as well as for some children who are immunocompromised. On the hand, autism is a serious life-long disabling disorder for all children, and the MMR vaccine causes autism. Not in infinitesimally small numbers. In very significant numbers. You cannot show us a study that disproves the testimonials of tens of thousands of parents, because there are none. The government and drug companies will not allow them to be done. The medical journals will not allow any that are funded independently to be published.
Parents are being forced to choose between a mostly benign short term illness for the very real risk of lifelong disability. This is insanely corrupt.
Not to mention, measles infection in childhood reduces the risk of a number of cancers later.
The way you write about Andrew Wakefield is dodgy. you repeat the allegations without discussing any evidence against them. You say the 10 authors retracted. what they said was no causal link was established in the paper between MMR and autism. In fact the paper never made that claim. So. Here was everything in the original paper about vaccines: two sentences in the conclusion: 'In most cases onset of symptoms was after measles mumps and rubella immunisation. Further investigations are needed to examine thsi syndrome and its possible relation to this vaccine. ' So the retraction was retracting nothing. You don't mention that the other co-author, Professor John walker-Smith was completely exonerated on appeal. None of this subtlety makes it into your piece, which is a pity.
Unvaccinated kids are FAR FAR healthier. Overwhelming evidence proves this, I see it every day of my life as a teacher of 20 yeas and parent. I can see that a child is unvaxxed immediately when I meet them. They are vibrant, focused, calm, their eyes are bright, they look great, their speech is advanced. Anyone who does not know this has been deeply fooled, so tragic. .
Unvaccinated children are FAR healthier
“I have over 13,000 children in my pediatric practice and I have to say, as unpopular as this observation might be, my unvaccinated children are by far the healthiest,” says Dr. Paul Thomas, a Dartmouth-trained pediatrician and addiction specialist who has been practicing medicine for 30 years. “I’ve had a team compiling data for a research study that is now undergoing peer review—some of which is published in my new book, ’The Vaccine-Friendly Plan.’ The data is surprising and counter-intuitive, perhaps, but it shows very clearly that the incidence of chronic disease and brain abnormalities in the entirely unvaccinated children in my practice, even those with siblings with autism, is much much lower than in children following the CDC’s recommended schedule.”……
"I observed that my unvaccinated children were healthier, hardier and more robust than their vaccinated peers. Allergies, asthma and pallor and behavioral and attentional disturbances were clearly more common in my young patients who were vaccinated. My unvaccinated patients, on the other hand, did not suffer from infectious diseases with any greater frequency or severity than their vaccinated peers: their immune systems generally handled these challenges very well."--IPhilip Incao ……….
“The children I have who are unvaccinated are, across the board, healthier;
and I can just tell you that.” Dr. Cornelia Franz, 30 year pediatrician…..
“There is virtually no autism, asthma, allergies, respiratory illness, or diabetes in his unvaccinated children, an impressive statistic when compared to national rates.” Dr. Eisenstein and his practice have cared for more than 50,000 children who were minimally or not vaccinated at all. …..
“I see daily in my practice evidence of vaccine injury and I hear stories almost every day of families that vaccinate children and then decide not to vaccinate and the unvaccinated children within the same family are healthier, more socially adjusted and more capable academically even though their parents are older than the siblings who were born first and were fully vaccinated.” Dr. Kelly Sutton, M.D………..
“As a concerned, compassionate and considerate paediatrician, I can only arrive at one conclusion. Unvaccinated children have by far the best chance of enjoying marvellous health. Any vaccination at all works to cripple the chances of this end.” The Marvellous Health of Unvaccinated Children by Françoise Berthoud, MD….
“Doing this for 15 years now, I will share with you that the vaccinated kids are the sickest, the partially vaccinated kids are not as sick, and the unvaccinated kids are the healthiest.” Dr. Bob Zajac is a board-certified pediatrician
“During those 30 years I have run against so many histories of little children who had never seen a sick day until they were vaccinated and who, in the several years that have followed, have never seen a well day since. I couldn’t put my finger on the disease they have. They just weren’t strong. Their resistance was gone. They were perfectly well before they were vaccinated. They have never been well since.” – Dr. William Howard Hay, MD
“My kids who've never been vaccinated in my practice, I don't see those issues. I don't have one child who was not vaccinated who also has asthma, food allergies, or Asperger's or autism, or Crohn's or ulcerative colitis-none of these chronic, either chronic inflammatory or chronic autoimmune diseases” - Dr. Toni Bark, MD
“I have been seeing families in my practice for over 20 years that have opted out of vaccination. They are the healthiest children I have EVER seen.” Dr. Lawrence Palevsky, MD
"What people don't know about vaccines --what most doctors don't know-- but well demonstrated in medical literature, is that vaccines shift your immune system to an immune suppression type of state called the "TH2 shift." That's what most vaccines do. They shift your immune system to a weaker, antibody type immune system... If you're injecting people with so many vaccines that your keeping them in this constant state --that now your switching everyone to this TH2 immune suppression-- then everyone becomes more susceptible [to infectious diseases]... and no one is talking about that. Now, a lot of scientists know that, but they are afraid to speak out because their careers would be ruined."
-Dr. Russell Blaylock, MD
“I sincerely believe that vaccines cause more harm to the health of the individual than the "protection" and "benefit" they are proclaimed to provide. Staying healthy without vaccines is not only possible, but being vaccine-free is the only way to maintain a lifetime of real health.”
– Dr. Sherri Tenpenny, DO
Google translated.
"The unvaccinated children are healthier."
Bologna, October 28, 2015 - "The unvaccinated children are healthier." To support are not pseudo-healers, magicians or sorcerers. But more than 120 doctors, after weeks of debate and controversy on the subject, they come out with an open letter at the Higher Institute of Health. Link: http://www.quotidiano.net/vaccini-medici-contrari-1.1429559
I wrote a doctoral thesis on this. You should read it. You are completely and catastrophically wrong on every point. It's 480 pages with 2,000 references so I have met all of your stated criteria above.
The causal/correlation relationship for parents with vaccine injured children is simple and straightforward. The causal/correlation ratio for parents who lost a child to “SIDS” is simple and straightforward.
In your analysis, you did not look at the relationship of the vaccine schedule, as it has changed, since 1986, to the incidence of ASD or autoimmune disorders. This is the critical issue.
The number of shots given simultaneously and their interactions has NEVER been studied by the FDA, CDC, NIH, Or WHO. If the pharmaceutical companies have their own internal clinical trials studying these interactions, of their vaccines with others on the schedule that a child is likely to be administered either concurrently or within days/weeks/months, they have not released them.
Nobody has. Why not?
This is the issue moreso than one vaccine or another.
The parents in this movement typically only get here because of firsthand experience, and trust me when I tell you, we look at everyyyy possibility.
Was it the formula?
Was I on something?
WHAT HAPPENED to my child is a question that is asked over and over and over and over.
The supposed guardians of public health have failed spectacularly to address this issue, as does simplistic analysis of any individual vaccine.
Gato, I love you and your writing. And I appreciate this post. I accept it. The risk-reward ratio from the MMR, in isolation, is wildly positive. People are hugely more likely to have immediate severe reactions (including death) from Measles than from the MMR. Okay.
And I take your point that it's not just the vaccine pushers who are guilty of oversimplification, tribalism, magical thinking, demonizing the opposition, etc. etc.
But I think the better questions require widening the focus. The better questions, in my opinion, include:
* What are the LONG-TERM negative effects of the FULL vaccine schedule? Even if a two-dose MMR vaxx doesn't cause damage by itself, what is the impact of the recommended SCORES of injections full of aluminum adjuvants and all kinds of other ingredients.
* And even if there is NEVER a measurable severe outcome, even after the 50th injection given to a child, what happens, long-term, to the fully vaxxed vs unvaxxed in terms of health outcomes, longevity, IQ, propensity for allergies, ear infections, skin conditions, auto-immune diseases, Autism, Alzheimers, heart inflammation, cancer, etc.
* WHY don't we test the overall health of vaccinated vs. unvaccinated populations? Why aren't we doing this for Covid? Why don't we do this for new vaccines? Why don't we do this for the whole schedule?
(Gato, I love you, but the two points you make on this question are the exact same points made by the most sinister vaccine profiteers:
1) it's "unethical" to test things we've already decided are "great"; and
2) multiple variables make it "so hard" to draw conclusions from big studies of vaxxed vs unvaxxed that it's okay to avoid even trying.
(You of all people could think through some study designs that would at least give some indications of overall health between cohorts, corrected as much as possible for all the confounding factors. And, so could Big Pharma because, as you pointed out recently, study design is their area of expertise.)
* Why SHOULDN'T parents throw the baby [of the few good risk-reward vaccines] out with the bathwater? Yes, it's a "shame," but it seems like the only rational response to what is now screamingly obvious about the vaccine industry and all it's public-private partnerships, overly influential "non-profits," captured regulators, and political and media water carriers.
It is foolish to trust known liars. It is foolish to trust known killers. It is foolish to trust known fraudsters. And it is foolish to trust those whose incentives are antithetical to our own.
There is no reason, at this point, to blindly trust ANY vaccine claims from public health officials, the medical establishment, politicians, or the news media. Do they sometimes say true things? Sure. But do they care about our health and safety more than their profits, politics, careers, etc. Demonstrably not.
The vaccine industry is a massive for-profit business with the demonstrated power to:
1) control the news media (pharma #1 advertiser across news media is just one reason why)
2) control politicians (pharma prices 5X higher in U.S. than in rest of first world, Medicare long prohibited by law from negotiating volume discounts)
3) achieve permanent immunity from liability for deadly products
4) capture the regulators completely
5) exponentially increase the vaccine schedule and the vaccine pipeline over recent decades in the absence of any such increase in new diseases or new pathogens
6) push, successfully, for governments to purchase and MANDATE their products, even those that are untested, unapproved, and unsafe
7) suppress use of and even MENTION of safe therapeutics and preventative health steps (during Covid, the public health establishment strenuously avoided mention of risk reduction from sunshine, fresh air, vitamin D, weight loss, anti-inflammatories, etc.)
Given the perverse incentives and demonstrated misbehavior of everyone from Bill Gates and Albert Bourla down to your local pediatrician, school board member, and "science journalist," there is a very reasonable argument to be made that avoiding the entire category of injectable biologics is the most prudent course of action.
Yes, you may get a few childhood diseases, just like your parents and grandparents did, but without comorbidities or confounding factors like malnutrition, pollution, poverty, etc. you will most likely survive them with zero lasting consequences. And you will avoid ALL the risks of the full vaccine schedule, severe and mild, short-term and long-term, known and unknown, present and future.
Yes, it's a shame to miss the good ones. But it's better than "trusting the 'Science'" and paralyzing your daughter with Gardasil or shortening your kid's lifespan with Myocarditis or ADE from Covid vaccines or from, or accepting unknown risks when a Bill-Gates-backed startup manages to get good old MMR replaced on CDC schedule by a "new, improved, mRNA measles vaccine."
I would really love to read your thoughts on these bigger questions. What about the combined long-term impacts of the huge and growing schedule of recommended (and increasingly required) injections?
And what about the fact that, as you pointed out yesterday, the public health and medical establishments have fully discredited themselves? Yes it's a shame and yes it's their fault, but as you have outlined, it's not just foolishness and hysteria that caused it. It's also perverse incentives, hubris, greed, dishonesty, and immorality too. And human nature.
Unsafe products will continue to be pushed on us, aggressively, misleadingly, and very, very profitably. Not just by the profiteers, but by all those who SHOULD be protecting us from them (governments, regulators, journalists, doctors, etc.) Given this state of affairs, there are three choices:
1) Trust them and follow all their recommendations. You'll be protected from the risk of severe measles complications but exposed to side effects from all the "less safe" new products they push.
2) Take on the burden of doing all the research yourself while working with untrustworthy data provided by the perpetrators themselves
3) Chase the snake oil salesmen out of town, accepting that you'll miss out on the few legitimate risk reducers in their bag full of mostly useless (or dangerous) potions.
I assume you'd pursue option 2., because you can. But if you had to advise a group of time-crunched soccer moms susceptible to emotional manipulation, would you really tell them to enter the belly of the beast and expose themselves to blanket injection-pushing from their trusted doctor? Do you really think those moms would successfully capture the MMR benefits while resisting the pressure to expose their kids to unnecessary risks from newborn hepatitis vaccines, toddler Covid vaccines, and adolescent Gardasil vaccines? It seems to me that maybe the only way out of this mess for most people is....OUT.
When we cite the Parks chart, the argument is not that it shows that measles was already declining in prevalence. The point is that measles was not a terribly dangerous disease with proper care & nutrition. The few hundred annual deaths at the end of the measles era were mostly in the Missiippi Delta and other areas of deep poverty. For most children it was a mild disease. The picture you present is an extreme case.
As you say, it is a question of relative risks and benefits. The risks are hard to assess, because we don't have reliable data.
Those of us in the vaccine-skeptic world have seen countless instances of parents whose children get the MMR or some other vaccine, experience horrible reactions, are assured by the doctor it is coincidence... the same old story. It isn't that the parents have suddenly lost their faculties. It is that something so horrible and obvious happened to their children that they abandoned their previous belief in vaccines.
The pharmico-scientific establishment has no incentive to collect accurate data on vaccine risks. In fact, they have financial and ideological incentives to the contrary. That means that if they are much riskier than we are told, we would have no way to know that.
There are vanishingly few studies that compare long-term all-cause mortality and chronic illness between vaccinated and unvaccinated cohorts. The studies are not done because they are considered unethical (because we already know vaccines are beneficial and it is unethical to deprive children of them). You can find a few if you look for them, and what they show is not pretty. None are gold-standard though.
The shenanigans of the vaccine industry that we are seeing with the Covid shots are nothing new. They have been manipulating research for a long time. For a long time, skeptical doctors and scientists have been persecuted, defunded, fired, and investigated. Please keep an open mind on this issue.
I'm sure we "anti-vaxxers" will keep reading and enjoying your trenchant criticism of Covid orthodoxy regardless. We don't want to distract you from your good work, or get us all bogged down in in-fighting. Still, please keep an open mind.
I appreciate this article as vaxx data is hard to come by and I learned some things I didn't know before. With that said I must say that after the COVID vax rollout and the subsequent refusal by medical folks to label actual vax injuries as vax injuries I have a very hard time trusting that adverse events from prior vax rollouts were reported correctly. Healthcare has a huge problem on their hands now as people have lost faith... I actually had lost faith 15 years ago over a variety of other situations.
And then there's the censorship aspect. As Richard Feynman said "I'd rather have questions that cannot be answered than answers that cannot be questioned". Yet with vaccines if you even want to discuss the risk/reward topic it can have drastic impacts to your career in medicine. This does not inspire trust either.
Healthcare has a huge trust issue on their hands, I want no part of an industry that has a financial incentive to do a bad job. I avoid doctors and hospitals like the plague and I think that's justified.
I've had the measles, as did every last one of my school mates and kinfolk. Honestly, no big deal. Nobody died. Nobody I know ever heard of anyone dying or having serious adverse events from the measles (as far as we all knew). Now, data is funny, in that it can only show you what you specifically focused on in your measurement. Tell me Gato, how much long-term, subtle physiological damage has occurred as a result of all of this childhood vaccination that is wholly unable to be measured? Notice any major health trends in the Western world since the adoption of mass vaccination of children? I'm still being told by serious experts in the field that the brain/blood barrier is a legit and foolproof guard that keeps the toxins in vaccines from affecting the brain. My 9-month old daughter, was basically a linguistic savant at her age, speaking in highly complex sentences without a single staggered word, yet, right after her safe-and-effective MMR, she not only stopped speaking completely for 2 months (other than 'da', 'ma'), but stopped responding to external stimuli almost completely. Symptoms came on within hours of the shot. The risk by far exceeds the reward, as we don't even know what the long term consequence is on human population's health - we simply do not even know enough about the human body to be able to know *what* to measure and when. Then you flippantly throw in the mention of the flu vaccine. Yes, we all know it doesn't work. However, one again, risk is higher than acknowledged by the 'expert' class. I personally know one very fit, weightlifting RN, forced to take a flu shot for the first time in his life due to working in California, in the height of his prime, and within 4 days being paralyzed from the waist down. It took him *many years* to get someone to even acknowledge that it was vaccine-induced. Since we don't admit or acknowledge fault, often never, with regards to vaccine-related injuries, why would you, Gato, assume that you have anything remotely resembling the full picture on the stats needed to assess risk/reward for meds you claim are "effective"?
Before finishing the piece, let me just say thank you for bringing the other side of the story without worrying too much about negative pushback. This is what science is supposed to be about. It is too easy to go from "covid vaccine bad" to "all vaccines bad". This info from a disinterested person such as yourself helps non-scientists like me understand and make up our minds.
My father had polio because he was too old (12) to receive the vaccine in the year it was introduced. I had a near miss with pertussis that left a friend with lung damage in Bolivia due to my having been vaccinated prior to the trip. I'm not anti-vaccine.
.
I've read the popular correlative work extensively. I've read the scientific studies to whatever extent I can get my hands on them. I don't have access to the fancy databases and the papers aren't easy to find. The fact that not one single paper exists that calls the current vaccination schedule into question is some cause for concern. is there really 100% consensus on this? Hard to find that kind of consensus anywhere in science, never mind "medical science".
.
I'm fully aware of the penguins problem.
.
Then I had a child. And that's when things change a bit because it's no longer your body that's at risk when you make a mistake. And things get complicated because the doctors and nurses don't know anything about the vaccines. I grew up in a mainstream medical family of doctors and nurses. When I shared with them the details of the vaccine substrates and the schedule in 2018, they were dumbfounded. I literally had to show them the CDC website because they didn't believe me that there are 72 shots by age 6, and some still contain mercury (thimerosal).
.
.
gato- In trying to hold back the onslaught of dipshits who can't handle a good hard look at the data that contradicts their emotionally held beliefs, please don't disregard the many factors in play when making decisions about vaccines. And please don't mock people like "marin mommies". You only need to know one vaccine injured child to inject doubt into any hard analysis like yours. And that kind of mocking makes people (even like me) want to dismiss your work. I am sorry about the blood-sucking dipshits though.
.
Considerations & Questions:
.
1. At the end of the day, this isn't solely a data-driven academic question of whether the vaccines work or not. It's a question of whether you're going to administer them to your children. For 99.9% of parents, vaccines are not an a la carte menu. It's an all or nothing decision. And, as you said, you wouldn't do gardasil or flu. My guess is if you look hard at Hep B and rotavirus you wouldn't recommend those either. So, as a parent which way do you go? All or nothing?
.
2. Your analysis doesn't look at the timing and administration of vaccines. And nor does the "science". None of it even considers age, weight, race, sex, or allergies when considering whether to administer a vaccine. There is no other medication or procedure that I know of in mainstream medicine that doesn't consider all of those factors. Given that vaccines are deliberate perturbations of the immune system to create immune responses, would we be better off administering them when children are older with more developed immune systems? Would we be better off administering them one at a time? Can a 6 month old's immune system handle 5 artificially introduced pathogens simultaneously? Should it? It all reeks of convenience and money, and risks-be-damned because none of us are liable — not the doctors, not the hospitals, not the pharma industry, and not the bureaucrats pushing the schedule. You can't find a more caveat emptor situation. There's no pulling that shot out once it goes in.
.
3. After the past two years of flagrant lies, deception and conflicts of interest, you seem to trust all the papers on vaccines that precede covid. That's a little hard to swallow even though I don't dispute your analysis on MMR. Have you read about Paul Offit? And have you seen what they've done to completely reasonable MDs that don't toe the line such as Bob Sears? Do you know what the process is like to get compensated from the VICP? Are you comfortable reconciling the continued blanket immunity for all vaccines, with the fact that the MMR is safe according to your analysis? From what I've seen, the entire industry is shady and always has been. Full stop. But I'm still not anti-vax. However, most reasonable people with less time to read or a less analytical mindset, would be.
.
4. Mumps and rubella have very small risk profiles, primarily infertility in males who contract mumps during their teen years, and potential birth defects in a pregnant mother who contracts rubella. Most recent mumps outbreaks have occurred in fully vaccinated college students because their immunity has worn off. So... what was the point of immunizing them at age 1?
.
5. Are there not simpler, less risky treatments for measles such as high doses of vitamin A?
.
6. I know the autism stuff has been debunked a 1000 times over, but every time it is, the debunker ends up with the "penguins cause autism" problem. In your case it was "alien mind rays". Maybe it's mothers on SSRI's, maybe it's the dreaded chemtrails (that's a joke), but be the scientist and detective you are here. If you don't dispute that autism rates are up as much as they are, propose some meaningful cause and mechanism. Because when you hand wave it away, you leave people like me unconvinced. The anecdotal evidence for a connection between MMR and autism is strong enough that it can't be hand-waved away, even if it's not the only cause. I know a lot of unvaccinated kids who are, as people elsewhere in the comments have described, bright eyed, engaged, healthy, vibrant little people, and I know a couple of apparently vaccine injured children who have lost so, so much. It's devastating every time I think about it.
.
.
.
Anyway... I truly love your work and your sense of humor. And I'd be a paid subscriber if you took something other than Apple Pay. And if you ever come to the westside (Isabela/Aguadilla), we would happily have you over for dinner.
(haha, started writing this at 50 comments, now it's 273. just read through again to make sure I'm not repeating too much of what someone else said. glad to see not many dipshits this time)
Yes, you are wrong, but we can still be friends. You have been fooled by the old trick of changing diagnostic criteria, hiding the truth of vaccine damage, over-hyping threat of illnesses. You "forgot" to mention that seizures occur after MMR in monstrously high rates. https://physiciansforinformedconsent.org/mmr-seizures/
Some vaccines have been worth it (measles) while others have not.
The pediatrician really really wanted my children to get the rotavirus vaccine. I said no. That vax was recalled later due to causing bowel obstructions.
The pediatrician wanted the HPV vaccine for my kids. Again, I said no. It causes far too much damage.
The point is, I had to do my research on everything the doc wanted to inject into my kids. Thankfully I had the option to say no and to change the schedule of shots to what I thought was best for my children; not just follow the herd because we were a captured audience.
That said, because of the last 2 years, I question EVERY SINGLE VACCINE NOW. Every. Single. One.
I appreciate your intellectual honesty, and that is regardless of whether we even agree on the premise. Intellectual honesty is critical, and it's important that you are not scared to speak your mind regardless of whether your audience agrees or not!
I would like to ask you another question from the angle I have been thinking about it lately: We in the modern culture are completely conditioned to believe that getting sick is bad, period. But what if getting sick with various things as a kid and surviving those things is an important part of human development? For example, when I was growing up, I had measles (twice,, I believe, even though one is supposed to have it only once). It was considered normal to have it. And what if human body learns an abundance of things by overcoming a disease in a natural way, as opposed to just one trick when overcoming a vaccine-induced attack?
On my end, where I am at right now, I feel that the principle of intelligent training by "somewhat controlled expose to crap," be it physical or emotional, is a concept that has been useful to human beings for probably millions of years. However, I am not sure at this point in time if "vaccines" were ever done right. It may be very well possible to do them right but it doesn't look like they have ever been right, due to general arrogance, lack of an understanding of a bigger picture, and commercial interests.
This feels extraordinarily condescending because most people actually start out as pro-vaccine. It's simply accepted that they are a net boon to society. If you want to be universally reviled or derided, become anti-vax. Not a maxx-vaxxer.
So yes, let's stop playing "edgelord."
A big problem is that there is a lot of game-theoretical stuff going on here. The population-level risk of dying from many vaccines is actually on par or greater than your risk of dying of the disease at transmission rates for the past 50 or so years, if you live in a western country. So naturally, if transmission is exceedingly low, even when there are notable outbreaks, many people will still gravitate to the anti-vax position because of their cost/benefit calculation.
The idea that death or encephalopathy from vaccines is really low and lower than the risk of getting the disease is true for many diseases besides flu. But the problem is that when the transmission of those diseases becomes so low, the vaccine risk becomes greater. This is the entire reason that the US switched from the whole cell pertussis vaccine to the conjugate. The vaccine used now doesn't stimulate immunity as robustly, but it's also less dangerous. It's also the reason the US stopped using live poliovirus vaccine. This isn't a conspiracy theory -- you can look it up in any microbiology textbook.
That said, there's ample reason to believe the efficacy of many preventative vaccines is oversold, and the links provided in your prior post by myself and other various readers are indicative of it.
The efficacy also isn't static over time. The MMR and pertussis vaccines are both much less effective than they were decades ago.
Measles outbreaks would need to be huge to achieve the death rate that the measles vaccine achieves on a yearly basis. Last time I checked, on average, the measles vaccine kills 10 people per year. When is the last time someone died of measles in the US? That's why freaking out about measles feels like hysteria to many of us because this has been a clearly moving target over the decades to use very isolated cases to create fear.
People are going to make different decisions based on different data and their own risk-benefit analyses. That's what living in a free society looks like. If we get a bunch of outbreaks and people start dying of various infectious diseases that were previously gone, then people may go back to vaccinating (maybe).
People generally learn through the school of hard knocks. They are not intuitive types who learn through data analysis and complex persuasive arguments.
https://themariachiyears.substack.com/p/quick-and-dirty-hypothesis-testing
It is awfully hard to assess the risks of vaccines when the last year has shown me that the medical profession, public health professionals, research doctors, journalists, government, science journals will all actively suppress information.
You can't make a risk assessment when people are destroying their data because it was too scary to publish. I can't cite the data they trashed. No one can.
https://sharylattkisson.com/2021/06/read-cdc-senior-scientist-we-trashed-data-showing-vaccine-autism-link-in-african-american-boys/
How many other studies just don't happen because of the fear of what the results might be? So you can point me to the respectable articles in the proper journals and I wonder what I'm -not- seeing.
That is what the covid pandemic has taught me. I would have and did accept the argument that some vaccines are worthwhile when I believed that there were more honest researchers and less institutional dogmatic conformity.
Yes your scary measles picture is scary-- just like the monkeypox photos we are bombarded with every day. It is also a cheap tactic.
At this point, I'd be willing to take the risk of measles coming back over the risk of trusting the medical establishment to be honest about their research.
Earning back trust is a hill they will have to climb for many years.
As for this substack article, I can go literally anywhere else on the internet to see vaccine cheerleading and scary illness pictures to motivate me to get the next new thing injected. Why should I come here for it? Plus the added snark about what type of people can sustain "discussion and goodwill" when you are throwing around scary illness pictures is especially rude.
How do you think the parents of children who suffered sudden and drastic declines in health or died shortly after a routine vaccination appointment feel about the underhanded accusation that they may not be the "sort of people [who can] sustain discussion and goodwill despite disagreement?"
You do some truly excellent analysis here, but I stopped reading this piece as soon as I saw you write that measles is a nasty disease. No it's not. It is incredibly benign for otherwise healthy, well-nourished children It is a serious problem for the malnourished, as well as for some children who are immunocompromised. On the hand, autism is a serious life-long disabling disorder for all children, and the MMR vaccine causes autism. Not in infinitesimally small numbers. In very significant numbers. You cannot show us a study that disproves the testimonials of tens of thousands of parents, because there are none. The government and drug companies will not allow them to be done. The medical journals will not allow any that are funded independently to be published.
Parents are being forced to choose between a mostly benign short term illness for the very real risk of lifelong disability. This is insanely corrupt.
Not to mention, measles infection in childhood reduces the risk of a number of cancers later.
The way you write about Andrew Wakefield is dodgy. you repeat the allegations without discussing any evidence against them. You say the 10 authors retracted. what they said was no causal link was established in the paper between MMR and autism. In fact the paper never made that claim. So. Here was everything in the original paper about vaccines: two sentences in the conclusion: 'In most cases onset of symptoms was after measles mumps and rubella immunisation. Further investigations are needed to examine thsi syndrome and its possible relation to this vaccine. ' So the retraction was retracting nothing. You don't mention that the other co-author, Professor John walker-Smith was completely exonerated on appeal. None of this subtlety makes it into your piece, which is a pity.
Unvaccinated kids are FAR FAR healthier. Overwhelming evidence proves this, I see it every day of my life as a teacher of 20 yeas and parent. I can see that a child is unvaxxed immediately when I meet them. They are vibrant, focused, calm, their eyes are bright, they look great, their speech is advanced. Anyone who does not know this has been deeply fooled, so tragic. .
Unvaccinated children are FAR healthier
“I have over 13,000 children in my pediatric practice and I have to say, as unpopular as this observation might be, my unvaccinated children are by far the healthiest,” says Dr. Paul Thomas, a Dartmouth-trained pediatrician and addiction specialist who has been practicing medicine for 30 years. “I’ve had a team compiling data for a research study that is now undergoing peer review—some of which is published in my new book, ’The Vaccine-Friendly Plan.’ The data is surprising and counter-intuitive, perhaps, but it shows very clearly that the incidence of chronic disease and brain abnormalities in the entirely unvaccinated children in my practice, even those with siblings with autism, is much much lower than in children following the CDC’s recommended schedule.”……
"I observed that my unvaccinated children were healthier, hardier and more robust than their vaccinated peers. Allergies, asthma and pallor and behavioral and attentional disturbances were clearly more common in my young patients who were vaccinated. My unvaccinated patients, on the other hand, did not suffer from infectious diseases with any greater frequency or severity than their vaccinated peers: their immune systems generally handled these challenges very well."--IPhilip Incao ……….
“The children I have who are unvaccinated are, across the board, healthier;
and I can just tell you that.” Dr. Cornelia Franz, 30 year pediatrician…..
“There is virtually no autism, asthma, allergies, respiratory illness, or diabetes in his unvaccinated children, an impressive statistic when compared to national rates.” Dr. Eisenstein and his practice have cared for more than 50,000 children who were minimally or not vaccinated at all. …..
“I see daily in my practice evidence of vaccine injury and I hear stories almost every day of families that vaccinate children and then decide not to vaccinate and the unvaccinated children within the same family are healthier, more socially adjusted and more capable academically even though their parents are older than the siblings who were born first and were fully vaccinated.” Dr. Kelly Sutton, M.D………..
“As a concerned, compassionate and considerate paediatrician, I can only arrive at one conclusion. Unvaccinated children have by far the best chance of enjoying marvellous health. Any vaccination at all works to cripple the chances of this end.” The Marvellous Health of Unvaccinated Children by Françoise Berthoud, MD….
“Doing this for 15 years now, I will share with you that the vaccinated kids are the sickest, the partially vaccinated kids are not as sick, and the unvaccinated kids are the healthiest.” Dr. Bob Zajac is a board-certified pediatrician
“During those 30 years I have run against so many histories of little children who had never seen a sick day until they were vaccinated and who, in the several years that have followed, have never seen a well day since. I couldn’t put my finger on the disease they have. They just weren’t strong. Their resistance was gone. They were perfectly well before they were vaccinated. They have never been well since.” – Dr. William Howard Hay, MD
“My kids who've never been vaccinated in my practice, I don't see those issues. I don't have one child who was not vaccinated who also has asthma, food allergies, or Asperger's or autism, or Crohn's or ulcerative colitis-none of these chronic, either chronic inflammatory or chronic autoimmune diseases” - Dr. Toni Bark, MD
“I have been seeing families in my practice for over 20 years that have opted out of vaccination. They are the healthiest children I have EVER seen.” Dr. Lawrence Palevsky, MD
"What people don't know about vaccines --what most doctors don't know-- but well demonstrated in medical literature, is that vaccines shift your immune system to an immune suppression type of state called the "TH2 shift." That's what most vaccines do. They shift your immune system to a weaker, antibody type immune system... If you're injecting people with so many vaccines that your keeping them in this constant state --that now your switching everyone to this TH2 immune suppression-- then everyone becomes more susceptible [to infectious diseases]... and no one is talking about that. Now, a lot of scientists know that, but they are afraid to speak out because their careers would be ruined."
-Dr. Russell Blaylock, MD
“I sincerely believe that vaccines cause more harm to the health of the individual than the "protection" and "benefit" they are proclaimed to provide. Staying healthy without vaccines is not only possible, but being vaccine-free is the only way to maintain a lifetime of real health.”
– Dr. Sherri Tenpenny, DO
Google translated.
"The unvaccinated children are healthier."
Bologna, October 28, 2015 - "The unvaccinated children are healthier." To support are not pseudo-healers, magicians or sorcerers. But more than 120 doctors, after weeks of debate and controversy on the subject, they come out with an open letter at the Higher Institute of Health. Link: http://www.quotidiano.net/vaccini-medici-contrari-1.1429559
Studies, doctor’s testimonies, thousands upon thousands of parents ALL confirm, unvaccinated FAR healthier..https://childrenshealthdefense.org/child-health-topics/exposing-truth/fully-vaccinated-vs-unvaccinated/
https://informedchoicewa.org/education/its-here-the-vaxxed-vs-unvaxxed-study/?utm_source=rss&utm_medium=rss&utm_campaign=its-here-the-vaxxed-vs-unvaxxed-study
I wrote a doctoral thesis on this. You should read it. You are completely and catastrophically wrong on every point. It's 480 pages with 2,000 references so I have met all of your stated criteria above.
https://ses.library.usyd.edu.au/bitstream/handle/2123/20198/Rogers_T_thesis.pdf
The causal/correlation relationship for parents with vaccine injured children is simple and straightforward. The causal/correlation ratio for parents who lost a child to “SIDS” is simple and straightforward.
In your analysis, you did not look at the relationship of the vaccine schedule, as it has changed, since 1986, to the incidence of ASD or autoimmune disorders. This is the critical issue.
The number of shots given simultaneously and their interactions has NEVER been studied by the FDA, CDC, NIH, Or WHO. If the pharmaceutical companies have their own internal clinical trials studying these interactions, of their vaccines with others on the schedule that a child is likely to be administered either concurrently or within days/weeks/months, they have not released them.
Nobody has. Why not?
This is the issue moreso than one vaccine or another.
The parents in this movement typically only get here because of firsthand experience, and trust me when I tell you, we look at everyyyy possibility.
Was it the formula?
Was I on something?
WHAT HAPPENED to my child is a question that is asked over and over and over and over.
The supposed guardians of public health have failed spectacularly to address this issue, as does simplistic analysis of any individual vaccine.
Gato, I love you and your writing. And I appreciate this post. I accept it. The risk-reward ratio from the MMR, in isolation, is wildly positive. People are hugely more likely to have immediate severe reactions (including death) from Measles than from the MMR. Okay.
And I take your point that it's not just the vaccine pushers who are guilty of oversimplification, tribalism, magical thinking, demonizing the opposition, etc. etc.
But I think the better questions require widening the focus. The better questions, in my opinion, include:
* What are the LONG-TERM negative effects of the FULL vaccine schedule? Even if a two-dose MMR vaxx doesn't cause damage by itself, what is the impact of the recommended SCORES of injections full of aluminum adjuvants and all kinds of other ingredients.
* And even if there is NEVER a measurable severe outcome, even after the 50th injection given to a child, what happens, long-term, to the fully vaxxed vs unvaxxed in terms of health outcomes, longevity, IQ, propensity for allergies, ear infections, skin conditions, auto-immune diseases, Autism, Alzheimers, heart inflammation, cancer, etc.
* WHY don't we test the overall health of vaccinated vs. unvaccinated populations? Why aren't we doing this for Covid? Why don't we do this for new vaccines? Why don't we do this for the whole schedule?
(Gato, I love you, but the two points you make on this question are the exact same points made by the most sinister vaccine profiteers:
1) it's "unethical" to test things we've already decided are "great"; and
2) multiple variables make it "so hard" to draw conclusions from big studies of vaxxed vs unvaxxed that it's okay to avoid even trying.
(You of all people could think through some study designs that would at least give some indications of overall health between cohorts, corrected as much as possible for all the confounding factors. And, so could Big Pharma because, as you pointed out recently, study design is their area of expertise.)
* Why SHOULDN'T parents throw the baby [of the few good risk-reward vaccines] out with the bathwater? Yes, it's a "shame," but it seems like the only rational response to what is now screamingly obvious about the vaccine industry and all it's public-private partnerships, overly influential "non-profits," captured regulators, and political and media water carriers.
It is foolish to trust known liars. It is foolish to trust known killers. It is foolish to trust known fraudsters. And it is foolish to trust those whose incentives are antithetical to our own.
There is no reason, at this point, to blindly trust ANY vaccine claims from public health officials, the medical establishment, politicians, or the news media. Do they sometimes say true things? Sure. But do they care about our health and safety more than their profits, politics, careers, etc. Demonstrably not.
The vaccine industry is a massive for-profit business with the demonstrated power to:
1) control the news media (pharma #1 advertiser across news media is just one reason why)
2) control politicians (pharma prices 5X higher in U.S. than in rest of first world, Medicare long prohibited by law from negotiating volume discounts)
3) achieve permanent immunity from liability for deadly products
4) capture the regulators completely
5) exponentially increase the vaccine schedule and the vaccine pipeline over recent decades in the absence of any such increase in new diseases or new pathogens
6) push, successfully, for governments to purchase and MANDATE their products, even those that are untested, unapproved, and unsafe
7) suppress use of and even MENTION of safe therapeutics and preventative health steps (during Covid, the public health establishment strenuously avoided mention of risk reduction from sunshine, fresh air, vitamin D, weight loss, anti-inflammatories, etc.)
Given the perverse incentives and demonstrated misbehavior of everyone from Bill Gates and Albert Bourla down to your local pediatrician, school board member, and "science journalist," there is a very reasonable argument to be made that avoiding the entire category of injectable biologics is the most prudent course of action.
Yes, you may get a few childhood diseases, just like your parents and grandparents did, but without comorbidities or confounding factors like malnutrition, pollution, poverty, etc. you will most likely survive them with zero lasting consequences. And you will avoid ALL the risks of the full vaccine schedule, severe and mild, short-term and long-term, known and unknown, present and future.
Yes, it's a shame to miss the good ones. But it's better than "trusting the 'Science'" and paralyzing your daughter with Gardasil or shortening your kid's lifespan with Myocarditis or ADE from Covid vaccines or from, or accepting unknown risks when a Bill-Gates-backed startup manages to get good old MMR replaced on CDC schedule by a "new, improved, mRNA measles vaccine."
I would really love to read your thoughts on these bigger questions. What about the combined long-term impacts of the huge and growing schedule of recommended (and increasingly required) injections?
And what about the fact that, as you pointed out yesterday, the public health and medical establishments have fully discredited themselves? Yes it's a shame and yes it's their fault, but as you have outlined, it's not just foolishness and hysteria that caused it. It's also perverse incentives, hubris, greed, dishonesty, and immorality too. And human nature.
Unsafe products will continue to be pushed on us, aggressively, misleadingly, and very, very profitably. Not just by the profiteers, but by all those who SHOULD be protecting us from them (governments, regulators, journalists, doctors, etc.) Given this state of affairs, there are three choices:
1) Trust them and follow all their recommendations. You'll be protected from the risk of severe measles complications but exposed to side effects from all the "less safe" new products they push.
2) Take on the burden of doing all the research yourself while working with untrustworthy data provided by the perpetrators themselves
3) Chase the snake oil salesmen out of town, accepting that you'll miss out on the few legitimate risk reducers in their bag full of mostly useless (or dangerous) potions.
I assume you'd pursue option 2., because you can. But if you had to advise a group of time-crunched soccer moms susceptible to emotional manipulation, would you really tell them to enter the belly of the beast and expose themselves to blanket injection-pushing from their trusted doctor? Do you really think those moms would successfully capture the MMR benefits while resisting the pressure to expose their kids to unnecessary risks from newborn hepatitis vaccines, toddler Covid vaccines, and adolescent Gardasil vaccines? It seems to me that maybe the only way out of this mess for most people is....OUT.
I would love your thoughts.
When we cite the Parks chart, the argument is not that it shows that measles was already declining in prevalence. The point is that measles was not a terribly dangerous disease with proper care & nutrition. The few hundred annual deaths at the end of the measles era were mostly in the Missiippi Delta and other areas of deep poverty. For most children it was a mild disease. The picture you present is an extreme case.
As you say, it is a question of relative risks and benefits. The risks are hard to assess, because we don't have reliable data.
Those of us in the vaccine-skeptic world have seen countless instances of parents whose children get the MMR or some other vaccine, experience horrible reactions, are assured by the doctor it is coincidence... the same old story. It isn't that the parents have suddenly lost their faculties. It is that something so horrible and obvious happened to their children that they abandoned their previous belief in vaccines.
The pharmico-scientific establishment has no incentive to collect accurate data on vaccine risks. In fact, they have financial and ideological incentives to the contrary. That means that if they are much riskier than we are told, we would have no way to know that.
There are vanishingly few studies that compare long-term all-cause mortality and chronic illness between vaccinated and unvaccinated cohorts. The studies are not done because they are considered unethical (because we already know vaccines are beneficial and it is unethical to deprive children of them). You can find a few if you look for them, and what they show is not pretty. None are gold-standard though.
The shenanigans of the vaccine industry that we are seeing with the Covid shots are nothing new. They have been manipulating research for a long time. For a long time, skeptical doctors and scientists have been persecuted, defunded, fired, and investigated. Please keep an open mind on this issue.
I'm sure we "anti-vaxxers" will keep reading and enjoying your trenchant criticism of Covid orthodoxy regardless. We don't want to distract you from your good work, or get us all bogged down in in-fighting. Still, please keep an open mind.
I appreciate this article as vaxx data is hard to come by and I learned some things I didn't know before. With that said I must say that after the COVID vax rollout and the subsequent refusal by medical folks to label actual vax injuries as vax injuries I have a very hard time trusting that adverse events from prior vax rollouts were reported correctly. Healthcare has a huge problem on their hands now as people have lost faith... I actually had lost faith 15 years ago over a variety of other situations.
And then there's the censorship aspect. As Richard Feynman said "I'd rather have questions that cannot be answered than answers that cannot be questioned". Yet with vaccines if you even want to discuss the risk/reward topic it can have drastic impacts to your career in medicine. This does not inspire trust either.
Healthcare has a huge trust issue on their hands, I want no part of an industry that has a financial incentive to do a bad job. I avoid doctors and hospitals like the plague and I think that's justified.
https://drmalcolmkendrick.org/2019/07/29/a-second-look-at-vaccination-answers-that-cannot-be-questioned/
I've had the measles, as did every last one of my school mates and kinfolk. Honestly, no big deal. Nobody died. Nobody I know ever heard of anyone dying or having serious adverse events from the measles (as far as we all knew). Now, data is funny, in that it can only show you what you specifically focused on in your measurement. Tell me Gato, how much long-term, subtle physiological damage has occurred as a result of all of this childhood vaccination that is wholly unable to be measured? Notice any major health trends in the Western world since the adoption of mass vaccination of children? I'm still being told by serious experts in the field that the brain/blood barrier is a legit and foolproof guard that keeps the toxins in vaccines from affecting the brain. My 9-month old daughter, was basically a linguistic savant at her age, speaking in highly complex sentences without a single staggered word, yet, right after her safe-and-effective MMR, she not only stopped speaking completely for 2 months (other than 'da', 'ma'), but stopped responding to external stimuli almost completely. Symptoms came on within hours of the shot. The risk by far exceeds the reward, as we don't even know what the long term consequence is on human population's health - we simply do not even know enough about the human body to be able to know *what* to measure and when. Then you flippantly throw in the mention of the flu vaccine. Yes, we all know it doesn't work. However, one again, risk is higher than acknowledged by the 'expert' class. I personally know one very fit, weightlifting RN, forced to take a flu shot for the first time in his life due to working in California, in the height of his prime, and within 4 days being paralyzed from the waist down. It took him *many years* to get someone to even acknowledge that it was vaccine-induced. Since we don't admit or acknowledge fault, often never, with regards to vaccine-related injuries, why would you, Gato, assume that you have anything remotely resembling the full picture on the stats needed to assess risk/reward for meds you claim are "effective"?
Before finishing the piece, let me just say thank you for bringing the other side of the story without worrying too much about negative pushback. This is what science is supposed to be about. It is too easy to go from "covid vaccine bad" to "all vaccines bad". This info from a disinterested person such as yourself helps non-scientists like me understand and make up our minds.
My father had polio because he was too old (12) to receive the vaccine in the year it was introduced. I had a near miss with pertussis that left a friend with lung damage in Bolivia due to my having been vaccinated prior to the trip. I'm not anti-vaccine.
.
I've read the popular correlative work extensively. I've read the scientific studies to whatever extent I can get my hands on them. I don't have access to the fancy databases and the papers aren't easy to find. The fact that not one single paper exists that calls the current vaccination schedule into question is some cause for concern. is there really 100% consensus on this? Hard to find that kind of consensus anywhere in science, never mind "medical science".
.
I'm fully aware of the penguins problem.
.
Then I had a child. And that's when things change a bit because it's no longer your body that's at risk when you make a mistake. And things get complicated because the doctors and nurses don't know anything about the vaccines. I grew up in a mainstream medical family of doctors and nurses. When I shared with them the details of the vaccine substrates and the schedule in 2018, they were dumbfounded. I literally had to show them the CDC website because they didn't believe me that there are 72 shots by age 6, and some still contain mercury (thimerosal).
.
.
gato- In trying to hold back the onslaught of dipshits who can't handle a good hard look at the data that contradicts their emotionally held beliefs, please don't disregard the many factors in play when making decisions about vaccines. And please don't mock people like "marin mommies". You only need to know one vaccine injured child to inject doubt into any hard analysis like yours. And that kind of mocking makes people (even like me) want to dismiss your work. I am sorry about the blood-sucking dipshits though.
.
Considerations & Questions:
.
1. At the end of the day, this isn't solely a data-driven academic question of whether the vaccines work or not. It's a question of whether you're going to administer them to your children. For 99.9% of parents, vaccines are not an a la carte menu. It's an all or nothing decision. And, as you said, you wouldn't do gardasil or flu. My guess is if you look hard at Hep B and rotavirus you wouldn't recommend those either. So, as a parent which way do you go? All or nothing?
.
2. Your analysis doesn't look at the timing and administration of vaccines. And nor does the "science". None of it even considers age, weight, race, sex, or allergies when considering whether to administer a vaccine. There is no other medication or procedure that I know of in mainstream medicine that doesn't consider all of those factors. Given that vaccines are deliberate perturbations of the immune system to create immune responses, would we be better off administering them when children are older with more developed immune systems? Would we be better off administering them one at a time? Can a 6 month old's immune system handle 5 artificially introduced pathogens simultaneously? Should it? It all reeks of convenience and money, and risks-be-damned because none of us are liable — not the doctors, not the hospitals, not the pharma industry, and not the bureaucrats pushing the schedule. You can't find a more caveat emptor situation. There's no pulling that shot out once it goes in.
.
3. After the past two years of flagrant lies, deception and conflicts of interest, you seem to trust all the papers on vaccines that precede covid. That's a little hard to swallow even though I don't dispute your analysis on MMR. Have you read about Paul Offit? And have you seen what they've done to completely reasonable MDs that don't toe the line such as Bob Sears? Do you know what the process is like to get compensated from the VICP? Are you comfortable reconciling the continued blanket immunity for all vaccines, with the fact that the MMR is safe according to your analysis? From what I've seen, the entire industry is shady and always has been. Full stop. But I'm still not anti-vax. However, most reasonable people with less time to read or a less analytical mindset, would be.
.
4. Mumps and rubella have very small risk profiles, primarily infertility in males who contract mumps during their teen years, and potential birth defects in a pregnant mother who contracts rubella. Most recent mumps outbreaks have occurred in fully vaccinated college students because their immunity has worn off. So... what was the point of immunizing them at age 1?
.
5. Are there not simpler, less risky treatments for measles such as high doses of vitamin A?
.
6. I know the autism stuff has been debunked a 1000 times over, but every time it is, the debunker ends up with the "penguins cause autism" problem. In your case it was "alien mind rays". Maybe it's mothers on SSRI's, maybe it's the dreaded chemtrails (that's a joke), but be the scientist and detective you are here. If you don't dispute that autism rates are up as much as they are, propose some meaningful cause and mechanism. Because when you hand wave it away, you leave people like me unconvinced. The anecdotal evidence for a connection between MMR and autism is strong enough that it can't be hand-waved away, even if it's not the only cause. I know a lot of unvaccinated kids who are, as people elsewhere in the comments have described, bright eyed, engaged, healthy, vibrant little people, and I know a couple of apparently vaccine injured children who have lost so, so much. It's devastating every time I think about it.
.
.
.
Anyway... I truly love your work and your sense of humor. And I'd be a paid subscriber if you took something other than Apple Pay. And if you ever come to the westside (Isabela/Aguadilla), we would happily have you over for dinner.
(haha, started writing this at 50 comments, now it's 273. just read through again to make sure I'm not repeating too much of what someone else said. glad to see not many dipshits this time)
Yes, you are wrong, but we can still be friends. You have been fooled by the old trick of changing diagnostic criteria, hiding the truth of vaccine damage, over-hyping threat of illnesses. You "forgot" to mention that seizures occur after MMR in monstrously high rates. https://physiciansforinformedconsent.org/mmr-seizures/